Transport Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Michael Bourque]

For our part, I don't disagree with what you've said. Our position is essentially that the act already provides that authority. If the government believes that this authority is not strong enough and they want to strengthen the language in the new act, which is going to supersede this private member's bill, then there's probably a good reason for it. We're not going to object. We do think that the way it's written in Bill C-627 causes a little bit of confusion because we already believe, as I mentioned, that under section 31 railway safety inspectors on behalf of the minister currently have the power to order a rail line to be closed or the use of equipment to be stopped if there is an imminent threat to safety. That's our interpretation of the bill.

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

Fair enough. Whether this bill gets subsumed in the other one or this one clarifies the other one or adds it to it, in principle it is obviously a positive step. It goes beyond just opening or closing. It goes towards proactive action or particular steps ordered to be taken to rectify the situation.

[Michael Bourque]

The reason that in my remarks today I went beyond Bill C-627 is precisely because I think there are a number of proactive steps that legislators can take with respect to crossing safety. There are a number of very important changes that need to be made if we're going to improve crossing safety in this country. The TSB has already pointed out that we have not reduced the amount of accidents at crossings over the last 10 years. We have essentially plateaued. If we're going to make those kinds of safety improvements, we have to look at closing crossings, at changing the governance on opening and closing, and so on.

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

Fair enough, but when you're looking at, as you said, 31,000 grade crossings, where 30% of the accidents or one-third end in death or serious harm or injury, if you can take a specific action on what is obviously an imminent danger and resolve that, isn't that a positive thing? Wouldn't you agree that taking steps like ordering trains to reduce speed, for a piece of equipment to be fixed while that's happening, or for a track to be repaired, some positive actions taken by the rail company as opposed to anyone else, are indeed positives steps?

I'll come back to Mr. Benson. I think Mr. Bourque wants to speak.

[Michael Bourque]

Look, it's very hard to disagree with what you've just said. But in the context of my remarks, what I was suggesting is that, first of all, let's not forget that in stopping the flow of traffic on the railways, it's one thing to do that temporarily while you fix a problem. Railways do that every single day. But it's another thing to do that and hamper the ability to move goods by rail, because now you're going to move all of that onto trucks.

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

Mr. Benson, do you have a point? Then I want to ask Ms. Quinlan a question.

[Phil Benson]

Yes, I agree with your comments. In fact, notwithstanding our comments about not supporting private members' bills, as Mr. Ashley said, we support any improvement. We thought even Bill C-627 as written was an improvement.

But there's a question on crossings accidents. I think one thing that's a little misleading about crossings accidents and just putting a number and total to them, is that really the largest subsection of deaths are suicides. I don't know how we're going to prevent that. Second, I think Mr. Bourque would agree, is trespassers. There are people who are wilfully trespassing. It isn't a problem with the crossing grading.

Sometimes when we look at these issues, if we understand that there's a whole chunk of them that we are not going to solve ever—

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

The point is, how are you going to resolve those if you can't—

[Phil Benson]

What I'm saying is that if this bill were to include “imminent danger” it would be better. Our confusion is dealing with Bill C-52, where we think the minister's proposals are more fulsome. That's why we're suggesting to perhaps incorporate them into this bill, pass it, and at least we can get that part of it done before the end of the session.

I congratulate Ms. Bateman for bringing it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

Now to Mr. Yurdiga, and he can, if he wants, give some of his time to you.

Go ahead, Mr. Yurdiga.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Do you want a few minutes?

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

I do have a question for Ms. Quinlan.

You mentioned there were a number of incidents where there have been issues regarding the safe operation of tracks. Have you had any incidents in particular that you're aware of where you found situations or your members have found situations where the rail company hasn't reacted as quickly as you would have liked, or reacted in a manner that your constituents or your members would have liked to see happen, and where you might have wanted to see some ministerial authority to make it happen?

[Pauline Quinlan]

I will give you an example that involves grade crossings.

In some municipalities, it is difficult to provide emergency services to the public when grade crossings are obstructed for long periods of time. Our federation is very conscious of that problem. I think the situation has to be improved. I understand that there has to be traffic and that rail transportation may be preferable to trucking. However, problems really arise when a city is split into two and, for instance, a major fire breaks out on one side and emergency calls cannot be responded to.

I don't know whether that is the sort of thing you wanted to hear, but it's the kind of example that keeps us working with various bodies to improve things. Of course, we will also work with railway companies.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Mr. Yurdiga.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses for being here today.

We are talking about safety. Everybody agrees safety is a very important aspect of our daily lives, whether it's rail, highways. Whatever it is, safety is a big concern, and I really appreciate the bill's coming forward. We have to ensure it's safe for our children, our wives, our family members.

My first question is to Mr. Bourque. What I'm struggling is what makes it unsafe. Is it the expansion of urban centres, getting larger? When does a rail crossing or grade crossing get to the point where it becomes unsafe? Is it the lighting, the expansion of the city or community? I don't know where the line is. Is there any documentation stating that this crossing is good for so many crossings a day? Is there anything mandated in legislation or is it something mandated by CN or the municipality?

[Michael Bourque]

Let me try to answer the first part of your question first.

This really is an all-of-society type of problem. We have grown as a country. We've grown for the most part in the southern part of the country. We've grown along the railway lines that we built to build the country. As we've done that, and as railways have become more and more important to moving all the goods we produce, we've increased the traffic on the rail lines. Through various efficiencies and investments railways have gotten faster. For example, just the fact that we have welded track means that railways go faster and they don't make as much noise. If you're trespassing and you're wearing your iPod and you think you're going to hear a “ka-chunk” and a steam train is going to be coming slowly, you're wrong. They are going very fast. VIA Rail trains go a hundred miles an hour sometimes.

We've created a highway system on rail and we still treat it as though it's a back road. We allow everybody to have their own driveway over the tracks. We see development that just doesn't make any sense. We have dozens of examples of a municipality with a school on one side of the track and then under their zoning they allow a McDonald's right across the tracks. What do you think the kids are going to do all day? They're going to cross the tracks and go to McDonald's.

We have to think what we are going to do as a society. We need this corridor to deliver goods and increasingly deliver passengers, and safety is a huge concern. Today I've outlined some of the remedies I think we need to work on. The railways certainly are willing to participate. Railways pay for crossings. They contribute when there is a grade crossing improvement, when there's an overpass, when there's a problem with railway safety. The example given the other day was a motorized wheelchair that got stuck on the tracks. Quite frankly, the railway should fix that so this can be done safely. But this is an all-of-society problem.

To answer the second part of your question, there are rules with respect to fire, for example. Currently, if there's a fire and you have a train blocking the crossing, you're obligated to break up that train and clear the crossing. There are other remedies as well. We have municipalities with access to dispatch so they can know when the train is coming and the 911 folks can tell the ambulance or fire truck to go to another crossing because they know there's a train there.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you for that.

Are the railway companies involved in the development process in communities? If municipalities are expanding subdivisions, do they ever ask for your opinion and how it's going to affect your business model?

[Michael Bourque]

It varies by community. I would echo the comments made by Madam Quinlan that I think the railways have very good relationships in communities. In fact, many short line railways are owned by communities, by provinces, so of course they talk to one another. The railway industry has trained first responders for many years. Our association has trained tens of thousands of responders, so this relationship is ongoing.

As I mentioned in my remarks, we have an obligation to inform a municipality of any work that we are going to do on the railway. We would like to see that they are obligated to tell us about the work that is being planned around the railway so that together we can work on the right way to build with proximity to the railway so it's safe, because there are way too many examples of unsafe practices.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Mr. Bourque and Mr. Yurdiga.

Mr. Pilon, go ahead for five minutes.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start with a quick question for the representatives of all three groups joining us today.

Did the member of Parliament who introduced the bill consult you before it was drafted? If so, did you have any recommendations? If you did, were the recommendations followed? Do you see them in the bill?

My question is first for Ms. Quinlan.

[Pauline Quinlan]

Sorry, but I didn't understand the beginning of your question.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Did the member of Parliament who introduced the bill consult you before drafting the legislation?

[Pauline Quinlan]

Perhaps Daniel could answer that question.

[Daniel Rubinstein]

No, FCM wasn't contacted on the content of the bill.

Just to make one point, I know Mr. Komarnicki asked whether, with the changes, it makes sense to have more powers to the minister to act when there's an issue. We would certainly say, yes, that in the current Railway Safety Act, it's limited to an immediate threat. This bill talks about expanding to significant threat. Bill C-52 goes further—

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I want to remind you that I have only five minutes.