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.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
We thought we could do them. At the time we believed we would be able to do all of that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So based on your own projections, you've achieved one quarter of what you planned to do, yet I'm hearing from the ADM of the department that there's not a capacity problem here. Is there a capacity problem here? I mean, what are Canadians to make of this when we hear that one quarter of your targeted audits are actually done?
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
As Monsieur Bourdon tried to point out, we had originally thought we would do audits over a three-year period. As we explained on Monday, our oversight program consists of audits and inspections, and there's a mix there.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Why would you have set out to achieve so many more audits and do 25% of what you set out? If you set out to do way more than that, did you not do it based on evidence, based on technical projections, based on need, based on safety?
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Yes, and based on our estimation of the risk in the system and what was required to give us a degree of confidence on the safety—
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
—we felt at the time that the original number of audits that had been planned for was probably in excess of what was needed.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It's in excess of what's required for safety for Canadians and safety in the system. Is that what you're saying now?
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
What we're saying is we adjusted our level of audit based on what we felt was necessary on our part to ensure safety in the system.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, no offence here, and I've listened for a few questions, but we're now back to talking about the implementation of SMS. He's not talking about audits or inspections about the transportation of dangerous goods. I just think there should be a distinction there, Mr. Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Chair, we are. That's precisely what we're talking about. Maybe the witnesses can help my colleague understand that when we talk about auditing SMSs, we're talking about the transportation of dangerous goods as well.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
That's only a specific component of SMS. The statistics referred to by the member opposite relate to the evaluation of an overall SMS system. So they're not necessarily relevant to the specific topic at hand.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, let me ask the witnesses this, if I could, moving on. Does VIA Rail transport any dangerous goods?
5:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Whatever fuel might be aboard would be it, as far as I'm aware.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So with respect to the transportation of the dangerous goods that it does transport...because I conclude that it does.... You suggest that they—
5:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
There's fuel on board, so that would be considered a dangerous good. That would probably not be considered as something that would be of a high enough risk to concern our dangerous goods people.
November 27th, 2013 / 5:20 p.m.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
When the fuel is used to actually make a motor function, it's not part of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act regulations.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
It's not regulated.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It's not regulated at all under the transportation of dangerous goods?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
Not if it is fuel that is used to actually make sure that the motor functions. It's actually a part of the motor.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Your time has expired, Mr. McGuinty.
Mr. Watson, you have five minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll turn to new rail cars. I don't know—I'm not an engineer who designs rail cars—but presumably there are constraints to redesigning rail cars. If you change the thickness to be thicker, you add weight to an individual car. Looking at the new DOT-111s for example—even the old ones, for that matter—how much latitude is there to add thickness before weight becomes a problem with respect to the rail and the railbed? I presume there isn't a whole lot of tolerance there. In other words, what I'm driving at is this. How many designs are possible for rail cars, to improve the safety, given that there may be constraints with respect to weight on a rail?