Transport Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me address my first question to you, Councillor Carra. I'm glad to see there's a chinook arch in Calgary today. I lived in Calgary for almost 10 years and I rode the LRT on a regular basis. That was prior to the Green Line.

One of my colleagues on this committee asked the previous panel about the interaction of municipalities and rail companies, and where that overlaps in terms of rail safety. From your perspective on municipal council, where do you see that? Can you comment further on that?

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

I represent the east Calgary communities of Ward 9. It is the home to a lot of the rail infrastructure and also home to CP Rail's world headquarters. I'm also one of the longest-standing members of council, now four terms in, elected alongside Mayor Nenshi in 2010. I've spent the last 11 years of my life developing a more robust relationship with CP Rail than the city has ever enjoyed. I would suggest that relationship is really like diplomacy, because they are effectively another government altogether that we have absolutely no control over and no tangible means for interaction with. I think there is a historic legacy of the thinking that we are operating mutually conflicting projects, with our building a city and their running a railroad. It's been 11 years of advances and setbacks, but I can say that we have a better working relationship with them now than we have had in decades, and that's due to actor-to-actor relationships rather than to any systemic framework that would really help to build the kinds of relationships that we need between our railroads and our municipalities.

That's a very key thing that needs to be addressed if we are going to accept the proposition that I put before you that the railroad is critical to our long-term success in a low-carbon future. When the railroad was established, the idea that the majority of Canadians would be living in big cities and towns was impossible to consider, but that's now exactly where the majority of Canadians live, and they need to have a much better working relationship with the railroad than we currently have. It can't be based on the suburban model of segregation. It has to be based on the thoughtful, mutual integration of this critical, continentally scaled transportation infrastructure with a whole suite of mobility choices.

I would encourage anything the federal government can do—as you think about rail safety and about the relationship to the kind of future we need to have—to consider and explore what kind of framework can be built for better relationships, because it cannot rely on actor-to-actor relationships.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I'm going to switch gears, because this is a discussion and a reference to the study on rail safety. I'd like a couple of people on the panel, if not everyone, to comment on this. When we talk about rail safety, one thing is that we've seen a reduction in accidents in the past few years, with less crude oil being shipped by rail than by pipeline. Pipelines are a safer way to ship natural gas and crude oil. We saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic.

What are your comments about the appropriateness or safety of pipelines versus that of shipping by rail?

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

I believe that some goods should be shipped by pipeline, because doing that is way safer than shipping by rail. Some things should be shipped by rail, and I would also suggest to you that the majority of things we ship are shipped by truck. The estimates are that shipping something by rail is 250 times more efficient and less carbon intensive than shipping something by truck. We need to create an apples-to-apples comparison to determine which is a more dangerous mode.

The problem with rail is that it's a point source of pollution. It's like when a plane goes down. That makes international news, but we know that people die in car crashes way more often. No one gets freaked out about stepping into a car, but everyone has angst about stepping into a plane even though it's a much safer thing. Exactly the same analogy can be drawn about rail.

We should absolutely be shipping things in the safest way possible, and we should also be wending our concepts of safety into climate. For the foreseeable future, until we reach a low-carbon or a zero-carbon environment decades in the future, we will be shipping energy products that are carbon intensive, and we should do that in the least carbon-intensive and safest way possible.

If you're asking me as a Calgarian, and a Calgarian who is very environmentally forward, to talk about shipping, I think that shipping by rail, in terms of chemical products and petroleum and gas, is definitely—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask a question of Mr. Isaak before my time is up.

You talked about fatigue management. I don't think we've talked enough about that. That's obviously important to rail safety. Can you elaborate more on what you talked about in terms of best practices you'd like to see, what Transport Canada has done, what Transport Canada has not done, and what we should be looking at going forward?

[Lyndon Isaak]

The big gap that you're referring to in the work-rest rules right now is that they're in a three-year incorporation. That's how Transport Canada designed them. We're not going to know the complete impact until three-plus years from now.

The fatigue management plans, we were told, were going to address the shortfalls in the work-rest rules approved by Transport Canada. We were supposed to be included in this process with the carriers. That didn't really happen. I believe that Transport Canada is going to reject the draft fatigue management plans put forward. The plans are very incomplete, from what I've seen.

We are hoping that with our input we can make those fatigue management plans much more robust, and cover off the shortfalls that currently exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.

I will now turn it over to Mr. Chahal, for six minutes.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to split my time with my colleague, Jaime Battiste.

As the member for Calgary Skyview, I have heavy rail. CP Rail runs right through my constituency. I have a CN line on the edge. I have the Blue Line, with high passenger-pedestrian use. The Green Line is also being built. Rail safety is extremely important for my constituents and all Calgarians.

Councillor Carra, you talked a lot in your presentation about climate change, climate action, land use, planning and practices. What are some of the best land use and planning practices that promote commercial and residential development in our communities, and provide community safety?

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

It's been proven across North America for the last three decades. The fiscal, climate and social challenges of the automobile-scaled city were identified, and we started moving more toward transit-oriented development. The reality is that public investment in transit infrastructure is the single biggest driver of tax base, walkability, climate action, social inclusion and social equity.

Your cousin, the minister of transportation for the UCP government, recently spoke, and it was a really amazing turn. She said that access to mobility and transit is a social determinant of health, which was a really refreshing thing to hear from a UCP minister.

We know this is true. Whether we're talking about regional rail solutions between Calgary and Edmonton, whether we're talking about being able to step off a plane and take primary transit to any destination in the city, or whether we're talking about being able to visit the mountains in Calgary with a Calgary to Banff train, we know this creates incredible value. It's very marketable, but it's also an incredibly climate-forward way to go.

Does that answer the question you were going to ask?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

It does, and I really appreciate your mentioning the opportunities for connections to Edmonton from my constituency and the mountains. The hub would be right in my constituency.

Before I pass it over to my colleague, Councillor Carra, when we think about the impacts of climate change.... We saw a devastating hailstorm hit my constituency, and there were floods in 2013, the same year as the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

Can you tell us about the impact of the floods in 2013 on our rail infrastructure and on the safety of Calgarians? What have we done to improve that, and can you also tell us about your role on the emergency management committee?

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

There is a lot to answer there.

Climate change is going to affect every ecosystem in Canada in a very different way. We are on a high-plains desert in Calgary and a river runs through our community that is 160 kilometres from its glacial source. The Bow River is one of the hardest-working water courses in Canada. It's 4% of the fresh water in the province of Alberta and it supports 40% of the population and a tremendous amount of our industry.

We know that as we move into climate change we are going to see more extreme weather events like the hailstorm that buffeted Calgary—and unfortunately saved its biggest hailstones for George Chahal's riding—and also increased incidence of both flooding and drought. In 2013, as you know, we got hammered by the flood. I think it's now only fourth in the most costly natural disasters in Canadian history.

One of the things that happened is that our rail bridge collapsed. What we are working on now to protect Calgary, and the economic engine and the engine of opportunity that it is, long into an uncertain future, is upstream mitigation. The federal government has generously supported SR1, a flood protection upstream dry reservoir on the Elbow River reach, and now we are turning our attention to the Bow River. We have plans at a much greater cost than SR1 to create a wet dam that will both serve as flood mitigation for the city of Calgary and really protect the city and all its critical infrastructure systems such as the rail, as well as protect us from drought, which is going to be just as nasty an occurrence on this high-plains desert that we've situated ourselves on.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Jaime.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Carra, just quickly, you mentioned that rail must play a renewed role in Canada. I believe that's something we need to do from coast to coast.

Moving forward, Canadians support a green economy. I've heard especially from Scotia Rail Development Society, which has been a strong advocate for green transit in my riding. I think one of the things you have mentioned is that rail is much better for the environment than other means, like trucking.

I wonder if you could speak a bit about how we could balance the important need to seek green and smart technology and the potential safety concerns they cause.

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

The safety issues associated with rail are very much like the environmental issues associated with rail. It is a point source of pollution, absolutely, and we have to make sure that we green that point source of pollution and we have to make sure that as we cluster development around the rail we're a lot more thoughtful about how we do that.

It's a lot like a highway. If the standard rule is that nothing can be built within 200 feet of the rail, you have a big distance of valuable real estate that is a dead zone. However, if you treat it more like highway engineers do, highways do not have barriers and fences along every stretch, but they do on curves; and where you could go off a rail, they do armour that bank. They have different and varied speed limits, because in some places, derailment or going off the highway could occur more.

You really have to create an environment that's much more catered to the environment. Setting things back in lower-density, rural environments makes a ton of sense, but when you come into big cities and towns, the urge to segregate is an old-school approach. The urge to integrate is going to be critical to a climate-forward and safety-forward approach. You have to develop an approach to safety that's critical to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chahal and Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Carra.

Mr. Carra, I was very interested in what you said about the communication problems that exist between municipalities and railway companies.

Municipalities in my riding complain about it too. They feel helpless when they see that railroad companies don't meet their demands or their requests.

It's as though railway companies had the power of life and death over everything. This is especially frustrating because citizens ask elected officials to be accountable for those demands. At the end of the line, when it comes to railway companies, we hit a wall. Citizens' frustration increases when they realize that elected officials are not able to get things moving.

Mr. Carra, has the city of Calgary experienced the same kind of situation?

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

Yes. I have massively, a lot. I share the frustrations of your constituents.

I would suggest to you that the current relationship between municipalities and the railroad is one that's based on unhelpful conflict. The understanding is that the business of railroading is essential to the success of the nation and that it is in fundamental opposition to the project of living well within a community. I think that if we reject that fundamental framework and suggest that these two projects are fundamental to our long-term success, then we need to build a different framework that responds to that. That is fully within the federal government's purview.

Communities and railroads would be more willing to work together if their relationship weren't precast as oppositional, but if it were understood that the success of both was fundamental. I can point to so many other places in planning where previous oppositions have been recast in the emerging world as actually being in each other's same best interests.

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

That brings me to the next question.

In your opinion, would it be relevant to review the legislative framework to add a minimal level of accountability for railway companies, or to require them to work with municipalities, which does not seem to be the case right now?

[Gian-Carlo Carra]

There has to be a much more collaborative environment established. Railroads would be more willing to come to the table if it were understood that their success is a municipality's success, rather than their being fundamentally in opposition.

There are still conversations ongoing today. There are dreams of taking the CP rail mainline outside of the city of Calgary and just bypassing the city, at the cost of literally billions of dollars that they don't have. I think it's to the long-term significant detriment of the city of Calgary if we're talking about a lower-carbon future.

The current legislation is based on mutual incompatibility. If we built a new framework that understood the essential role that both play in each other's success, you would find a better way forward for both municipalities and the railroad. If we try to give more of an upper hand to one or the other in a conflict-based system, you will see a lot of push-back from both sides and more conflict.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Isaak, in your presentation, you spoke of a certain incongruity that still exists today in the world of rail. Railway companies actually have their own police and lead their own internal investigations.

Has your organization had discussions with Transport Canada about this?

Can you tell me more about the reasons that make this a problem?

Have you gotten the impression that Transport Canada or other stakeholders you've spoken with were somewhat open minded?

[Lyndon Isaak]

On the issue of the private or corporate police forces that both CN and CP currently use, we haven't really discussed that a lot with Transport Canada. We would have to rely on a legislative change to the Railway Safety Act in order to either change their jurisdictions or curb their powers.

The whole history of the Field Hill investigation has been felt over the last three years, with TSB investigators coming forward and talking about the need for an independent investigation and for the RCMP to look into this. The fact is that when CP had their corporate police investigated, they said there was no liability on CP's part. Just that alone should tell us what the issue is.

I can't think of any other place where a body investigates itself. The rail police forces are something that came out at the beginning of the railroads back in the 1800s. Their powers and jurisdictions should have been curbed decades ago.

It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that they investigate themselves for responsibility, when we have our members dying. It's crazy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Isaak.

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

The remaining six minutes goes to Mr. Bachrach.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for your time today.

I have some questions for Mr. Apps. Thank you for your presentation.

To start, why was Kitselas First Nation in a place where it felt it had to perform its own safety assessment at what I assume was considerable expense?

[Chris J. Apps]

The decision was certainly a strategic one for a lot of reasons. Most saliently, the community observed the growth in rail traffic in the area due to, obviously, growing and industrial development. We also saw interest groups beyond other first nations in the region starting to voice their concern.

Kitselas is engaged on a bunch of these projects. A lot of them have rail components, so we've gotten to know them throughout the consultations around these projects. We began to grow frustrated at the fact that these significant aspects were not being assessed or incorporated into federal or provincial assessments.

The way we saw it, the cumulative growth in traffic could only lead to a greater probability of disasters. We knew that quantitative risk assessments were legally required for large-scale industrial projects. We had seen that shipping assessments were undertaken for marine shipping. TERMPOL studies had gone from a sort of honorary system to a standard expectation.

We asked ourselves why this wasn't similarly done for incoming cargo on rail. That fact, in conjunction with the recommendations from Dr. Shandro's report, really led us to do the study.

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

When the leadership of Kitselas First Nation received these independent studies and read their contents, did the contents of those risk assessments give the leadership a sense that rail transport through their communities was safe or did it raise significant concerns?