Transport Committee on May 1st, 2014

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Tweed, I go back to a comment I think you made earlier about what I think was a fairly novel idea: making sure the railway cars or railway shipments have inherent in them, somehow, the safety.... And by the way, it's good to see you again. I think you said something about safety substances being made available on the cars themselves in the event of more isolated accidents, for example. What did you mean by that?

[Mervin Tweed]

Our interpretation of that would be the fact that for us, again, because of our isolation in certain parts on the rail, the biggest challenge is to get people and product to the spill, accident, or whatever incident it might be. So, we're recommending, particularly with volatile products—crude oil, for example—that we would have a response car attached. It would run directly behind the engine and carry all the retardants—all the products we would need if there were an incident.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Would they be able to get to it if there was an accident?

[Mervin Tweed]

Definitely.

Mostly, as I follow these things, I'm told it's not usually the engine or the first few cars behind it that tend to derail. Therefore, the product would be there to work with the cleanup and environmental issues. Again, our biggest challenge, where we work, is getting that product there if there were an incident. So, this would just basically be a travel-along car that would look after that. Helicoptering people to the site is not a big issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Komarnicki, you have seven minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to this committee, and your testimony has been insightful.

We have heard, though, with respect to safety management systems, that regulations are important. Of course, you deal with them as you can, but it's important to have an ongoing culture within the company to have both the highest level managers and employees involved in a continuing, ongoing assessment of what needs to be done. It was good to hear Mr. Tweed open his remarks by saying that's vital in every meeting you have, and it's uppermost in the mind of management, and it should be in workers. So, the idea is to ensure there is a culture of safety, because of what we're dealing with.

I'd also like to especially welcome Mr. Marit, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and who also hails from Souris—Moose Mountain. It's good to have you here as you make your comments known. One of my questions, of course, would be this. Is the grain starting to move in southeast Saskatchewan?

I'd also like to welcome Carmen Sterling, who's from Weyburn, Saskatchewan, and who I understand is a director of your association. Of course, Weyburn has been in the news a lot lately, maybe not in absolutely the best way; but welcome, Carmen, as well.

First of all, with respect to grain, is it starting to move in southeast Saskatchewan?

[David Marit]

Yes, it is.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It is. Well, that's good to hear. I noticed in your comments that you said we're facing some new challenges. We have, of course, increased grain production. We have the Bakken oil field in southeast Saskatchewan, which is producing a lot of oil. It needs to be shipped somehow, either through pipelines, rail, or truck; and each has its own issues. Of course there's potash, as well.

So, you said it's resulted in two-mile trains. I understand we also have transload facilities appearing, not only in cities but in RMs. So, two things result. One, it increases the risk and safety to the public, so that needs to be attended to. The second issue you pose is who pays. Mr. Therien said we do have a program for grade crossings, and annually there's a significant amount, and it's distributed to those areas that most need them.

What do you see as some of the safety issues, particularly with two-mile trains and transload facilities in communities where cars actually tend to block roads, RM roads, many times during the night? What do you see as some of the safety concerns, and what might need to happen? Of course you can make your comments about how we handle the extra cost occasioned by necessity, given the increase in the movements of commodities.

[David Marit]

Thanks for the question. I guess our biggest concerns in Saskatchewan with the trains and the length of them is their travel through communities and access to communities and access to emergency services in the event of something happening.

We have had communities report that trains going through have cut off access in excess of 20 minutes and greater. We have concerns about that side of it. We understand why they have to go to that, to move that type of product.

The other issue we have with the movement of dangerous goods through communities, regardless of shoreline or class I, is that in many rural communities across this country, there are volunteer fire departments. It's the training of those volunteer fire departments for the movement of dangerous goods. My colleague, Monsieur Demers, made a good comment about where we house that equipment and how the training is going. In many cases in Saskatchewan, the Railway Association of Canada is doing that now. I think it's important and vital that we do that.

I think there are things that we can do through the equipment and through the emergency preparedness in working that side of it. There has to be some discussion. On the transloading facilities in Saskatchewan, we're getting an average of just about one a week being approved. So that is definitely becoming an increase with the movement of oil on rail. It's going to continue to increase.

I think right now rail is much safer than putting it on the road. We definitely don't want to do that. So we have to work with the system that we have to mitigate all the risk and to work with all parties to make this work right.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It seems to me that when you're dealing with rural municipalities, their capacity or their ability to provide equipment or what may be necessary in the event of a disaster is limited, and of course training as well. But Mr. Tweed mentioned one of the things they're doing is of course having some essential equipment on board so to speak.

Any thoughts about that or how the issue can be addressed in terms of capacity, what's required and the cost related to that?

[David Marit]

In our provinces, we've looked at it whether it has to be on the train or whether it has to be in the community. I think access to it is the big thing. Mr. Tweed's concern is of course the same as it is in rural Saskatchewan. It's getting the people to where the incident is at that time anyways.

So I think we have to logistically look at what the right time frame of access to emergency services is and look at that side of it.

I know the Railway Association of Canada made comments about what type of product you have and what you need and sourced. We have heard. The foaming agent to put out a petroleum fire has to be kept at a room temperature. It has to be stirred. Things have to be done to it. It does have a shelf life. So you have to look at things like that.

So I think there's more to it than just saying we'll put it on the train and there it is. I can understand the equipment side. You can do some things like that in remote communities. But I think it's working with the communities. I can only speak for Saskatchewan and having access to that within a very limited timeframe. That's what I think anyway.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It seems to me that there are probably many moving parts in this and many partners who need to be involved in this process. Your thoughts in terms of having an emergency response plan in place in all the facilities is something that certainly RMs can not handle on their own I wouldn't think. Would you agree then that the shipper has a part to play, the transportation company, the municipality, and the regulator?

[David Marit]

I agree with you. I think it's a partnership that has to happen. I think communication will be the key. I think that's very important when you have an incident on the communication strategy and working with the first responders in those communities and having them have the equipment and also have the training that is required to do that. So I think it's a process that probably should have been done a long time ago. Maybe it has to some degree because there's still access to the property that you have to work with too.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Of course, knowing—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Can we have just a quick closing comment? I'll allow it.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you for appearing today. We really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, seven minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing today.

I know that my colleague from Saskatchewan here mentioned potash, but I note that last week there was a major agreement with Bangladesh to substantially expand potash exports. That's welcome news, I'm sure, in the province of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Demers, let me start with you. We appreciate your participation here today. I understand you've had some conversations with Minister Raitt. As we hear by your comments today, you raised the issue with her of track-bed maintenance. For those who have been watching the troubling issue of signals misfiring here in the Ottawa region, it's been determined that one of the three root causes has been the poor condition of track-bed. I think that's causing a vibration problem. That's part of the misfire of the signal, so the condition of track-bed, its maintenance, is an important issue.

Can you expand a little bit on your concerns for the committee? Who should be fiscally responsible, if you will, for the maintenance? Is that the railway companies, be they class I or be they short-line railways? Have you raised that issue with FCM? Let's start there.

[Jacques Demers]

It is clear in my mind that railways are not part of the local road system. The situation has to be considered from a provincial or Canadian standpoint. We want the railways to be significantly upgraded because we believe in the railway sector over the long term. If we remove trucks from the roads to promote rail transport, we may wonder whether we should stop investing in the Trans-Canada Highway. Since transporting goods by rail helps reduce the number of trucks on the roads, I think the provincial and federal governments could provide their share of assistance. However, I am not necessarily in a position to say where the resources for those upgrades should come from. The essential point, in my view, is that it be done.

If we believe in the railway sector, we must spend time upgrading the railways rather than think we can avoid it by reducing speeds to 10 miles an hour. We do not lower speed limits on inadequate roads; we do the necessary work. However, we have not reached that point in the railway sector. We still consider reducing speeds on one section, then on the next section, and that ultimately extends over kilometres.

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of characterizing a railway as being of different sizes depending on who owns it. Since Canada borders on the United States from one end of the country to the other, a line is often characterized as short, whereas I do not think that is appropriate. The MMA line running from Montreal into the United States should not be called a short line. It was not considered a short line when CP owned it, but that is what it is called now that MMA is the owner. Something is not right here. This is not logical. The line cannot be characterized as long or short depending on its owner. That is not right. It should all be on the same level.

People bought houses knowing that CP's rails passed through the place and that there was a given level of safety. However, the value of those houses fell the day a financial transaction took place. Valuations can even decline because the level of safety is no longer the same. However, that is not right.

That is a point that should be considered in connection with lines and people's safety.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Speaking of development along rail lines, one municipal councillor in the City of Windsor, Ontario, used the terminology that communities were “snuggling up” to the rail lines, if you will. That was said in the context of the federal government needing to do more to mitigate the risks to communities that have snuggled up. I want to flip it on the other side, because we have representatives of SARM and FCM here.

Are your municipal organizations taking up the question of municipal land use planning in sufficient ways so that you're not in future snuggling up, if you will, to rail lines? Is that issue being talked about, and what level are we at on that particular issue?

Perhaps Mr. Demers can start.

[Jacques Demers]

I entirely agree, as does the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. When regulations are made, the principle of reciprocity should always apply. If we do not want railway lines to be closer to houses, those houses should not be located near railway lines. There is no justification for granting permission to move them closer, particularly in the case of buildings that may be at risk.

You are absolutely right. As municipalities, we are responsible for keeping those buildings away from railway lines.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are FCM or others talking about this? SARM, you may want to weigh in here. Are they providing guidance to municipalities? Are they working with railway companies in terms of developing that?

I went to a school that was built alongside of a railway back in the day, and that was a number of years ago, and they did that knowingly. So how are we avoiding situations like that? Are your organizations talking about that?

Mr. Marit, perhaps you want to weigh in on that.

[David Marit]

Yes, thank you.

FCM is, and I think they have their railway proximity committee that does a lot of work on this, talking about the whole liability issue and concerns about development getting closer to the railway system. So there has been some good discussion. I think there have been some good recommendations come out of FCM on that side of it.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Therien, I want to clarify your comments that whistle-blower protection should be in the Railway Safety Act. Bill S-4 granted the authority. I think the statement was that the regulation should be in place.

[Emile Therien]

I agree with you. The regulation is not in place yet.