Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am proud to be here as a mayor and as the person responsible for the Eastern Townships region.
I would like to discuss several points with you today.
I quite agree with the previous speakers who said that what we were resolving was not the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. It occurred in our region, on our land, and it affected friends and relatives who were there, but it goes beyond that. I view the tragedy as an accident that was caused by several factors, as we will see once the investigation report is made public. We have already seen that several factors were involved. Beyond the report, however, this is an opportunity to look at the state of Canada's railway system, some parts of which have not been upgraded in many years. The system must be examined, and that is what we are doing. I think everyone is devoting a lot of energy to it.
The task for municipalities will be to equip people so they know what is being transported on railway lines in real time. This is very important for us. We are told that the same goods will be transported on rail lines as in previous years. That is fine with me, but, where major changes are made, we must know in real time so that we can make sure people are aware. The elected representatives or mayors of a municipality do not necessarily need to know what is happening on the line, but the chief of the fire department or the director of risk assessment must know so that they can prevent accidents. They need to know where the goods are in the event they have to take action.
More qualified people than I could tell you what standards would be appropriate. Should goods be located 50, 100 or 200 kilometres from one another? I do not know. There are various risk levels. We have to accept the fact that certain risks can be mitigated and that it is harder to do so for certain other goods. It is essential for us to know where we can find those goods and who has the skills to use them. The people who must take action also have to have the necessary skills. That is essential.
Costs are associated with that, and they must not fall directly to the municipalities. If rail transport is selected, the costs must be charged to the railways.
The same is true of insurance, which we discussed earlier. I quite agree that insurance needs will have to be looked at based on risk levels, not in overall terms. Some sections of track are less dangerous than others, and the same is true of the goods that circulate on them.
Perhaps we should take out group insurance. I am not a specialist in the field, but I believe there are ways to protect oneself from risks in the marine sector. Depending on the level of risk involved in transporting certain goods and volumes, there should be a way to establish ratios so that everyone pays a fair share in the event of an accident. It is essential for us that a fund and terms and conditions be established so that we can bear the costs if a tragedy occurs.
Now I am going to talk about train speeds, which are the main reason why I am here today and which I have been discussing since last July in particular.
We make rail lines safer by lowering speeds. Rails are checked, most of the time together with the railway, and speeds are often reduced. Limits are 10 miles an hour in several places on very important sections of track. We agree here that 10 miles an hour is not fast enough to make transportation profitable.
If we believe in Canadian railway transportation, we should do something about it. We reduce speeds to 10 miles an hour, but we should require the railways to upgrade rails and restore trains to what is considered a normal speed. Is the normal speed that a railway can support 30, 40 or 50 miles an hour? Once again, I leave it to the experts to determine what a normal speed is, but it is essential that we resolve that aspect.
Let us stop lowering train speeds. Rail transport is not economically viable if speeds are reduced. A region cannot attract businesses that require rail transport if no work has been done to its railway in 10 years and trains are restricted to 10 miles an hour on most sections of track.
Furthermore, to improve safety, people need to see that work is being done on those rails. There are rotten wood and loose spikes on some sections. It is all well and good to say that 10 miles an hour is a safe speed, but people want the work to be done. If we believe in rail transport, that work has to be done.
It obviously has to be done from an economic standpoint. Everyone would gain from it. Some will say that small companies may encounter problems and risk bankruptcy. I think that is completely false. If there is a risk of bankruptcy when railway speeds are limited to 10 miles an hour, that means people are taking a short-term view of their business.
If we keep using the rails at that speed, they will continue to wear out, and work will cost more when it is finally done. I think it is essential to do minimum maintenance on the rails. We absolutely need to make progress on this issue, or else we will not have done our job.
Thank you.