Evidence of meeting #4 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was goods.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The number of cars is increasing. The Railway Association of Canada said that in 2009, there were 500 tank cars. In 2013, there were 140,000. Those are its figures. We're seeing fewer and fewer inspectors for the number of tank cars on the rails.
Without mentioning the Auditor General's report, can you tell me if you plan to analyze the companies or railways to see where you should focus your inspections?
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
The program is managed jointly with Mr. Bourdon of Rail Safety. Mr. Bourdon focuses mainly on the railway and its components, while we look at the container as such. We do joint inspections. When we inspect a car, we look at the placards to determine whether the standards are being met, while Mr. Bourdon's service inspectors inspect the wheels, the brakes, and so on.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In the last five or 10 years, how many inspectors have there been? Has the number increased or decreased?
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
The number has been steady in the past five years.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
Overall, the number has stayed the same.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Given the increase in the volume of dangerous goods transported by rail, should there be more inspectors? I imagine it isn't up to you to make that decision.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
I'm not the one who decides that.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Right.
We know that perhaps you don't have enough inspectors to analyze it all. In this case, what are you doing to ensure that the emergency and risk management plans are adequate?
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
We've developed a risk analysis. Naturally, a number of plans have been identified as higher risk. Those are the ones we look at more frequently.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
What criteria do you use to determine that a company is at risk?
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
It isn't the company that's at risk. Rather, it depends on the products being transported.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
You look at the quantity of products that a given company transports by rail and you determine the risk as a result of that.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
We look at the quantity and kind of products. Obviously, radioactive materials are considered very high risk products. Toxic substances, including chlorine, are also considered high risk products. These are the plans we are going to analyze more closely before approving them.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Like I said, we will talk later about what the Auditor General found. We can't talk about it today, unfortunately.
I asked these questions so I could understand the thought process in relation to how you manage the risks and safety.
You spoke about dangerous goods, including chlorine. What percentage of chlorine and oil is transported in a year?
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
Oil isn't currently part of our emergency response assistance plans. Most of our plans concern propane, chlorine, hydrogen and ammonia.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
The emergency response assistance plans do not include the transport of oil as it was transported in certain conditions. The only emergency response assistance plan we currently have has to do with connected trains for a specific product, which is gasoline. We don't have a plan for crude oil.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you for that clarification.
More and more companies are using railroads to transport their goods. The increased transport of crude oil by rail concerns me a little. You said that there's no response plan to that effect. If I understand correctly, companies transporting crude oil that should be inspected aren't being targeted. Shouldn't the MMA Railway be one of the companies you consider a risk?
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
In terms of transporting dangerous goods, we determined that crude oil was an emerging risk and should become one of our priorities. However, last year, it wasn't among the goods we considered high risk. We felt it represented a risk, but not a high one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Mai, I'm sorry, you're well over your time.
I'll now move to Mr. Albrecht for five minutes.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again for being here to give a very good overview of the system. It's clear from the Library of Parliament notes and your testimony today that there has been significant action over the years to improve rail safety as it relates to the transportation of dangerous goods—rail, marine, and air.
In 1992 there was the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, with the improvements you pointed out in 2008 and 2009. In 2012 the Railway Safety Act was amended and strengthened, and in October 2013 there was protective direction, and again the protective direction in November 2013.
I just want to go back to a couple of the pages in the Library of Parliament's research. Looking at the graphs there, there are significant improvements in safety: a 48% decrease in rail accidents involving dangerous goods in Canada, in spite of a 60% increase in volume. I think that's a great statistic.
Now, you did point out in your testimony that 99.998% arrive without incident, but you were also clear to say that the 0.002% is our main concern, and obviously with Lac-Mégantic and other incidents, we certainly agree on that point. But I think it's important that we note that the great decrease in the number of incidents is something Canadians should take some solace in.
I'm wondering if you would have any comparison, in terms of rail safety, in the number of incidents related to transportation of dangerous goods in other jurisdictions. This may be an unfair question, so if you're not prepared to answer it.... For example, Australia, the U.K., the U.S., India, and China—do we have any sort of benchmark? Not that we're going to measure ourselves because we're better—we still have to address that 0.002%—but I'm wondering if we have any handle on how other jurisdictions would relate.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
I'm not sure that we do have those type of numbers. We'd have to ask those administrations for their statistics.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Just a thought. We've all travelled in other countries on trains and it's something you think about.
One of the concerns that I have in the report from the Library of Parliament is in relation to the proximity of railways in residential areas.
The report points out:
The Railway Safety Act requires that a railway company advise owners of adjoining land and the municipality when they plan to undertake line work.
But it goes on to say:
The opposite is not the case. Developers and municipalities are not required to advise railway companies when they begin a development project in proximity to the railways.
Then it goes on to point out that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the City of Edmonton, and Ontario are beginning to address this in terms of regulations.
My question is—I know you don't have the authority to do this—if you had the authority to address this issue of the transportation of dangerous goods through residential areas, what would your answer be to address some of these concerns that I raised?