Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 144 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to remind all in-person participants to read the best practices guidelines and cards on the table. These measures are in place to protect the health and safety of all participants.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 7, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of community safety and emergency preparedness and the transport of dangerous goods by rail.

Appearing before us today, colleagues, we have, from the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, fire chief Chris Case and executive director Tina Saryeddine. Welcome to both of you.

From the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, we have Mr. Bob Masterson, president and chief executive officer, who is joining us by video conference. Welcome to you, sir. It's good to see you again.

From the Ville de Saint-Basile-le-Grand, we have Mr. Yves Lessard, mayor. Welcome to you.

That is it, I believe. Is that all, Madam Clerk?

Welcome to all of you.

Before we begin, I will turn over the floor to Mr. Bachrach to resume discussion on the motion put forward at the last meeting.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see everyone again this evening.

At the end of our last meeting, we left off with a motion that I had put forward regarding the disclosure of some documents related to emergency response assistance plans and key route risk assessments. While these assessments and plans are required by Transport Canada, both are written and compiled by the shippers of dangerous goods and by the railway companies.

The scope of this study that we've undertaken is about whether communities have adequate capacity to protect their safety and whether the emergency response plans that are in place—and which are required by Transport Canada—are up to the task of saving human lives and preventing the destruction of our communities in cases of rail disasters.

I don't think we can get very far in this study without seeing the contents of the existing response plans and the risk assessments, without better understanding what those risks are, and without understanding the level of detail and the scrutiny that Transport Canada requires of the companies that operate in this space.

I have had some conversations off-line with members of the government, who have expressed concerns about the sensitivity of some of the information contained in those response plans, and by no means do I want to put our communities or the country at any level of additional risk through the disclosure of documents. I want to make that very clear. If there's information in those response plans that could jeopardize or expose our communities to additional risk, that's certainly not my intention. However, we have the ability, as a committee, to seek documents, to hold them in confidence and to use their contents to inform our work and the scope of our inquiry. That's very much the intention of my motion.

I did craft the motion on the fly at the last meeting. Sometimes, if you sleep on it for a few nights, you come up with some other ideas about how it might better serve its purpose. I know I can't amend my own motion, but I'd like to offer a revised version that, perhaps, addresses some of the concerns we've heard from the government.

The new motion text that I would be comfortable with would read:

That Transport Canada provide to the committee by January 15, 2025, the [unredacted] emergency response assistance plans and key route risk assessments applicable to the following rail routes: Prince George-Prince Rupert, Fraser Canyon, Montreal-Sorel, Toronto-Windsor; that the documents in question be provided in both official languages and considered at an in camera meeting of the committee to take place before February 15, 2025; and that the documents be kept confidential by the committee and committee members.

It's been expressed to me by some of my colleagues that I don't know what's in these plans, that what's in them isn't actually what I want to see in the first place and that I should just keep my nose out of it. That may very well be the case. I think the best way to find out is by seeing the documents. Maybe these documents aren't relevant to our line of inquiry, but they remain some of the key plans that protect our communities.

I did take the chance, over the past couple of days since our last meeting, to go on Transport Canada's website to learn more about emergency response assistance plans specifically. The website lays out in great detail what is required of those plans. I'll just read, for the committee's edification, a few of the requirements. It includes creating the potential incident analysis, or PIA. Companies' PIAs, potential incident analyses, “must include, at a minimum, the following four scenarios”:

Scenario 1: An anticipated release of dangerous goods

For example, a...tanker containing hydrochloric acid involved in a rollover...with no apparent loss of contents.

Scenario 2: The release of less [than] 1% of the dangerous goods in a means of containment

For example, a full DOT105J500W rail car inspected in a rail yard is giving off an odour of chlorine at the protective housing.

Scenario 3: The release of more than 50% of the dangerous goods in a means of containment

For example, multiple intermediate bulk containers...were punctured and are leaking in a road trailer that has been involved in a motor vehicle collision.

Again, that doesn't pertain specifically to rail. These ERAPs apply across the entire dangerous goods environment. The ones that we're looking for pertain specifically to rail transport.

It goes on:

Scenario 4: The exposure to fire of a means of containment that contains dangerous goods

I think that one in particular is of interest when we're talking about protecting our communities from industrial fires related to dangerous goods shipped by rail.

For “What to include for each scenario”, the companies that ship these products are required to explain the following:

the possible consequences of the release or anticipated release

the measures, organized by tier, to be taken in response to the release or anticipated release for each scenario

the persons responsible for taking the measures

In addition to persons who will respond on [their] behalf, [they may] include persons responsible for taking measures not identified in the ERAP. For example, [companies] may identify municipal first responders in [the] PIA.

Going on to “ERAP response equipment”, they have to list the availability of equipment and the type and amount of equipment that will be brought to bear in a dangerous goods emergency.

For “Availability of equipment”, the company must show whether it owns and maintains the equipment itself. It must “have identified suppliers where response equipment can be procured and delivered to the site”.

It says:

Plan for the worst

Certain incident scenarios may require more equipment than could be expected or planned for. If you own, maintain and replenish the equipment yourself, mention alternative third parties in the ERAP, such as other responders or suppliers that could provide additional equipment.

It goes on and on, Mr. Chair. I don't want to belabour this point, but if you go further on, it talks about “Fire response knowledge and skills”. Companies are required to lay out the knowledge and skills of their teams.

It also requires them to list the locations of those teams. There are response times that are required. They have to list whether they plan to deploy personnel by air to meet response times. There are all sorts of criteria around the deployment of teams by air.

This is a serious consideration for the communities I represent, because, to my knowledge, the nearest team is up to four hours away from the communities they would be responding to. These are the specialized haz-mat teams that would be required. That leaves the local volunteer fire department as the front line of defence.

When it comes to municipal fire departments and other first responders, there's a whole section of these ERAPs that talks about third party responders. The companies are required to list which responders they have agreements with and what capacity those responders have. This is a comprehensive emergency response plan.

I had a conversation with a local fire chief yesterday, and he described a scenario involving a road accident in which a tank truck had crashed and there was a release of a dangerous good. His department responded very valiantly and were able to mitigate the situation and to stop the release of the dangerous goods. With the emergency response assistance plan, you end up in a situation in which you have the transportation company and you have the shipper of the dangerous goods, and, in some cases, they end up fighting over liability for the situation. It took two days before the responsible party was able to visit the scene and carry out its obligations.

These are the things that we need to find out as a committee. It's whether these emergency response assistance plans are adequate, whether they're sufficient to protect our communities and whether the resources that are included in these plans are close enough to get there quickly.

We heard what I think was fairly alarming testimony from Transport Canada at our last meeting, about some of these high-consequence scenarios. They read into the record the very short amount of time that first responders have to evacuate people in the case of a serious haz-mat event in a rail yard. It's nine minutes and an evacuation radius of 1.7 kilometres.

When we're talking about specialized teams that are up to four hours away by road and have to get there in inclement winter weather, I think there are some very serious questions that people in our communities should be asking about whether these plans are sufficient. It may be that when we see the plans, they're much more detailed and much more effective than we think they are or than I think they are, in which case, I would find that very comforting.

I think the only way to know that is to see the plans.

We want to protect any sensitive information that might be in the plans, and that's the reason for the amended version of the motion. I believe that it achieves that by bringing it to an in camera meeting of the committee and holding it in confidence. If we look at this information and decide that it is in the public interest for it to be released publicly, we can choose to do that either in whole or in part.

Our responsibility as a committee on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of the communities we represent is to ensure that we get to the bottom of this question about whether the government is carrying out its fundamental responsibility to keep them safe and to regulate a sector that carries dangerous goods through the hearts of our towns and our villages.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I hope my colleagues will agree to dispense with this in short order so that we can hear from our excellent witnesses who are here today. I certainly want to hear from them.

I know I went on at some length—I see Mr. Badawey laughing—but this is really serious stuff, and I think we need to see the documents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

I have Mr. Badawey on the list. He is followed by Mr. Rogers and then by Mr. Vis.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought it was comical, Taylor, because you wanted to dispense with this quickly, and you just...but I understand your passion on it, and I appreciate that.

I do want to say a few things.

There is no question that we support, in principle, the direction that Mr. Bachrach has taken here. I have concerns with respect to this information getting out to the public. I think those concerns have to do with the sensitivity vis-à-vis the risk of some of the materials that are being carried, whether it be on a train or a ship, and the availability of that information, adding to the possibility of things happening that we don't want to happen based on what those railcars or ships are carrying. Especially in today's climate, at times, it's something that can be a double-edged sword. I think all of you recognize what I'm saying with respect to that.

For the most part, looking at our CERTs, our community emergency response teams, as a former mayor, I was appreciative of the process. That process isn't up to the mayor to facilitate. It's up to the emergency response team, usually headed by the fire chief in smaller municipalities. In bigger municipalities, it could be someone more dedicated to that position alone. We do have a fire chief here today, and I'm looking forward to hearing his comments with respect to that in particular, as they relate the “how” to the “what”.

How would you respond to the “what”, which is any individual situation that may arise in your jurisdiction?

We look at ERAP, the emergency response assistance plan. I would assume that all the particulars of ERAP, which is what the member is asking for, are already well known by fire chiefs across the nation. In fact, it's what they put in place when they put together their emergency preparedness plans, as well as the response to those plans when the mayor declares a state of emergency within their jurisdiction. Once that happens, the chief brings the team together. That will include all the emergency responders, whether they be fire, ambulance or police. The list goes on with respect to those who look after infrastructure and every aspect of what an emergency would otherwise attach to.

Of course, the emergency responder who is leading that team will then put into place the protocols they would have contained within their emergency plan. This is usually in a big red, blue, white or black book that they put in place based on what they've been taught, trained on and are ready to put in place according to that declaration of an emergency.

Going to the motion at hand—and I'll put my parliamentary secretary of transport hat on—the concern that I have is the time. We're talking about documents that can equal up to about 30,000 pages and have to be translated as well. Frankly, that's not going to happen before January 15. That's just the reality of it.

At the same time, I want the member, as well as this committee, to get the information that they want to look at. It gives us time, as well, to post that and then to ask the people who really count, the people who would be heading off these CERTs and these emergency teams, and to get their opinions on what the member is looking for with respect to what's in those documents.

Mr. Chair, I would ask for an amendment to the motion that would remove the deadline, so that we can provide reasonable time for the document collection and translation. We don't even know at this point how many pages the documents may be, but we're estimating a minimum of 30,000 pages. It's going to make for some good nighttime reading for all the members, and I'm sure you're all going to read all 30,000 pages. Otherwise, there's no sense in getting those documents ready for committee.

Therefore, what I would like the motion to read, and I can forward this to the clerk, is that Transport Canada provide them to the committee by February 15, 2025, so it's:

that the documents in question be provided in both official languages and considered at an in camera meeting of the committee to take place before February 15, 2025, and that these documents be kept confidential by the committee and members.

I feel, therefore, that we can have the documents presented to us in both official languages. Of course, from there, it will give some time for the committee to read the 30,000-plus pages that you're asking for.

I'll say in conclusion, Mr. Chair, that I was one of the people Mr. Bachrach was referring to in terms of asking him to allow this, but it was more to ask him to sit down with Transport Canada first to get a bit more granular on the pages that are required in terms of the information, so we're not asking the committee to read through 30,000 pages, of which only maybe 3,000 are relevant to what Mr. Bachrach's looking for. It makes it easier on members of the committee; however, I wasn't afforded that.

Again, we're going to need a bit of time to get our team to put together those 30,000 pages and, of course, the process for members of the committee to digest those 30,000 pages and then make reasonable responses to them. Then, of course, we need to allow the analysts to get our responses to that and add them into the final report and, of course, look for the recommendations that will come out of the committee based on that report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

I'll go to Mr. Rogers now.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, when Mr. Bachrach read the motion, I thought I heard him say “unredacted copies”, but I don't see it in the written form here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

I'm just going to confer with the clerk.

The clerk has just confirmed that it doesn't have to say “unredacted”. It's just assumed that it's unredacted, and we're okay with that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.

I'll now go to Mr. Vis.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think there's more consensus than disagreement around the table today, from what I'm hearing, which is positive. In respect to Mr. Badawey's comments about 30,000 pages, indeed, the way I interpret these documents is that they're plans of action.

It would be very hard for me to understand how some of the transportation companies in our country are operationalizing 30,000-page documents. Mr. Badawey mentioned that perhaps there are certain portions of the plans that are more relevant to our line of questioning from the last meeting.

I simply ask if he could provide those details to us now, because I'm assuming he, as the parliamentary secretary for transportation, has looked into this since our last meeting, in that he referenced it. I would like further comments on that, so that, specifically, when we get the 30,000 pages of documents, we're going to know where to go to find those operationalization plans.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

I'm supposed to go to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

However, before I do that, let me ask Mr. Badawey to answer the question.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd be here for three days to go through every plan and every assessment, but I'll say this. Basically, I'll say that the brunt and the majority of the.... I'd consider 30,000, by the way, Mr. Vis, to be a minimum; it could be up to 90,000.

It's not so much the emergency assistance plans. It's more the key root risk assessments, and there are many of them, so you're going to have a lot of key root risk assessments to go through, which then drives toward the plans.

It's like anything else. When the motion asks for the emergency response assistance plans and the key root risk assessments, it adds up. It's more the risk assessments that would be relevant to the number of pages that you're going to be receiving and, of course, reading through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval is next.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague Mr. Bachrach for his motion.

To begin, I'd just like to reiterate the importance of our study on rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. In this context, I think that our constituents expect us to do a serious job and not limit ourselves to the surface of things.

Getting these emergency response plans would allow us to see what the government and railway companies are doing. It would also allow us to see how things work, concretely. Finally, it would allow us to better understand their work and the risks on the ground.

Let's say I have an opportunity to get emergency response plans for my riding, I shouldn't pass them up. As a member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to seize this opportunity because it's important for me to defend the interests of my constituents, as it is for everyone here. In theory, I don't mind having that data available to municipal fire chiefs, but I think it's also a team effort. In my opinion, it's the committee’s job to gather all the necessary information.

With respect to Mr. Badawey’s amendment, I'd like to say that I'm completely open to the idea of the committee receiving documents. Afterwards, we'll be able to make more specific requests. However, I think it’s important that those documents be presented to the committee and that we have an opportunity to review them. This wouldn't pose a security risk, since it would be presented in confidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou Duval.

I have no one else on the speakers list, but, Mr. Lawrence, I think you wanted to also add some thoughts.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Hopefully, then, we can head to a vote.

I don't think anyone around this table is being unreasonable. I understand the government's apprehension with respect to certain parts of it that may be sensitive documents. At the end of the day, I trust my colleagues, and I also believe that Parliament is supreme, even above government agencies. It's our job—in fact, it's our duty and obligation—to provide that oversight.

As I said, I trust our colleagues. We'll keep this information confidential unless we agree otherwise. While I fully understand some of the government's challenges here, I believe that ultimately the oversight obligation of Parliament is supreme.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

Yes, Mr. Bachrach, I was going to go to a vote on Mr. Badawey's amendment.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just want to clarify whether my original motion from last meeting was on the floor when we began this meeting. Can I make a new motion? Do we consider that my new version of the motion has been duly moved?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'm happy to be the amender, Mr. Chair, if that eases things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I think the easiest thing is that, because we adjourned the last meeting, you reintroduce it. You might be able to.... Well, no, because you didn't distribute it in advance. Why don't you read out what you sent out to everybody? Then we can—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Perhaps you could ask for unanimous consent for me to withdraw my old motion. Then I will move the new motion.

I'll move the new motion, trying to incorporate Mr. Badawey's amendment.

We're going to get to these witnesses, Vance. Don't worry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We don't need unanimous consent to take back what you had presented.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. I withdraw my former motion.

(Motion withdrawn)

I would like to move the following, Mr. Chair:

That Transport Canada provide to the committee the emergency response assistance plans and key route risk assessments applicable to the following rail routes: Prince George-Prince Rupert, Fraser Canyon, Montreal-Sorrel and Toronto-Windsor; that the documents in question be provided in both official languages and considered at an in camera meeting of the committee to take place before February 15, 2025; and that the documents be kept confidential by the committee and its members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Far be it for me to add fuel to the flame, if you will, but are we not interested in also receiving the information for Montreal-Toronto, which also represents literally probably the most.... Oh, is it Montreal-Sorrel? It would be Windsor-Montreal, because Toronto goes west to Windsor, and then we have this gap between Toronto and Montreal.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, that's what I meant, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay. Thank you.

Is that in line with what you [Technical difficulty—Editor]?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay, but if we're going to go to that, then I'm going to throw in Hamilton-Niagara as well, so I'll add three more nights of reading for everybody on the committee.

Is that okay, Taylor?