Transport Committee on March 9th, 2016

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Out on the lines looking at the trains?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I've even had the chance to go out and do some. It was a demonstration for me in the Taschereau yard, but yes we are doing it.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Good.

I think that probably needs a little profile because this lack of public confidence not only harms the government, it also harms the railways themselves, because the public perceives they're not necessarily doing it as they should. They should have the evidence that this is going on and also what comes of it.

There's another group that is also inspecting the manufacture of railcars, and all of the shipping conveyances, and they do apparently actively inspect for compliance. Do they issue reports as to what they find, and what's your level of satisfaction with compliance with those regulations?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Let me pass it to my deputy minister, Mr. Tremblay.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

I will try to answer your first question, and my colleague will jump in on the dangerous goods aspect.

On the first one, let's be clear about that. We do inspect the railways. We do inspections. That's why we have inspectors. We do audits of their practice to see if they have integrated safety practice. We do investigate when an accident happens, as does the TSB, Transport Safety Board, and we do take enforcement measures that can go with, of course, AMPs, administrative monetary penalties for example, or we can go also, of course, with criminal charges. That is something that we do, actually.

[Laureen Kinney]

If I may just touch on the last part of your question, I believe you were referring to the transportation of dangerous goods and the inspections that go on.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Yes.

[Laureen Kinney]

We have a very robust program, as well, on inspecting the means of containment, whether they're designed, built, and then operated correctly. While dangerous goods are under the form of transportation appropriate, whether it be marine, rail—in surface, it tends to be the highway areas; it's done by the provinces—but yes, there's a very good program.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

You do raise a good point. If there is this perception that the companies check themselves, then perhaps we need to get the word out a little bit more that Transport Canada has a very important inspection responsibility. In fact, if things are not acceptable, we take measures.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

With respect to the Emerson report, I've had a chance to at least go through the recommendations. I've flagged a couple of things, and I know that, of course, the examination of that is to come.

Again looking at recent history, we had a regime that really felt that the government in power could do just about anything it wanted to get things done and yet didn't get things like pipelines built and didn't get a lot of other things built because the public opposition ran up against it. I recognized some things in the Emerson report about acquiring corridors or promoting 24-hour operation of certain facilities, and I didn't see anything in there that recommended there be a robust public and community consultation so that you don't run into the same kinds of issues that our predecessors did on some of the major projects they tried to advance. That's more of a comment, but there should be an intent, I think, to include that, even if the Emerson report didn't.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Well, thank you for that comment, and I would agree with you. Certainly people sometimes express themselves quite strongly with respect to issues dealing with airports, dealing with ports, or dealing with railways that pass near their neighbourhood. People are very vocal so that, when something new is being envisaged, I agree with you that there should be a consultation process because sometimes there's going to be an impact on the population in the neighbourhood. I think it's common sense for that to occur and it's certainly something that those who run our infrastructure should take into account.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There have been similar comments—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Briefly, very briefly.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Very briefly? Actually, no. I'll end here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here. I appreciate it.

I want to talk about rail safety. You talked about inspections and dangerous goods. I'm wondering if there is going to be a study undertaken, if that is part of the mandate, in terms of looking at rail lines along the foreshore. With the changing weather patterns and heavy rains, especially in my part of the world in British Columbia and South Surrey—White Rock, there has been significant erosion on the foreshore. As I said, we've talked about the dangerous goods and how that's increased, but also, with blocking access, emergency vehicles can't get to a community. I'm wondering if part of your mandate would include looking at that criteria and how improvements can be made, because these are significant, and I'm sure mine is not the only riding that's dealing with these issues. They're certainly considerable and in a high residential area. I mean, 28 people have been killed or injured along that line. The erosion, dangerous goods, and increase in the length of trains have all been quite significant.

Is there a plan to have a look at it? I'm sure, as I said, that it's replicated in other places around the country.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I appreciate your input, and I've certainly taken note of it. There's no question that our railroads go through some very remote parts of the country and in some cases go very close to the shoreline. We've all seen it ourselves.

You bring up a very valid point, which is discussed quite a bit in the Emerson report, and that is about the effects of climate change on our infrastructure. The fact that there is a chapter on this I think points to the fact that there is no question that we have to make our rail systems and other transportation systems more resilient in the face of climate change, in this case probably because of flooding and washing away of railbeds and things such as that.

It is something we'll look at in the context of the report, because it's a wake-up call that the resiliency of our transportation system is under threat.

Also, as you point out, in some cases some of these places are quite difficult to access, and if something does happen, and we've all seen occasionally when derailments have occurred and the cars have fallen into lakes or rivers, it's not an easy thing to get to them.

That infrastructure has been there for a long time. Finding an alternative can be very challenging, but it is something we will look at in a broad way as part of the Emerson report.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I would also say that this particular line not only goes around the foreshore but also through the flood plain along the edge of a bay. If we're looking at water rising two metres and all of those conditions, I can only anticipate what is going to happen down the road.

If that's a recommendation that were to be extrapolated from the report and highlighted, I think many communities across Canada would appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have three quarters of a minute left.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Go ahead, Monsieur Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Garneau, I would like to come back to the issue of Lac-Mégantic, because earlier, we talked about the issue of financial needs only very briefly. As I'm sure you've read in the newspapers, people want this project to move forward quickly.

If, in May, the preliminary results of the study prove to be more positive and immediate action is needed in order to make a decision, will the upcoming budget include funding for these people, or will they have to wait until next year for this to move forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Berthold, your time is up.

Mr. Garneau, if you could, give us a short answer to a longer question than anticipated.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you.

The short answer is that we will have to read the preliminary report in May before making any decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Boulerice, you have five minutes, no, three minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I just lost two minutes.

Minister Garneau, thank you for being here this afternoon. I'll try to be brief, since three minutes go quickly.

As the Minister of Transport, you are responsible for enforcing the Air Canada Public Participation Act. When Air Canada was privatized in 1988, the agreement stipulated that all maintenance for Air Canada's entire fleet would done in Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal.

In 2012, Aveos shut down its operations and Air Canada relocated the maintenance of its aircraft, often to countries in the south. Some 2,600 Aveos workers lost their jobs. That means 2,600 families were affected by this. People fought it in court and won their case in Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 2012, the leader of the Liberal Party protested with the Aveos workers on Parliament Hill and called on the Conservatives to enforce the law.

Our current fear is that the new Liberal government is going to amend the legislation to remove Air Canada's obligation to keep those jobs and maintenance activities in the three cities mentioned. Those fears were fuelled yesterday when your government added a bill to the order paper to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

For those 2,600 families, can you guarantee us here today that your government will maintain Air Canada's obligation to keep the maintenance work and operations in Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal, in order to protect those 2,600 jobs and keep those activities in Canada?