Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Paul Boissonneault. I'm the fire chief for the County of Brant, Ontario, and president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. Founded in 1909, the CAFC is an independent, non-profit organization representing approximately 3,500 fire departments across Canada. As the voice of the fire services in Canada, the CAFC promotes the highest standard of public safety in an ever-changing and increasingly complex world. The CAFC acts as the national public service association dedicated to reducing the loss of life and property from fire.
Canadian communities face an ongoing and growing risk from the consistent and substantial increase in the quantity of dangerous goods being shipped, particularly flammable class 3 liquids shipped by rail over the last five years. In the case of crude oil, we went from 500 carloads in 2009 to an estimated one million barrels per day today.
This risk has been realized in an increase in the number of accidents and near misses involving these goods. In 2013 there were 144 accidents involving dangerous goods, seven of which resulted in a dangerous goods release. When these accidents occur, firefighters will almost inevitably be the first responders on the scene.
Canada’s economy and thousands of jobs depend on the safe and timely production and transportation of dangerous goods. They are essential to a variety of industries. The risk they pose to communities and the environment, however, needs to be better managed.
The tragic derailment in Lac-Mégantic highlighted the need to further strengthen the rail regime to ensure there are sufficient resources to fund response and recovery in the event of a disaster. The cleanup costs alone have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but the railway company had third-party liability insurance of only $25 million and has subsequently gone bankrupt.
Because railways will never be able to prevent all accidents, all of us have the shared responsibility of mitigating the community impact of a train derailment involving dangerous goods in Canada. To do so, we need a system that improves the liability and compensation regime of Canada's railways. CAFC believes Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction as it protects municipalities, the fire service, and more generally, Canadian taxpayers from having to bear the substantial financial responsibility of a catastrophic incident.
Extending the responsibility for compensation to railways and shippers embraces the polluter pays principle, a notion that CAFC has supported in the past. Requiring shippers to share the liabilities associated with the transport of their goods reflects the fact that the qualities of their product contribute to the risks and costs associated with an accident. Moreover, while CAFC recognizes that a drop in oil prices is putting a strain on shippers, the risk posed by their products remains the same regardless of the price.
Since the Lac-Mégantic derailment, CAFC has been asking government to consider a modest, true-cost user fee levied on a per-tanker-car basis payable by the shippers for all class 3 flammable liquids, dangerous goods transported by rail to establish a flammable liquid firefighter training fund. Since the bill does not address the serious firefighter training gap that currently exists in Canada, we would ask this committee to consider a mechanism to fund this training, such as through a small allocation of the disaster relief fund.
Few fire services, whether career, composite, or volunteer, have the necessary training or specialized equipment to adequately respond to these incidents involving flammable liquids transshipped via rail through their areas of responsibility. The issue has been raised in several accident investigation reports from the Transportation Safety Board. Most firefighters in Canada are trained to firefighter level 1 and some are further trained to a hazardous materials awareness level, which is only a basic level of training. Moreover, neither training is adequate for responding to railway incidents involving multiple tank cars of class 3 products in a large-scale fire situation.
The lack of specialized training increases the probability of serious consequences during this response. Properly trained firefighters have the ability to assess a situation, understand the intervention's risks based on the products involved. This in turn would allow them to take appropriate actions to protect themselves, the public, property, and the environment, thus mitigating the impact of the incident.
The CAFC has been working with various industry stakeholders to help develop and promote training programs for fire departments, municipal officials, and emergency planners. It is imperative that we provide firefighters with the appropriate training and equipment for these types of incidents.
Another aspect of Bill C-52 that the CAFC supports is the ability of a province or municipality to apply to the Canadian Transportation Agency to recoup costs it must pay as a result of putting out fires caused by railway operations. This new authority would allow the Canada Transportation Agency to determine whether in its view the fire was indeed caused by a company's railway operations, and relieve the financial burden of these fires on provinces, municipalities, and specific fire services.
Overall the CAFC welcomes Bill C-52 because it defines the liability of railways in order to provide claimants with a greater certainty of compensation. It builds upon recent government actions focused on strengthening rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. It is consistent with liability and compensation regimes used in other modes and sectors.
The CAFC does have some concerns with the bill. First, we would like to ask the committee to reevaluate the $250 million limit for the disaster relief fund. Considering the costs of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we believe that a higher limit is required to ensure that the fund is able to meet its objectives in the case of a large-scale disaster.
Second, recognizing that crude oil is not the only product that could cause significant damage if involved in a rail accident, we ask the committee to consider the inclusion of other dangerous goods, such as propane and chlorine, in a shipper-financed fund amendment.
Third, the bill gives authority to inspectors and the minister to order a company to immediately correct safety problems. This is very important, but ensuring that there are enough inspectors with all the required resources to audit the safety management systems is as important in preventing these incidents.
Fourth, the bill allows for requirements related to information sharing between railways and municipalities to improve the response in case of emergencies. The proposed changes to the regulation do not reflect the level of detail contained in protective direction 32 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. This direction requires disclosure of yearly aggregate information on the nature and volume of dangerous goods to the designated emergency planning official of each municipality through which dangerous goods are transported by rail. We cannot stress enough the importance of this information for emergency response planning as well as immediate access to train manifest information and material safety data sheets when a derailment occurs.
Fifth, the CAFC believes that maintaining and strengthening the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre should be part of the current regulatory revisions. CANUTEC is a vital resource for emergency response with planning and real time support during a dangerous goods incident. It is the equivalent to a first responders’ call for 9-1-1. Its industry leading emergency response guidebook and its experienced 24-hour-a-day professional chemists assist emergency responders with advisory and regulatory information in the event of a dangerous goods accident.
Finally, despite the progress achieved to date in railway safety and accountability, our work is not yet done as derailments continue to occur. CAFC believes that greater emphasis should be placed on the prevention of these incidents through increased safety and monitoring measures. We should be proactive in planning rather than reactive in emergency response. The CAFC is committed to continue working with government, industry, and this committee to ensure that first responders have the information, training, and emergency planning protocols to protect Canadians and our communities when incidents occur.
We recognize Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction in the government action required to address the evolving risks associated with the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.
On behalf of the CAFC, our chief fire officers, and firefighters from across Canada we thank the committee for this opportunity to share our point of view. I look forward to any and all of your questions.