Transport Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Scott Streiner]

By definition, if the regulation set a level of compensation, for example, that's here and the previous tariff was lower, the regulations would prevail.

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

What about the pieces of the puzzle that aren't covered by a tariff, like the terminal, CATSA, etc.? This is similar to a question I asked an earlier panel. Sometimes it isn't the airline's fault that somebody is stuck on a tarmac somewhere. So again, how do you see that working in?

[Scott Streiner]

At the moment, the legislation, including the act as it would be amended by Bill C-49 , does not give us the authority to go and set standards for or investigate other players in the air travel supply chain. Under the legislation, we are to focus on the airlines and their tariffs. That said, we recognize—and we saw some of this in the testimony at the Air Transat hearing—that there are multiple players and that sometimes events involve more than the airlines. So even in the absence of the authority to make regulations or to adjudicate complaints with respect to other players, to the extent that our assistance could be helpful in facilitating smoother, more fluid, more effective working relationships between the different players, we are more than happy to play that role.

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

With respect to compensation for passengers who are basically done poorly by, I use again an example. I had a flight in Kelowna stuck on the tarmac while they worked out a technical issue, and I was late getting to where I needed to go, but other people on the aircraft missed flights, missed connections that they weren't going to be able to take until the following day. So when you are looking at a compensation system, this probably is a regulatory issue, but obviously not every person on the plane is affected in the same way. Would there not be a rationale then for having differential compensation depending on the level of impact?

[Scott Streiner]

As things currently stand in the law, we do have in certain circumstances the ability to order compensation for expenses. Some of what you're describing might fall into the category of expenses if somebody had to, for example, stay overnight because they missed a connection, or they needed to pay for some meals. Whether the compensation levels that are set through the regulations that we're going to make are specific numbers that apply across the board or whether there's some variability based on individual circumstances is something, I think, we're going to have to look at when we undertake the consultations.

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

I have one final question for you, Mr. Emerson. Talk about the far north. What in here is going to make life better for those folks out there?

[David Emerson]

We spend a lot of time in the north talking to people there, and I have a long-standing bias that Canada has neglected the north. That bias remains today. I still do not think we pay enough attention to infrastructure in the north. I don't think we pay enough attention to the roads and the seabed, the mapping of the latter, or the systems for weather forecasting. For example, the air carriers in the north have a terrible time getting their services onto the website that public servants use to book flights, and I don't think that's been resolved yet. For example, Air North has a heck of a time getting a major source of northern travel onto its aircraft because, somehow, somebody in this town doesn't really want to make it easy for public servants to get on Air North. There's a wide range of issues. We identified trade and transportation corridor issues that we think are critically important, because eventually there has to be environmentally sustainable development of the north and you need to get 20 or 30 years ahead of that in identifying corridors and developing infrastructure finance techniques that will allow some of these corridors to be developed, recognizing that the first development in any corridor is not going to be able to pay for the whole corridor, so you need some fairly sophisticated techniques to ensure that you're bringing institutional capital to the north to help them develop.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. Emerson, Mr. Streiner, and Mr. Al-Katib, thank you so much. You can see by the interesting questions that your comments are greatly appreciated.

I think Bill C-49 reflects a lot of the work that you've already done, Mr. Emerson.

So thank you all very much. Thank you very much for being here.

For the committee, I will suspend for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting on our study of Bill C-49 back to order.

Welcome to the witnesses we have with us now. They are Jeanette Southwood, vice-president, strategy and partnerships, Engineers Canada, from the city of North York; and Ray Orb, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

We know you very well. We have a member on this committee who reminds us constantly about Saskatchewan. We're really happy to have you with us here, as well.

Of course, we also have George Bell from Metrolinx.

Welcome to all of you.

Mr. Orb, do you want to start?

[Ray Orb, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Yes. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee tonight. I am pleased to be here today.

My name is Ray Orb, and I'm the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, or SARM.

SARM represents all 296 rural municipalities in Saskatchewan. Our members are home to a major agriculture sector. Saskatchewan represents nearly 40% of Canada's farmable land. This has allowed Saskatchewan to become the world's largest exporter of lentils, dried peas, mustard, flaxseed, and canola.

In 2016 Saskatchewan exported $14.4 billion worth of agrifood products. For a landlocked province like Saskatchewan, getting these products to market requires an efficient and effective world-class rail transportation system. That is why I'm appreciative of today's opportunity to talk about Bill C-49 since SARM members and the agriculture sector rely so heavily on the transportation system.

SARM has been an advocate for increased data reporting. More data means that better decisions may be made by producers and others in the supply chain. In SARM's view, railways should be required to produce plans that detail how they will deal with demands resulting from the upcoming crop year. This should include railways' contingency plans for larger yields and how they will deal with the cold winter months in the Prairies—that is, the equipment and the number of crews that will be needed, for example.

SARM is pleased to see that Bill C-49 includes an expansion of the Governor in Council's powers to make regulations requiring major railway companies to provide information regarding rates, service, and performance to the Minister of Transport. Enhancing data requirements and making more information available to those in the supply chain is not an immediate resolution to transportation issues, but it is a crucial piece of the solution.

Another advocacy point for SARM has been the need for reciprocal penalties. Holding railways and others in the supply chain to account is important as producers are the ones who ultimately lose out when levels of service are not met.

It appears that Bill C-49 will enable shippers to obtain terms in their contracts dealing with amounts to be paid in relation to a failure to comply with conditions related to railway companies' service obligations. Clarification for producers on how this will function is required. It would be beneficial for all parties involved if the Canadian Transportation Agency would provide further clarification on the issue, such as guidelines or best practices for reciprocal penalties.

SARM is disappointed that reciprocal penalties are not officially mentioned in the legislation. Should an impasse occur between the shipper and the carrier regarding reciprocal penalties, will the CTA intervene? Further clarification on the informal dispute resolution services is required. While there appear to be more details to sort out regarding reciprocal penalties, SARM is happy to see that reciprocal penalties will be allowable.

SARM also welcomes the amendment on the informal dispute resolution services. Providing cost-efficient, effective, and timely dispute resolution services is imperative for producers. Once the harvest is completed, producers must get their products to market in a timely manner to fulfill their contract obligations. Disputes should be resolved as quickly as possible so that producers won't face any additional penalties or unnecessary delays.

Long-haul interswitching may also be a positive new provision for producers. SARM supported the increased interswitching distances in the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. It was hoped that extended interswitching from that act would be made permanent. While the extended radius will benefit more producers who are eligible, they must still negotiate with carriers before applying for long-haul interswitching. It remains to be seen whether this new provision is the long-term solution needed.

The retention of the maximum revenue entitlement, or MRE, is appreciated by SARM and its members. SARM members oppose the elimination of the MRE. This provision protects producers from excessive freight rates, ensures the movement of grain, and allows railways to reinvest in the rail network. Rather than eliminating the MRE, SARM members have passed a resolution requesting that the MRE formula be reviewed as soon as possible. SARM hopes that the changes to the MRE will continue to ensure railway accountability and transparency while still protecting producers from high freight rates.

Overall, Bill C-49 appears to address many of the concerns facing producers. The CTA review provided the agriculture sector with many opportunities to provide feedback and SARM is appreciative of this. SARM will continue to provide comments and feedback at every opportunity and looks forward to continuing to work with the federal government and all agriculture stakeholders to advance the sector.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Orb.

Mr. Bell, Metrolinx.

[George Bell, Vice-President, Safety and Security, Metrolinx]

Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'd like to address what we consider to be the critically important issue of locomotive voice and video recorders.

My name is George Bell and I work for Metrolinx, an urban transit authority in Toronto that operates Go Transit systems and the Union Pearson Express linking downtown and the airport in Toronto. Metrolinx, through GO Transit, is the largest commuter rail operator in Canada, with over 450 kilometres of track on seven lines in the greater Toronto-Hamilton area. What surprised me when I moved to Toronto for this work is that one in every six Canadians lives in the GO Transit service area. We move over 250,000 people a day. We have a very large fleet of rail equipment: 651 passenger cars, 62 locomotives, and we supplement that with the 15 rail vehicles we have on the Union Pearson Express line. We run 61 train sets a day and we make about 300 trips a day currently. If we put that in context a little further, our largest trains hold about 2,500 passengers. That means that each of our largest trains has about the same number of people on it as five jumbo jets—five.

When we operate our trains, we operate in what's known as a push-pull fashion. That means the locomotive always stays on one end of the train. If we were on an east-west run, the locomotive stays on the east end of the train, no matter which direction we run. If we run north-south, the locomotive runs on the south end of the train. We supply motive power either to push or pull our cars across the track. When the locomotive is pushing, the crew that operates the train is on the opposite end of the train in what's known as a cab car, which has a replica of the locomotive controls and controls the locomotive by remote control. It's converse when we operate from the locomotive. This is important context.

Since our inception, Metrolinx and GO have steadily increased GO transit train service with the goal of transforming from a rush hour commuter service to a two-way, all-day regional transportation service. Our newest program, regional express rail, will build on the planning and infrastructure progress we have already made and fast-track future service expansion. This means that electric trains will be running every 15 minutes or better on our heaviest corridors; that four times the number of trips outside of weekday rush-hour periods will be run, including evenings and weekends; and twice the number of trips during weekday rush-hour periods. The result of this expansion is that we will see approximately 6,000 weekly trips by 2024.

All of this is critically important when we consider the contributions to railway and passenger safety that can be gained from the introduction of locomotive voice and video recorders. Metrolinx and GO have very significant safety responsibilities to our commuters, our communities, and our employees. We take these responsibilities very seriously indeed. We strive to be leaders in safety and are frequent early adopters of new technologies and techniques. Locomotive voice and video recorders are one example of our forward thinking. GO has already equipped all its locomotives and cab cars with LVVRs.

To give you an idea of what those look like, they consist of a recording system that's fed by four cameras and two microphones. I'm sorry, I'd hoped to have some pictures for you, but I don't have them. Three of the cameras show the interior of the locomotive. We can see the two operators from behind, we can see them in the corners of our view, and we can see the back wall of the locomotive from the front of them. We do not focus on the faces or expressions of our operators. The cameras that are looking at them from the front focus on the back wall, which is full of diagnostic equipment for the locomotive, and we can see a great number of outputs from our diagnostics on that wall. The two cameras that are looking at them from behind can see how they operate the trains. We can see their hand motions, we can see their throttle controls, their brake controls, we can see if they're on the phone, which is a prohibited activity—but nonetheless possible.

We have two microphones in the locomotive that can capture all the ambient conversation within the locomotive. The fourth camera faces out in front of the locomotive. It's an unfortunate reality that railroads, and commuter railroads in particular, see a lot of suicides. The camera that looks out the front of the locomotive gives us evidence of what's occurring in front of the locomotive. It's the only camera in the system that is readily downloaded. The other three cameras need special permissions to be downloaded and can't be downloaded by anyone but the relevant authorities.

When we consider the system, we strongly believe that the technology that we have in place in our locomotives can save lives and make the travelling public safer. The Transportation Safety Board has called for the use of LVVR technology to be used both as part of their investigatory processes and by railway companies as part of the safety management systems to proactively identify areas for safety improvement. It's undoubtedly useful to collect evidence that may be used after an accident to assist in determining the cause of that accident. It's our opinion that a more powerful and responsible approach is to enable the information captured by an LVVR to be used before an accident occurs. The ability to identify behavioural or ergonomic trends that may lead to accidents would be a great benefit in maintaining our safety.

Metrolinx agrees that the privacy of our operating crews is very important. In the case of an LVVR installation, crews have been well informed that the technology is in place and how it's used. That said, we do not view the operating controls of a cab car or a locomotive to be a place where there should be an expectation of privacy. Our engineers and conductors are highly qualified professionals, and we expect them to conduct themselves in such a manner when they're operating our trains. Further, we believe that if there is to be a balance between safety and privacy, safety must prevail. This is particularly true when we consider that any risk-taking behaviour on the part of the operator of a commuter train puts not just the safety of that operator in jeopardy, but can also put in harm's way the 2,500 people who may be on the train. We believe that we owe those passengers and their families an utmost duty to look after their safety on our trains. Empowering railways to use locomotive voice and video recorders in a non-punitive and proactive manner will help us meet that duty.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bell.

Ms. Southwood.

[Jeanette Southwood, Vice-President, Strategy and Partnerships, Engineers Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to discuss Engineers Canada's stance on Bill C-49, the Transportation Modernization Act.

My name is Jeanette Southwood. In my previous role as principal at a global engineering firm, I was global sustainable cities leader and Canadian urban development and infrastructure leader. My team focused on areas that included supply chain, business continuity, and climate adaptation, urban intensification and restoration, and the strategic integration of cutting-edge global innovation and knowledge into solutions for private and public clients. Our portfolio included rail.

I am currently the vice-president of strategy and partnerships at Engineers Canada based here in Ottawa. Engineers Canada is the national organization that represents the 12 provincial and territorial associations that regulate the practice of engineering in Canada and licenses the country's more than 290,000 professional engineers. Together we work to advance the profession in the public interest.

With the entire Transportation Modernization Act open for public review and consultation, Engineers Canada's testimony today pertains directly to section 11 of the Railway Safety Act, specifically in relation to the design, build, and maintenance stages of railway work in Canada, and we have three recommendations in particular that I'd like to touch on in my remarks today.

The first recommendation is that the engineering principles in section 11 of the Railway Safety Act be further defined. The second is that professional engineers be involved in the entire life cycle of railways' infrastructure. The third is that climate vulnerability assessments be carried out on Canada's rail infrastructure and that Canada's rail infrastructure be adapted to a changing climate.

First, regarding engineering principles, in Canada engineering is regulated under provincial and territorial law by the 12 engineering regulators. The regulators are entrusted to hold engineers accountable for practising in a professional, ethical, and competent manner and in compliance with the applicable provincial or territorial engineering act, code of ethics, or legal framework in place. Technical provincial and professional standards of conduct are set, revised, maintained, and enforced by regulators who are all professional engineers in their jurisdiction.

By virtue of being a regulated professional, professional engineers are required to work with the public interest in mind and to uphold public safety. For this reason, Engineers Canada strongly supports and encourages the direct involvement of professional engineers in the design, construction, maintenance, evaluation, use, and alteration of all engineering work related to railways in Canada, not only to increase transparency and public confidence towards a safe and well regulated rail system, but also to uphold public safety and accountability on all railway work.

It is vital that the federal government incorporate professional engineers through the entire life cycle of a rail project, and not just in the final approval of rail work. Engineers Canada encourages the federal government to put measures in place to ensure that this is the case. It is equally important that it be professional engineers who take on the responsibility of overseeing and maintaining the standards and regulations set out by the federal government.

Currently the Railway Safety Act outlines that companies are obligated to report on the qualifications and licences of safety personnel. However, ambiguity and the possibility of misinterpretation are evident in section 11 of the Railway Safety Act, specifically in regard to the definition of engineering roles and engineering principles. The act states:

All work relating to railway works—including, but not limited to, design, construction, evaluation, maintenance and alteration—must be done in accordance with sound engineering principles.

The ambiguity around the term “engineering principles” creates space for misinterpretation and a potential situation where public safety is compromised. The act should specify that where engineering principles are to be applied, they must be applied by a professional engineer. Federal public servants who are tasked with overseeing the engineering work referred to in section 11 must also be professional engineers. Communities are better protected by the consistent application of safety and siting procedures where professional engineers are involved in decisions.

Our second recommendation is regarding the life cycle of railways' infrastructure. Involving professional engineers in the life cycle of rail projects will not only ensure that they are carried out with public safety top of mind, but engineers are also well equipped to design, build, and manage resilient rail infrastructure.

Canada's railway infrastructure is an integral enabler of Canada's growing economy, as we've heard from the two speakers who preceded me, providing services to more than 10,000 commercial and industrial customers each year, moving about four million carloads of freight across the country and into the U.S., and getting approximately 70 million people in Montreal, the GTA, and Vancouver alone to work each year. This vast integrated network needs to operate with efficiency and public safety in mind, both of which require a high level of reliable service.

Finally, I'll turn to our recommendation regarding climate vulnerability. Resilient infrastructure is the driving force behind productive societies, stable industries, and increased public confidence in civil infrastructure. However, Canada's infrastructure report card noted that much of Canada's current infrastructure is vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather, which is becoming increasingly frequent and severe. Vulnerable rail infrastructure presents a risk not only to public safety but also to the productivity of Canadian individuals and businesses and of the country's economy. Without the consistent application of climate vulnerability assessments to inform rail design, public confidence and trust in rail infrastructure will be fragile.

For example, floods and historic record water flows severely damaged Churchill, Manitoba's Hudson Bay Railway tracks on May 23, 2017, just a few short months ago. This major flood severely damaged five bridges, washed away 19 sections of track bed, and required that 30 bridges and 600 culverts be checked for structural integrity. This specific rail line transports food, supplies, and people to the remote community of Churchill, Manitoba, a community frequently visited by tourists during the summer months. With severe damage to the Hudson Bay Railway, service disruptions have now caused goods, services, and people to arrive by air transportation, an expensive mode of transportation to the northern community. The catastrophic damage to the rail line will take months to repair, causing major service disruptions to both individual and business productivity, as well as decreased public confidence in rail infrastructure.

Climate vulnerability assessments provide early awareness to planners regarding the potential impacts that extreme weather events could have on both public and private infrastructure in communities across Canada. Professional engineers in Canada are leaders in adaptation and are ready to work collaboratively with the federal government to provide unbiased and transparent advice to safeguard rail infrastructure from the devastating effects of climate changes. Engineers Canada, in conjunction with Natural Resources Canada, has developed a climate risk assessment tool that greatly enhances the resilience of infrastructure, increases public confidence in rail infrastructure, and decreases the severity of climate change impacts on individual and business productivity.

The public infrastructure engineering vulnerability committee protocol, also known as PIEVC, gives engineers, geoscientists, infrastructure owners, and managers a tool to design and construct rail infrastructure that will withstand today's rapidly changing climate. The protocol has been applied to a wide range of infrastructure systems more than 40 times in Canada, including with Metrolinx, and three times internationally. Engineers Canada encourages the federal government to invest in early assessment and prevention tools, such as the PIEVC protocol, to be a condition for funding approvals, accepting environmental impact assessments, and approving designs for rail infrastructure projects that involve rehabilitation, repurposing, maintaining, and decommissioning existing rail infrastructure. This investment will contribute to maintaining levels of service, safeguarding the environment, strengthening individual and business productivity, and upholding public safety.

Madam Chair, thank you for allowing Engineers Canada to present to the committee today on this important issue. We hope the committee will recognize that professional engineers play an integral role in Canada's transportation infrastructure and that our profession is ready and willing to ensure that Canada's railway system is resilient and safe and continues to be an enabler of Canada's economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome you all here. It's been a long day. We've heard from many witnesses, but perhaps we've saved the best for last. It may not be an enviable position to be that last candle of a long day, but I certainly do appreciate the testimony you've given us.

We talked a fair bit about locomotive video and voice recorders, and we heard from Transport Canada as well as the CTA on that issue.

Mr. Bell, you spoke about using LVVRs in a proactive, not punitive, way. I'm wondering if you could expand upon that, particularly by defining the limits of non-punitive.

[George Bell]

Madam Chair, I'd like to respond by giving a parallel example.

Under the railway safety management system regulations, we as railways are required to institute non-punitive reporting, in the sense that if someone who is less than negligent reports an issue on our railway, there is no possibility that they can be disciplined for doing so. They are doing us a favour, and we look at it in the same way.

We would look at LVVRs in much the same way. We have no interest in delving into the private lives of our operators. What we have an interest in is looking at trends, anomalies, and ways in which we can improve our system without punishing the folks who are doing our work.

What we would intend to do there is use the information we can get from the LVVRs to look at behavioural or ergonomic trends within our locomotives and to respond to the trends rather than the individuals.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

If you were to see activities that would cause you concern and perhaps were unsafe activities taking place, would you feel a duty to act or respond to the data you had collected?

[George Bell]

Yes, we would feel a duty to respond, but not necessarily to the individual. We strive to create safety culture within our railways founded on three principles. One is that we need to have a reporting culture. One is that we need to have a just culture. The third one is that we need to have a learning culture. In order to empower the last two, you can't be punitive to people. If you're overly punitive to them you cannot learn, so we would strive not to do that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

I'm going to completely change my track of questioning and ask some questions of you, Mr. Orb. Welcome. It's good to see you here. Thank you for taking the time to come to Ottawa to share your thoughts with us.

I noted that in your statement you talked about a number of measures in Bill C-49, but specifically I want to ask you about reciprocal penalties, because you made a comment that SARM was disappointed that these penalties were not officially mentioned in the legislation. I'm going to ask you to expand on that and to then perhaps tell us what your thoughts are in regard to the long-haul interswitching measure in Bill C-49

Thanks.

[Ray Orb]

We're particularly disappointed by the lack of a mention of reciprocal penalties. This has been an outstanding or ongoing issue for several years. If you recall the record crop we had in 2013-14, a lot of our submission statements are based on what happened that year. We certainly don't want anything like that to recur.

The reciprocal penalties are an issue because this is left up to negotiation and, in the end, arbitration, and sometimes it's a cost. Small shippers in particular often can't afford to take anyone to court to fight this. It can be very expensive. The lack of a mention of that is disappointing.

The interswitching is a different issue. We don't totally understand the new legislation. We've been talking to many of the grain elevator companies, and they're really cynical about it. We talked about it at the crop logistics working group, which is made up of industry and, particularly, producers, agriculture commodity groups, and the grain elevator companies.

The advice we've been given is that we need to spend more time on this to be able to clarify it. The problem with that is that the new crop year is already in place, and in Canada, particularly western Canada, we're looking at a far better crop than what was estimated by Stats Canada in July, so we need to fast-track this legislation. It's imperative that those two issues be dealt with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bell, if we were to ask the union representing workers at Metrolinx, what would they tell us about that relationship they have with the company vis-à-vis the LVVRs on your system?

[George Bell]

One of the unique features of Metrolinx and some other commuter rails is that we operate on a contract model. The crews that operate our trains actually do not work directly for Metrolinx. They work for Bombardier, who is a contractor to us.

The LVVRs have been in place and active for about six months. We've had no push-back whatsoever from the unions. We have positioned it in a non-punitive manner, very constructive manner. We have also communicated to our operators that part of the reason we wish to review the data on the LVVRs is to illustrate what a good job they do rather than a poor job. There is a positive as well as a learning opportunity there.

So we've had no push-back from the union. As of now, they're fine with what we're doing.