Evidence of meeting #50 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 crossings.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Manager, Policy and Research, Policy and Government Relations, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
There have been a lot of comments from the railway industry. I do want to have the chance to respond.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
We know what the Conservatives' position is.
Mr. Benson, what about you?
4:25 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Briefly, we concur with the FCM on their points about the minister's power, and the answer about Ms. Bateman was no.
4:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
In our case, Ms. Bateman did contact us, but we never did have a chance to speak to her. She did contact us.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
My second question is for Ms. Quinlan.
You said that some costs will be associated with this initiative. In the current climate of government fiscal restraint, do you really think the money will be available? The bill makes no mention of money.
Also, what would be the impact on a small municipality that may have two or three grade crossings to upgrade? You say that costs are associated with the initiative and that you may not have the necessary means.
4:25 p.m.
Co-Chair, National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group, Mayor, City of Bromont, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I think your question is very relevant. That's actually why the Federation of Canadian Municipalities continues to ask for a contribution and assistance when we work on infrastructure of all types, but especially any infrastructure directly related to rail safety. We will have to work together on that.
We mentioned earlier that this collaboration was important and that people must be able to engage in dialogue. I think priorities will have to be established. In fact, we have to find ways to share the funding for those investments.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
My other question is for Mr. Benson.
You said that a significant portion of accidents at grade crossings might be inevitable. Do you have any figures on that? What is the percentage? We know that there are suicides and all sorts of unavoidable events. Do you have any percentages for us?
4:30 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
We'll get you the precise numbers and they're quite shocking. I can tell you that when I was meeting with the minister's staff, they were quite shocked to find out that weekly, daily, they were getting calls about people being on the track and dying, but we will get you the precise numbers.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
I have only one minute left.
I have one last question for Mr. Benson.
I noticed that you and Ms. Quinlan talked a lot about railway safety elsewhere than at grade crossings. Do you think introducing this bill was a matter of urgency? Were there other much more urgent things to be done to improve railway safety in Canada?
4:30 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
That's a difficult question, sir.
I think any particular improvements we can make should be done. We take them as we find them. I think the most important part with Bill C-52 will actually be with the next parliament dealing with the review of the Railway Safety Act. At that point, I think we'll be coming forward with several suggestions. The first is to end the self-governing, self-regulation of the industry.
We really appreciate the minister planning or pushing forward with more inspectors, greater power for the minister and inspectors. I think they're a positive. We have a lot of work to do. We're not anywhere close to the end. I think eventually we might get there, but I think what's missing is that after 9/11, it took seven, eight, nine, ten years for me to work on that file, to start to get to the point where we're actually getting to the conclusion of it. Here, just a few years after the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic, I think we're looking at a six-, seven-, eight-, nine-year fix.
Some thought 1232 tankers might solve the problem. We didn't think they would. It turns out, they don't. We will find problems and issues. As we move forward, we'll work together and hopefully the committee, as it always has, will work very hard on this issue. I look forward to working with you.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Hoang Mai
Thank you, Mr. Pilon.
I also want to thank the witnesses.
Ms. Young, you have five minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Thank you, gentlemen, and Ms. Quinlan, for being here. It's a real pleasure to have the amount of expertise and the experiences, tragic though they are, for you to share with us so that we can learn from them.
I just wanted to follow up on what Mr. Bourque was saying because I think it's quite critical to not just this bill that we're talking about today, but to where we are going as a country. You talk about the fact that, of course, we need to have this rail corridor and that it is indeed the lifeblood of our country. At the same time communities are developing and growing, which is a happy thing, but unfortunately they're growing in places where it could be dangerous to them.
I know you have some kind of committee or something in place.
But if you know that safety hazards and deaths are inevitable, which I think is what I'm hearing from all of you, why is it that this group of learned and experienced people here representing the different organizations that you represent, knowing that these are outstanding and critical issues in Canada.... Why is there not a plan in place to address this?
Maybe I'll start with Michael, and perhaps each of you can answer that, I think, very blunt but very important question.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
Well, I don't want to leave the impression that good work isn't being done, because there is a lot of very good work being done.
I mentioned the proximity guidelines we have developed with the FCM. We're working together with them to try to convince provinces and municipalities to adopt those guidelines. We're working on a number of technical parts to that—a vibration study, for example—so that the engineers will know more about how to build within proximity.
There is a lot of good work going on and I don't want to sound overly critical of the regulatory framework that's in place. Sometimes you just need some time for them to take effect. For example, with the grade crossing regulations, those were just introduced in final format on December 17, 2014. There is a five- to seven-year period for most of the provisions so that companies can afford to implement the changes and look at the sightlines. Sometimes they have to change the railway entirely or remove buildings. There would be all kinds of changes that would be required to comply with those regulations.
There is a lot of good work. It is a continuous improvement environment that we live in. But I guess one of the points I would leave with you is that this is an all-of-society problem. We do need these corridors and we do need to work together. That includes all levels of government stepping up and building overpasses and underpasses so that we can be safe and also travel on those railways.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
I'm quite taken by the zoning issue and your example earlier about having a school built on one side of the tracks and a McDonald's built on the other. Surely that has to be commonsensical, yet this is happening in communities everywhere—and I note that you're all nodding your heads.
It's not just about building safe crossings. It's about zoning and planning for the future, I think, because if that's where it rests.... Or do you need a federal law to say that this 300-metre proximity guideline needs to be in effect, and that trumps all the zoning across the rail corridor? I'm not sure.
But I just wanted to say that perhaps more robust work can happen in this area. Because if Montreal is the only city that has adopted the guidelines, and you know that building is happening at a great pace—certainly it's happening at a great pace in my city of Vancouver—then we have a serious problem. Those things are being built as we speak, yet the zoning is not catching up, obviously.
I'm going to ask you to keep your comments brief because I only have so much time. Perhaps we can hear from the rest of you, please.
4:35 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
That is a wonderful question.
Just so you know, all the industry—Teamsters, the RAC employers—work on this. We share a concern, but it's three levels of government. When I was working on a different file many years ago, it actually shocked me to find out how much it costs. You're looking at $20 million to $25 million. Let's just take a situation where, okay, we're going to put an overpass for the kids to walk across. We just saw in Ottawa what that bridge going across the Queensway cost.
It's an issue of funding and commitment by all levels of government. It's not just zoning. Also, if we're going to have these, I like the idea of the highways going down delivering the goods and services that the country needs—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Benson, you're looking backwards. Certainly we have safety issues and we've heard about those, but I'm talking about the future and that is zoning, isn't it?
4:35 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
It's partly zoning, but it's partly that no city is going to take a chunk of land and make it sterile by not letting it be developed. Who is going to pay for the overpass and who is going to pay for the planning? Do you take that into account in your regulations?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Well, I have to say that in the case in which you have developers—
4:35 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I would not disagree. I think there's a solution and that we should work towards it.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Hoang Mai
If the committee permits, I'll use the next round. It is an NDP round, but since I'm not sitting on that side of the table, I'll use this round, if you don't mind. Is everyone fine with that?
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Hoang Mai
Perfect. Thank you.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Here is a question to Mr. Bourque. You mentioned the issue of closing or opening crossings. What more should be done by way of consultation? You mentioned that railways should be consulted, especially when we talk about reopening a crossing, but what about when they are being closed down? Do you think there should be more consultation with the public, or maybe with the municipalities?
What is your view on that?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
Meaningful consultation is always a good thing. But what we're suggesting is that currently there is a machinery-of-government change required. It's appropriate that during the review of the Canada Transportation Act this be noted.
I would suggest that the Canadian Transportation Agency is the wrong agency to approve new crossings. I would suggest that your first obligation in the building of a new crossing is safety and that therefore a new crossing should be approved by Transport Canada under the rail safety lens, if you will.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Hoang Mai
Is there a possibility under Bill C-627 that when, for instance, the minister decides to close a crossing, that move could affect the activities of railways? For instance, shutting down crossings, or not making—