Transport Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

The legislation is going to take time. Is there anything that you can recommend to the committee as far as an interim measure to allay some of those concerns?

[Ray Orb]

I think the concern won't be alleviated until the legislation is passed. If there are amendments that need to be made, that's one amendment that.... Perhaps you should go back to Bill C-40 and look at that legislation and reinstate the part of the legislation dealing with interswitching. In the future, perhaps it could be investigated if it needs to be changed.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Orb.

Ms. Southwood, you spoke about the public infrastructure engineering vulnerability protocol and how that could have related to Churchill. The Churchill incident was a more recent incident. Do you know when that rail line and a large part of that infrastructure was built?

[Jeanette Southwood]

I don't have the dates at my fingertips, but it is something that we could provide to the committee after the meeting.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

You said that had this protocol and the measurement of vulnerability been in place, that could have prevented this type of situation from occurring.

I'm interested to know if you could tell us more about this tool and how it would have prevented the situation in Churchill from occurring.

[Jeanette Southwood]

Certainly.

The way the tool works is that a project, whether a proposed project or a piece of infrastructure currently in place, is assessed in terms of how it is operating in our current climate. For example, we look at rain, wind speeds, and so on. Then, we look at what will change in terms of the climate data. One of your colleagues referred to the importance of data earlier. We ask how the weather is going to be changing. Then, we look at the vulnerabilities related to that.

I'll use the Finch Avenue washout as an example that many of you might be familiar with. Finch Avenue was a very important arterial in the city of Toronto that had many unknown vulnerabilities. It had culverts that were not being properly maintained. In addition to being a road that many people used, it was also the location of other key aspects of infrastructure, such as cable, telephone, electricity, and gas. So when the Finch Avenue washout occurred, the city was left with many challenges from the users of the arterial and also astronomical impacts on their economy and the competitive advantage of the city.

If that type of an assessment is done in advance or undertaken on the key infrastructure that a municipality or region depends on, it helps to anticipate where the weaknesses are. For example, in the case of a road like Finch, it was the culverts; it was the importance of cleaning the culverts but also the importance of building the right culvert.

We'll go back to the railway now. Doing this kind of an assessment would identify the vulnerabilities associated with a particular railway. Mr. Hardie talked about the railway, the erosion, the washouts, and the rock falls. All of those are impacted if the weather is changing. Doing this kind of an assessment can assist in preventing and reducing the risks associated with not having the infrastructure at all.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Okay.

There's a lot of infrastructure in this country that would require a lot of these types of assessments. Literally, you could run into generations of assessments that go on. I know there's a cost and an impact from these types of infrastructure failures, but what's the cost of doing this type of assessment for every piece of infrastructure in this country?

[Jeanette Southwood]

What we would propose is that the assessments be included in new federal funding. Let's look at a simple way of going forward. If the federal government is going to be investing large dollars into new infrastructure, then we believe that it needs to know the vulnerabilities of those infrastructures to changing weather and a changing climate, in order to get the most out of its investments.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[Jeanette Southwood]

The cost, we believe, would be relatively small compared to the larger cost of losing the infrastructure completely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Southwood.

Ms. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Southwood, I would like to continue the discussion with you.

I see no problem with recommendations 2 and 3 of the document that you submitted to us. Involving professional engineers in the entire life cycle of the railway infrastructure and adapting the rail infrastructure to Canada's changing climate make sense to me. Things get more muddled in recommendation 1 that asks to define the engineering principles in section 11.

Could you clarify that? Are you referring to broad principles or to specific standards? Actually, later in the paragraph, you say that consistent standards for engineering roles are not in place.

[Jeanette Southwood]

I'm going to separate your question into two. The first aspect would be around the question of the engineering principles. Currently when we see the term “engineering principles” in the Railway Safety Act, we see ambiguity—we see that it's interpreted in a number of different ways. We're offering to work collaboratively with the federal government and departments to provide language to further define the term. We have a large network of subject matter experts on this topic. Our profession is ready to provide that advice and that collaboration.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Could you give us a concrete example of an aspect that you would like to see better defined in Bill C-49?

[Jeanette Southwood]

I'm going to go to the other aspect, which is how our professional engineers are currently consulted for a railway project. We look at the way that professional engineers are consulted and we see an inconsistency. We see that it's not always clear exactly when a professional engineer needs to be consulted, and this leads back to this term “engineering principles”, which is not clear. It doesn't lay out exactly when engineers would need to be consulted. We want greater clarity on that, and we're offering to work collaboratively with the federal government and other departments to provide that clarity.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Do provincial associations of engineers follow exactly the same principles? Are they consistent across the provinces?

[Jeanette Southwood]

We have consulted our member regulators on the Railway Safety Act and these are the key issues that our member regulators have identified nationally. Thank you.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I believe Mr. Hardie has a question.

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

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to follow up on my earlier question about the health and well-being of short-line railways. Saskatchewan certainly has a very robust network. Last year we took a trip to Lac-Mégantic to have a look at the situation there. The locals were showing us some pretty horrible things about the state of repair of that line. So from the engineering side and from Saskatchewan's side, I'd like to hear your comments on short-lines and on any issues you think Bill C-49 may need to address.

[Jeanette Southwood]

I'm going to start with a previous question you asked. It was about climate vulnerability assessments and their connection to environmental assessments. The way that environmental assessments currently work, there is not traditionally a part that includes the climate vulnerability assessments. At this time, they definitely are two separate things. We would like to have those intertwined more frequently.

On the health and well-being of short-line railroads, this is something I would need to consult with my organization about and get back to the committee at a later date.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Orb.

[Ray Orb]

Saskatchewan, I believe, has more short-lines than any other province in Canada, especially in the southwest part of Saskatchewan, where the major carrier abandoned a good part of the railway system decades ago. Is it very important that those short-lines be maintained and continue to deliver grain? There is a lot of damage to our infrastructure. They're provincially regulated under the ministry of highways, and some of the regulations differ from province to province. Saskatchewan may have some different regulations. One concern when we met with the Saskatchewan Shortline Railway Association was a liability insurance that was imposed on the changes in rail safety. However, I think they are coping with that and are continuing to operate. I don't think they now have the concerns they had at first. I don't know if that exactly answers your question.

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

Well, for instance, we were quoted earlier a cost of around $20,000 per unit to install LVVRs. Would the short-lines be able to deal with that kind of capital cost?

[Ray Orb]

I'm not sure. I would have to consult with the association again.

It may be onerous, but there may be other ways that they would be able to get funding.