Transport Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Michael Bourque]

Well, if they're shutting the railway, then it does. If they're shutting the road part of the crossing, it doesn't impact us. Quite frankly, what we see as the safest crossing is a crossing that has been closed. We would like to see far fewer crossings in this country.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

But when you read the bill, do you see or does anyone here see a possibility that...?

Yes, Mr. Rubinstein.

[Daniel Rubinstein]

If I may, let me have an opportunity as the sole municipal representation here at the committee today to respond to some of the points that have been raised here. The last four or five members have spoken about land use. Let me just take a second, if you don't mind.

The proximity initiative that we have with the Railway Association sets out guidelines for our members and for provinces to look at, for managing land use near railway corridors. The reason this initiative is happening at the provincial and municipal level is, as Mr. Bourque said, that this is the level at which land use is managed. It is not federal jurisdiction to manage land use for provinces or municipalities, which is why this initiative is oriented towards those other orders of government.

Mr. Bourque has talked about consultation with his members when there is a land use change by one of our members. I think it's really important for the committee to realize that the superhighway of goods being moved is absolutely critical for the economy. Our members are not consulted when there are changes in the frequency, volume, or length of trains—any of these issues—through our main line corridors. When looking at any crossing, and this could be in any community, the issue is not one-sided. There are two parties at every crossing.

Absolutely municipalities need to look at their role in land use. It is not only the City of Montreal that has notification. The entire Province of Ontario has a legislative requirement for notification, similar to what Mr. Bourque has asked the government to look at nationally. I just can't underscore enough the importance for this two-sided perspective in looking at crossing issues. We have to look at changes from where they begin. If there are changes related to train length, or frequency, or capacity that are not made in a fashion commensurate with increases in railway capacity and if those are the cause of more issues at crossings, then we can't go back to say that they are only due to land use. Both matter.

Again, we have the proximity initiative to advance this issue as we can within our federation, where land use is done at the provincial and municipal level, and we'll be making these types of comments to the CTA review, which has been charged with looking at these issues. I'm sure the committee will have an opportunity to look at those recommendations in a holistic way. This meeting today is not about the CTA review or those recommendations.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Now we go to Mr. Braid for five minutes, please.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everyone for being here this afternoon. We've had some helpful discussion today.

I want to better understand some issues of ownership and responsibility based on some comments this afternoon. Mr. Bourque, I think you mentioned that in Canada there are more than 30,000 grade crossings. Is that correct?

[Michael Bourque]

Those are the ones that are federally regulated. There are also a number that are provincially regulated, many undocumented. You actually can't get a fixed number for the total of crossings in this country, but it is tens of thousands.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay. Of those, who owns the majority? Are they owned by railway companies? Are they owned by municipal governments? Where is the ownership of these things?

[Michael Bourque]

The ownership is really spread all over the place. If you have a road crossing in a busy municipality, the rail bed is owned by the railway and the crossing is owned partly by the railway and partly by the municipality, and they'll have an agreement in place for the maintenance and care of that crossing.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Who is ultimately responsible, then, to ensure the safety of the grade crossing and its ongoing maintenance?

[Michael Bourque]

As Daniel mentioned, under the grade crossings regulations there is a shared responsibility. Certainly the railways' view is that there is an obligation to have safe crossings. One of the problems we have is that there are very many crossings. Often they're private crossings. As I mentioned, some of those that are private don't have any kind of agreement in place and there is no record of any kind of ownership sharing.

It's a huge spectrum, to answer your question. It's impossible to cite just one specific instance, because it's a big spectrum.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay. Simply put, is it correct to say that some grade crossings are owned by railway companies, some are owned by municipalities, and some are shared by both? Is that a fair statement? If that is correct, in the case of grade crossings that are owned by railway companies, should it not be the responsibility of the railway company to ensure its ongoing safety and maintenance?

[Michael Bourque]

The only case in which you would have a pure railway company owning its crossing would be on its own property, in which case of course it would look after it.

Generally speaking, as I mentioned—and obviously we recognize that there is a need to cross railway tracks—from a safety standpoint we would like fewer of them. I happened to be at an international rail safety conference a couple of years ago, and the Government of India was presenting. They have a very aggressive plan to grow their rail network, and their objective is zero new crossings. The reason for that is safety.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

How long have the proximity guidelines that you mentioned been in place?

[Michael Bourque]

We just renewed them in 2013, so the new versions of them predate the accident at Lac-Mégantic by just a couple of months.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

To what extent are you satisfied that municipalities are following these guidelines, and what is standing in the way when that is not happening?

[Michael Bourque]

As Daniel mentioned, some jurisdictions, such as Ontario, are making great progress. Montreal, which has a mayor who used to be a member of this committee, is obviously a little more enlightened than others. But we're making some progress. We'd love to see more municipalities adopt these guidelines.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Montreal is only one city, so what's next?

[Daniel Rubinstein]

Let me say, Mr. Braid, that we have big cities across the country looking at this issue very closely right now. Obviously the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic raised everyone's awareness of this issue. I don't want to have the committee leave with the impression that Montreal is the start and the end of this conversation. We have big cities in particular across the country that are in various stages of studying the guidelines and implementing them. As Mr. Bourque said, this process is complemented by our joint advocacy with provincial governments related to whatever land use reviews they are doing at their level.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Mr. Braid.

Mr. Watson, you have five minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

I want to come back to the bill itself here, if I can. We've had a good general discussion, and I want to be sure we're not conflating a number of issues, whether they are grade separation, grade improvement, and grade crossing closures, with the issue of grade safety that may not necessarily be related to any of these matters.

For example, if we have a problem with signal malfunction, or repeat failure of signal function, this bill, as I understand it, would grant the ability of railway safety inspectors to order a speed reduction or a ministerial order to be able to ensure that certain corrective measures are taken on an interim basis. For example, whether flag signal bearers are present to stop traffic additionally or direct traffic, those measures would have to be provided. Does the panel agree that this is an important clarification and a step forward with respect to the safety of a railway at a particular crossing? Does anybody have an objection to that?

[Don Ashley]

We agree with you and we think it does take that step forward. We also, as Mr. Bourque mentioned earlier in response to a previous question about whether or not the language “safe rail operations” went far enough, or included or didn't include—we could argue that all day long in court. I think the amendments presented here just give that clarity so that it doesn't get watered down. The intent may be understood here, but when that's filtered out to the field and to inspectors, that clarity is not there and could be interpreted some other way, whereas in fact this language straightens that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In fact, inspectors, if they don't feel they have the confidence of clarity in terms of the regulations or powers that exist, may not issue with confidence a particular corrective measure or take an action because they want to act with the certainty that they have the authority to do that.

Is that correct, Mr. Ashley?

[Don Ashley]

That's correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. If we're dealing with issues of sightlines, for example, it may be ordered on an interim basis. This bill, as I understand it, would allow for a railway company perhaps be ordered to reduce speed until such time as the sightline has been remedied. Does anybody think that is something that we shouldn't be considering with respect to this bill? Does anybody have a problem with that issue or take objection to that particular measure?

[Don Ashley]

Again, we agree with it.