TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 24, 1998

• 1533

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good afternoon, friends and colleagues. The main portion of this meeting consists of information. At this point, we don't need to have a quorum, so we will start the meeting.

For committee members, here's something to think about in the down moments. We thought we would have witnesses tomorrow already. We were going to start pushing tomorrow. They backed off. We received six calls for witnesses wishing to appear. I will want your feedback. If they want to come to tell us they agree with the bill, personally, I would ask them to send us a note. But if they have problems with the bill and would like to share information, of course, we're anxious to hear from them.

Here's the proposed schedule. For Thursday afternoon, we already agreed to look at supplementary estimates and Transport Canada's performance report. That's on Thursday of this week.

We're reserving a room for Tuesday for 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Hopefully, we'll line up all the witnesses we need for Tuesday morning. If we need to have more witnesses in the afternoon, that's what we will do, with your approval, but if we can do all the witnesses in the morning, I would be prepared to go clause by clause in the afternoon.

• 1535

On Wednesday afternoon of next week, we are lining up a company from the United States on intelligent transportation systems. What's the name of the company?

Mr. John Christopher (Committee Researcher): Lockheed Martin.

The Chairman: They'll come to make a presentation to you with a video. It'll be a very advanced presentation.

These are the things we'll be talking about together at the end of this first phase of the meeting.

So now we are pleased to welcome again our colleagues from Transport Canada, Mr. Burtch, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Jackson, and Monsieur Gautier. We'll have a short presentation on Bill C-58. Then we'll invite questions from members after.

Mr. Burtch, Mr. Jackson, or whomever.

Mr. Ron Jackson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by first conveying the regrets of the minister, Mr. Collenette, who's unable to be here today.

I'm very pleased, however, to have the opportunity to appear on behalf of the minister before the Standing Committee on Transport for the study of Bill C-58.

This bill brings forward amendments to the Railway Safety Act. I believe these changes will strengthen a regulatory regime that has served Canadians well since its inception a decade ago.

In 1989, the new Railway Safety Act provided legislative authority to the federal government to set and enforce rail safety standards, and it made the railways responsible for meeting these standards.

Two in-depth reviews—one was in 1994 and the most recent one was in 1997—have confirmed the validity of the underlying principles of the act. In both cases, the overall safety of the rail industry was acknowledged. Each of these reviews also identified opportunities for changes to the legislation aimed at building on this effective safety framework.

The legislation in question, Bill C-58, is a combination of the former bill, C-43, some further amendments made by this committee, and a number of new provisions.

Bill C-43, which was tabled in 1996, contained provisions to streamline certain administrative processes, provide greater involvement for interested organizations in rule-making, minimize disruption caused by train noise in communities, strengthen and clarify federal powers at grade crossings, simplify and improve provisions for ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place, and clarify and strengthen the powers of railway safety inspectors.

Additional provisions were added to the bill, as requested by this committee, concerning testing exemptions, whistling cessation, and medical examinations.

This new bill, Bill C-58, which was referred to this committee last Friday, November 20, proposes the following new amendments to the Railway Safety Act. It creates a safety policy statement. It adds legislative authorities for safety management systems, reporting information needed to monitor railway safety performance, providing increased authority of safety inspectors, strengthening and clarifying federal powers at grade crossing, and minimizing disruptions caused by train noise in communities.

It also proposes to add a new enforcement tool for safety management system deficiencies, improve the consultative process, and streamline a number of additional administrative processes.

In addition to the proposed amendments addressed above, Bill C-58 includes an authority to make regulations restricting emissions from the operation of railway equipment. There is at present no such authority federally. The proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act excludes railway equipment.

Mr. Chairman, more than 70% of these changes were carried forward from the previous bill, C-43. The newer changes build on these, and as before, the process has included extensive consultation with industry, unions, and other stakeholders. These consultations resulted in a number of improvements, such as those for medical standards for persons in safety-critical positions.

• 1540

One particular issue deserves mention as you look at this bill. A provision in the previous bill with respect to the right of way of trains at crossings has not been included in these new amendments. I should also note that this item was not included originally when the previous bill, C-43, was tabled in May 1996. But it was introduced and accepted by this committee when that bill was dealt with.

The proposal to reintroduce a right-of-way provision in the proposed bill has obtained support from the railways and their employees. While the department is not in favour of the provisions—a number of concerns are outstanding, such as conflicts with existing rules and practices—we anticipate that some stakeholders will make representations to the standing committee to reintroduce this item.

Mr. Chairman, the minister reaffirmed on March 18, 1998, the department's commitment to establish a permanent consultative committee comprised of departmental officials and rail safety stakeholders, including industry and unions. We believe this initiative will complement and strengthen the existing consultative efforts that have evolved since the introduction of the act in 1989.

I think it's worth mentioning also, Mr. Chairman, that notwithstanding significant changes in the rail industry, Canada's current rail safety record compares favourably with those of other developed countries and other modes of transportation. The department has and will continue to work closely with industry and all affected parties to ensure that safety is not compromised.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I can assure this committee that Transport Canada is committed to a safe and sustainable transportation system in Canada. These amendments to the Railway Safety Act include the views of all concerned in assuring a safe system and will provide a modern regulatory framework as we move into the next century.

We're looking forward to responding to any questions the committee may have. My colleagues and I are at your disposal in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Colleagues, we'll start the round of questions. I'll try to keep the first round to around five minutes. Is that enough? Of course, you'll have the benefit of other rounds. We'll start with Mr. Morrison, and then go to Mr. Cullen, Mr. Keyes, and Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): I have three questions that I want to raise with you, Mr. Jackson. I'll do them one by one very rapidly.

The first one is with respect to the minimization of whistle noise. I have read this new act and its summary. I can't see any difference whatsoever between what's in there and the existing regulations followed by the railways. Can you please explain to me what has been changed through the passage of this act?

Mr. Ron Jackson: Mr. Burtch, will you—

Mr. Terry Burtch (Director General, Rail Safety Legislation and Program Development, Department of Transport): Certainly.

At present, what's happening is that the railways are subject to certain requirements for whistling at crossings, as we're well aware. There are administrative arrangements in place where, under certain circumstances, they can be relieved of whistling at crossings.

At present, there's no legislative basis to require that to happen. The act puts in place a process where, under prescribed circumstances—this means under conditions prescribed in regulations that are to be developed—if a location meets those regulations, if a community wishes to not have whistling, and if people have consulted with unions and other associations—they must stop whistling if all those conditions are met. That's the main difference.

Mr. Lee Morrison: So there's no plan then to change the regulations as they apply to the requirements for lights, bells, and bars before whistling can be stopped. That will be the same.

Mr. Terry Burtch: No, there's no requirement. This will be done through regulation, which means it will follow the usual process of having interested parties being able to consult on the actual conditions. But we intend for it to be the same.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay.

My next question was with respect to the omission of the proposed amendment with regard to the right-of-way crossings. Could you please tell us why you decided to take that out after the committee put it in? What was the rationale?

Mr. Ron Jackson: I'll try to answer, Mr. Morrison, in the sense that looking at that particular provision, there was and is concern that by giving the right of way to trains at crossings, it may conflict with other rules and practices that are in place. We're not absolutely certain, I think it's safe to say, that this legally is a situation we're setting up, but we have sufficient concern at this point that we feel it deserves more discussion and study before we would put the provision in. But it's a question of conflicting with things that are now in place.

• 1545

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): By you or by municipalities?

Mr. Ron Jackson: I think they are primarily rules and practices that we have established and that the railways may have established.

Mr. Lee Morrison: My last point is when you talk about security measures, under point 9 here, this would of course be in railway stations and railway yards. I'm a little concerned about what effect this might have on the carriage of dangerous goods. Railways haul some pretty nasty stuff. Would these inspectors have the ability to hinder their operations if they wanted to haul, say, concentrated sulphuric acid or something like that?

Mr. Ron Jackson: Mr. Morrison, it should have no impact on the carriage of dangerous goods. It's really setting up the ability for us to put security measures in place in the event we felt there was a threat to security that would require steps being taken, such as they're being taken now in airports and so on, to prevent unlawful interference with the railway system.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen. I have just two questions.

One regards the safety on railroads, as it relates to crossings and signalling. To what extent is that a function of the speed of trains? We know, of course, that the Lynx proposal, which calls for high-speed trains, is before the minister, and this committee reported on that. We understand their proposal calls for basically no crossings, or maybe one crossing. We also know VIA Rail has been pushing for faster trains. They're clearly not going to be in the realm, I suspect, of that middle range of fast trains before you get to TGV-type technology, but as we move to faster trains over the next number of years, what impact will that have on safety, crossings, signalling, and our infrastructure generally, and are you prepared for that?

Mr. Ron Jackson: Well, I'll try to start the answer and then I'll turn to my colleague, Mr. Burtch. Very definitely the speed of trains does have an impact on the safety of crossings, and the faster the trains go, the more the signalling has to be updated and improved in terms of giving adequate notice and so on. As you know, for some of the very high-speed trains and so on, there are no level crossings.

Crossing safety is something that's a very high priority for us, because certainly the majority of fatalities and accidents in Canada with respect to railways take place at crossings. We have a program in place that we are attempting to bring forward that would see a reduction in crossing and trespassing accidents by 50% by the year 2006. Any and all measures are being taken to improve the safety.

Maybe Mr. Burtch can say a few more words about some of the initiatives we have underway to deal with the issue of accidents at crossings.

Mr. Terry Burtch: Certainly. As you may know, we do have a program under this act where we can provide financial support to communities and others who want to improve the safety of grade crossings. That is a significant way of gradually improving the safety of crossings, where it's warranted.

As train speeds increase, we would expect railways and communities to ensure they're putting in place the technology that matches that. We do inspect crossings. We make sure those things are met. We are certainly planning in the next year to two years to bring forward some regulations that would start to lay out more strict requirements for grade crossing improvements.

We're also looking under this act at having provisions to financially support communities that wish to close crossings, so this will reduce risk of those low-use crossings. We also want to make sure we have regulations in place that may even restrict new crossings where the high-speed lines are moving.

So we're looking at a number of measures that will try to keep the numbers of crossings at high-speed lines down.

• 1550

Mr. Roy Cullen: VIA Rail is looking for more frequency and somewhat faster trains. We hope they'll be able to achieve that under some arrangement that makes sense for everybody. In their case, I can't remember the speeds they were looking for, but they were faster than they're going now. Would that have a very marginal impact on crossings and signalling? Have you looked at that? Once VIA communicates to you, for example, that at some time they're going to be running the trains faster, would you look at that issue then, or how would you handle that?

Mr. Terry Burtch: In a case like that, we would expect VIA Rail to come in with a full-scale operational plan of the new equipment they want to run. We think this new equipment they're planning to bring in is European in nature, if it's running at those speeds. Because it's European in nature, it doesn't comply with some of our existing requirements. They would have to seek an exemption from us, in any event, to run that equipment.

As part of that process, we would do a full assessment of the safety plan they had in place. It might mean that some crossings would need upgrading or would have to be closed. They might have to look at grade separations. Of course, we would also want to make sure we reduced as much as possible the likelihood of trespassing. As the trains increase in speed, it just increases the risk to people who find themselves on the tracks.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just on the heels of Mr. Cullen's question, any changes you would propose after doing your thorough examination would probably be made through the regs. They wouldn't need legislative changes, would they?

Mr. Ron Jackson: No.

Mr. Terry Burtch: That's correct.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Getting back to the question first raised by yourself and then a question by Mr. Morrison on what you attempted to do with the last bill and what you have not done in this bill, can you flesh that out a little bit for me? I'm still a little foggy on where you say there would be complications with other responsibilities, etc. Can you give me a few examples of why it was all right before and it isn't all right now?

Mr. Terry Burtch: When the Railway Safety Act Review Committee met to re-examine the bill and the amendments, they ran through another substantial review of it, and a number of other particular concerns were brought forward. For example, I'll give you two that come to mind.

The wording in Bill C-43 that was reported back out of this committee referred to railway equipment approaching a crossing. The use of equipment is a very broad term and can be interpreted to mean everything from trains to track equipment, right-of-way equipment, that sort of thing. We have a number of rules and procedures that certain types of equipment are not allowed to enter a crossing before they have actually stopped and been flagged. They have to give right of way to other traffic. So the word “equipment” itself causes a bit of a problem. It could be interpreted as opening up that field.

Second, there are certain rules. There's one rule in place now that requires a train, when passage is required at a crossing, to grant passage to people, for example, if a train is blocking a crossing because it's backed up. Right now there are rules that state you can only block it for five minutes if someone needs passage. After that you have to break the train apart or do something. There was a concern that this might be viewed as superseding that rule by just the blanket statement “the trains have right of way”. Those were the concerns the specific wording raised.

Mr. Stan Keyes: If the railways were to come to us as proponents of changes to the bill—because with the chairman's wise reflection, hopefully we won't get a deluge of people coming before us to tell us what a great bill it is and get on with this job finally—and propose some suggestions on how to deal with the equipment issue and the definition or with the train sets blocking, we could still allow for the greater good to the original intention of what the railways want to happen with their right at the crossing. I would imagine you have more than two issues. Are they aware of all your issues so they can deal with them, so when they come to the table we'll be prepared to say yes or no?

Mr. Ron Jackson: We have been discussing our concerns with the railways, who of course advanced the proposition in the first instance. We're coming to a closer understanding in terms of how to circumscribe this particular issue in a way that might be satisfactory.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Will we see it in time for a government amendment to the bill at clause-by-clause?

Mr. Ron Jackson: We should be able to work something out.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1535

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague mentioned whistles, and I happen to be the recipient of many phone calls from a small village that was actually outside of my constituency, Wilcox, Saskatchewan. I don't know if you're aware of that one, but it was rather humourous. It had nothing to do with safety; it sounded like there was a little annoyance going on, or whatever.

Some time ago both railways started a program of putting taping on the side of their cars. Perhaps you could just comment on the success of that and whether it's finished its trial run.

The other thing I want to mention that really concerns me is I have two small cities in my constituency, and in about two years there'll be absolutely no reason whatsoever for the trains to go smack bang through the middle of both of those cities.

You mentioned the five-minute crossing stoppage. It so happens that I have timed them, and in many cases they go over the five minutes. But that's not my biggest concern. My biggest concern in both of those cities is they can block both crossings with one train. When the fire siren starts and the train is sitting there, five minutes is a long time to wait.

When those final two elevators come down, there will be no freight reason or no reason whatsoever for the train to go through. For safety sake, I have no question you're going to get requests to move those tracks around the city. What shall we tell them? Is that going to be the practice of the railway to do so for safety reasons, or are you going to have to have some extra push before shove comes, or whatever?

Mr. Terry Burtch: I'll take your first question on the taping of cars. That program started a long time ago and it was mostly to put reflectors on the sides of most rail cars. That program has been in place for probably well over 30 years on a gradual basis. Most cars now have them. The general effectiveness of it is not all that clear. Quite often they get dirty and it's hard to maintain them. There has been an increase recently in the amount of reflective taping that's going on certain types of cars, but it has not been a large enough sample for anybody to determine how effective it is.

We are aware research studies have recently been completed in the United States at a place called the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. They have just put out a report, which I haven't read so I can't comment on it, but we could certainly make the report available to the committee if you're interested.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I'd be happy to get that.

Mr. Terry Burtch: The second question was the train going through the city. Going back to the business of blocking a crossing for five minutes, there is a rule in place under the Railway Safety Act. If a company is not complying with that rule we can be called upon. We can take action, and have done so in a number of circumstances. In most cases companies take action to try to respond to those concerns.

With respect to whether the train would have to go through the city, unless we could identify a particular safety threat with the train continuing to go through the city, we would not force them to move under normal circumstances, under an act like this. We would have to demonstrate a safety problem. It might be a better operation and it might suit them fine, but my sense is the railway would want to have an opportunity to negotiate that with the local community, perhaps the province and others. They would not undertake that investment if it were not for safety reasons, unless they had a chance to negotiate it with all interested parties.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Will that report be made available through the clerk to all committee members?

Mr. Terry Burtch: Yes.

The Chairman: We appreciate that.

Monsieur Mercier.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Chairman, my question is with regard to subsection 19(1) of Bill C-58, which amends subsection 24(1) of the current legislation. Allow me to read an excerpt:

24.(1) The Governor-in-Council may make regulations

f.(1) respecting the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations;

I have two questions. First of all, with this provision, is the government giving itself the power to make regulations of a general nature or is it giving itself the power to order a given municipality to do specific work in a specific place?

• 1600

[English]

Mr. Terry Burtch: The purpose of this provision under the act is to allow for a regulation that would govern the construction, alteration, and maintenance of roads in general. It would be a general regulation under the act. It would not deal with specific locations. Any location meeting those conditions would have to meet the requirements.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: My second question is as follows. This could bring about significant costs for municipalities and the provinces. Who will cover those costs; the municipalities or the federal government?

[English]

Mr. Terry Burtch: The requirement to do some work would be covered by the regulation. Typically, this regulation would specify the impact of the regulation in terms of costs and associated benefits. In most cases, if it required certain changes to a road, the municipality or the authority owning the road would have to bear those costs as part of meeting the regulation, in the same way that if we imposed a regulation on a railway to do certain things, the railway would have to bear the costs.

Mr. Ron Jackson: I should add that in making such a regulation, we have to demonstrate that the potential cost incurred by the regulation would be more than offset by the safety benefits the regulation would realize. So there would have to be a net positive return on the regulation being put in force.

The Chairman: Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Quite a number of members mentioned railway crossings. There are three cities in my riding, plus two municipalities. When I was a mayor in the city, we wrote letters to the railway people about blowing the horns at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. and waking up children. They stopped for awhile, then they started again. I think it all depends who the conductor is, but it seems some of them may hate people or something, given the way they blow that horn at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. I'm being funny, but it's really annoying to the neighbourhood close to the railway tracks.

I'm just wondering. With the controlled railway crossings, why do they still have to blow those horns as often and as loud as they do? Is there any way we can stop this in communities, especially for controlled railways?

Mr. Terry Burtch: The requirements under the law to whistle as you approach any crossing are general. You have to blow your whistle and have the bell going as you approach any crossing. What this new provision would require is that under certain circumstances, where the proper kinds of controls were in place, where there was no history of trespassing, where it was effectively a low-risk area, then a railway could stop blowing its whistle. This is the intent. The whistle is there to provide an extra warning, not just to people crossing the roads but also pedestrians. There may also be people straying too close to the tracks. This is why it was always put in there.

Now, the purpose of this provision is to provide a legislative and regulatory base for the fact that you will stop whistling when certain safety requirements are met. It would be the obligation of a railway to no longer whistle if safety was met.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you very much. Those are all the questions I have.

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a question of safety and whose responsibility it is in situations such as we have in many, many parts of this country. We have rural roads crossing railroads, not provincial highways. We have company roads, farmers, and logging companies. We have so many logging companies in northwestern Ontario, where unfortunately we lost a young person last week when his truck was struck by a train. And we have three parties involved. We have the companies that own the trucks, as well as those that have cutting rights—the timber companies and the railroad—and I'm wondering about the role of the transport department. What are its responsibilities in each of those three areas, and how much responsibility does the transport ministry have for safety at such crossings?

• 1605

Mr. Terry Burtch: Typically, the responsibility for ensuring safety at a crossing is shared between the railway and the person owning the road approaching the crossing, or the crossing itself. The federal government does not have a direct responsibility for ensuring the safety of this crossing in the sense that the federal government doesn't own it. We have a responsibility to ensure those people who have safety obligations meet them. That's why we would do our inspection programs. We would work with them if safety problems were identified, and we would ensure they took safe action as required.

Typically, in a number of cases such as the ones you mentioned, it would be a private crossing, where it is not considered a public road.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: That's right.

Mr. Terry Burtch: This road is for very limited use. In this case, the normal requirements for our funding of gates, bells, and whistles would not apply. Usually, there is an agreement between the rail company and the operator of that road on how and when that crossing will operate. There are usually restricted hours of operation, and things like that.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Earlier, you mentioned funding for railway crossings where some safety devices can be put up, or whatever. Who can apply for funding? Who meets the criteria? What are the criteria? Can a timber company apply for funds from the federal government? What about such a company in partnership with a municipality, a township, another logging company, or three or four logging companies using the same road, so you have 200 or 300 trucks crossing that railway every single day on a private company road? Can they approach us for funds?

Mr. Terry Burtch: The present policy in the department is that it must be a public crossing and the crossing must have been in existence for three years before funds may be requested. Typically, if a new crossing is being constructed, we would expect it to have been built to meet the safety requirements of the crossing, and we don't fund that. We will fund it after it has been in existence for at least three years. If there is a change in conditions that changes the original requirements, then we would help to fund it. But we do not fund improvements on private property.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Define a public road.

Mr. Terry Burtch: A public road would be one that is owned by a road authority, typically, and over which the public may travel. A private crossing would be, for example, where an owner of a property such as a farmer, or perhaps the owner of a cement kiln, is the only real user of the crossing and needs to get from one side of the property over to another side. So the road is not for use by the public. It's meant only for a very limited number of users.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: What happens in a situation where you have hundreds of trucks crossing a road every day? These are huge trucks carrying timbers. As well, you have dozens and dozens of tourists going across the same crossing to a multitude of lakes where their cottages might be, or where there are resorts.

How far and how long is it before we get to the point where we say it's no longer a private road and public safety is our concern? We have so many hundreds of people crossing that railway crossing every day. Where is the limit?

We have public roads where we would be lucky if 10 people crossed in a day, versus some roads not classified as public where several thousand might cross in a day. Certainly there must be some guidelines, some criteria for making declarations of this nature.

Mr. Terry Burtch: Typically, what we would do is this. Where it is a private crossing starting to see increased public use—sometimes this happens—it may remain a private crossing. If we determine there is a problem or a safety threat there, we can still take action to make a railway slow down its trains when they approach the crossing. Or we can take action with that road-user community to put in extra protection. But we would not normally fund it, because it's not called a public crossing, and that's a legal definition.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, my questions have to do with safety.

I guess in addition to two passionate lovers stopping their car on a railroad track in a remote area and getting into an accident, there are two other areas of serious concern. I would like to hear whether you have any regulations in place for these.

One has to do with the hot boxes. They seem to seize up and create problems. You hear about them all the time.

The other one has to do with—I don't know what you call it—when the guys go and inspect the tracks. They go ahead, and they go up and down. I know the unions say you've been taking a lot of time away from the guys, so they don't get a chance to inspect the tracks. Therefore, the integrity of the tracks is a problem. Then you get a horrendous derailment, or something like that. Is there new technology that will help you with this?

• 1610

These guys are laughing about the hot boxes. I think maybe you should explain to them what that means.

Mr. Terry Burtch: That particular technology started to come into force after the Mississauga train derailment in the late 1970s. It was as a result of the fact that certain bearings on the freight cars were burning off, and that would cause a derailment. So those particular detectors are now in place probably at an average of about every 30 miles across the railway system in Canada.

What they will do is detect heat build-up on axles of passing trains, and they will send a signal to the cab of the train that if there's a certain heat threshold passed, they have to stop their train, get out, inspect it, and all that sort of thing. It is a system that has been in place under an order of the Canadian Transport Commission, so it's effectively a regulation. Those detectors are now in place right across the system in Canada.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: There's a claim that some people disconnect them. How do you get around that? Is that with the staffing or—

Mr. Ron Jackson: The disconnection issue, Mr. Jackson, had to do with the on-board detection equipment, and I think you're thinking specifically of the bigger VIA accident where the device that was supposed to detect heat in the axle was disconnected because they thought it was giving a false alarm. The detectors Mr. Burtch is talking about are along the track and basically read the wheels as they go by, as the train is in motion.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: That seemed to have caused a horrendous accident. But what I read about and what comes to mind is the fact that there is a detection system, and either it's disconnected or it actually seizes the wheel up, sheers the thing off, and creates a problem.

What about the other question I asked with regard to—and I don't know what you call it. In the old days I know they used to have a kind of pump. Two guys got on a little scooter type of thing and went up the tracks and looked at them. I don't know if you have a robot to do that now. How do you ensure the integrity of the system? Somebody has to do that on a regular basis, because of the way the tracks are.

Mr. Terry Burtch: There are track safety rules in force right now in Canada, and depending on the type of track, the speed of the track, and the condition of the track, they require that you must inspect it a certain number of times per week, and that is by actually going over it. Somebody must go over that track and inspect it for certain conditions, and that's specified.

In addition, the railway companies have a number of technologies in place that can actually find out electronically or through ultrasonic detection where there are flaws in the rail that are not visible to the naked eye. When they detect a flaw, they will mark it right on the spot, and they will call on a crew to fix it. They've been increasingly using that type of technology to detect flaws you otherwise couldn't see.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a couple of questions following up what Lou Sekora had to say about rail safety, particularly in urban environments. I represent the riding of Vancouver East, which includes the port, and like other members, I am just deluged with complaints from local residents who feel the impact of rail operations, particularly in the assembly yard and the shunting area. A lot of this has to do with noise at 2 or 3 in the morning.

I know this bill and the discussion today centres more around safety, but I noted that one of the things the bill talks about is increased authority for and strengthening the powers of the railway safety inspectors. It strikes me that's one area where we really need to have a better understanding, particularly when we look at the impact on local communities, because often local residents end up trying to deal with the rail companies themselves, and it's really a very difficult process. Often their headquarters are thousands of miles away.

So the question I have is in terms of issues around safety or noise, particularly as they relate to urban areas. Is there any provision in this bill or in the regulations that allows better scope in terms of the inspectors dealing with these kinds of issues? Citizens would then have the sense that besides going to their MP, there are also some vehicles or avenues within the department to address some of these concerns.

• 1615

Mr. Terry Burtch: With regard to safety, we will have in place the number of inspectors we need to deliver the programs that come out of this bill. It does have a few new powers. It has some new regulatory authorities and new requirements for safety management systems, and all of these things will require inspectors to make sure railways live up to their obligations.

With regard to noise and what you might broadly call nuisance complaints, there is no provision in this bill. That is covered under the Canada Transportation Act, and there is provision for the Canadian Transportation Agency actually to deal with those complaints and, as required, to make orders to deal with them.

Ms. Libby Davies: Does that actually happen?

Mr. Terry Burtch: Yes, it does. I think it's in section 95 of their act. But that's for noise and nuisance. For safety matters, it again would come under our act.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Power.

Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): I have just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Casey, who's the regular committee member here. We're fully supportive of the bill, and our caucus will be supporting it in the House when it arrives there.

I have just a couple of questions. How many accidents and fatalities are there per year relating to rail traffic? All these accidents, I presume, are at level crossings. How many level crossings are there?

Mr. Terry Burtch: We do have some numbers here, which I will dig out. In terms of crossings there are approximately 25,000 public crossings and about an equal number of private crossings across the country.

In terms of crossing accidents in Canada, there are on average probably about 325 to 350 accidents per year, and in terms of fatalities, it probably averages about 50 per year.

Mr. Charlie Power: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before we go to a second round, I want to thank Mr. Power for making his party's position clear. As chair, my main concern is to get this bill back to the House, and sometimes we're not sure where different parties sit, and at the end we find out we're all in agreement. It makes it easier for me when I find out earlier that we're in agreement or close to it, so I appreciate that. I know it's not always possible to do that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Let's move to clause by clause.

The Chairman: Talk about a door opener.

We'll now turn to the second round with Mr. Morrison, then Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I have a little question and a big one I'd like to ask. The little one is this. I'm a little concerned about the provisions for the closing of crossings. I can understand the safety reasons for doing that, but this would, I'm sure, include some customary roads that have been used for decades, and somebody is going to have to bear an expense if those crossings are closed. Is there any thought by the ministry as to how the people who would ordinarily use these crossings would be compensated and by whom?

Mr. Ron Jackson: There is authority, Mr. Morrison, in the new provisions for grants to be given upon requesting that a particular crossing be closed. So there is the ability there to provide compensation.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay.

Now, the larger question concerns short lines, which are a major concern of mine. If a short line operates exclusively within one provincial jurisdiction, and most of them do or will, does the Railway Safety Act have any bearing at all on that railroad?

Mr. Ron Jackson: I will let Mr. Burtch get into some of the details.

For a large number of the short lines that are within provincial jurisdiction because they only run within one province, the provinces have accepted to apply the Railway Safety Act as the safety regulations that will be used, and in a number of provinces they have in fact contracted with us or have entered into an arrangement with the Department of Transport to do inspections and enforce those rules.

Mr. Burtch, are there any other details in terms of the numbers and so on?

• 1620

Mr. Terry Burtch: There is not much more detail. There are an increasing number of short-line railways, a number of which are federal still. But for the ones that are provincial, in all cases except in British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, which maintain their own rail safety regulatory regime, we are contracted by the provinces to undertake inspection activities, and as a de facto part of that they have asked us to inspect against federal requirements. It is not a legal imposition on the provincial short line. The Railway Safety Act does not automatically apply to them, but it's basically that the province will expect them to meet the same requirements to satisfy provincial requirements.

Mr. Lee Morrison: In the three provinces where you say the provinces do their own safety inspecting, what would be the responsible agency? Would it be labour standards, or what would it be?

Mr. Terry Burtch: It would depend on the province. In British Columbia it's the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In Alberta it's the same, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, I believe, and I think it's the same in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Reference has been made to operating machines that would be a threat to the person's safety or health, or a serious environmental factor that would affect the person working by the machine as well as the people who live near the machine. I have been involved for quite some time with a safety issue of this kind in my community. I'm wondering how much teeth is there in what we're proposing regarding operating machinery that pollutes the air, for instance. What really can be done in an effective manner so that there's compliance by the parties concerned in order to protect the safety of the workers as well as the safety of people in the nearby environment?

Mr. Ron Jackson: I think you're talking about occupational safety and health for the protection of the employees.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Both the employees and people, for instance, who live near a railway yard where engines are running constantly for days and weeks. They never shut them down. They don't shut them down for months. They sit there polluting the air and polluting the residences. Respiratory conditions are developed by people. People have to move out of the neighbourhood and can't sell their homes because of this ongoing condition that has been going on for years and years and years. How much power do we have to fight the railroad in order to bring about the changes that are necessary to protect the health of Canadian citizens?

Mr. Ron Jackson: Perhaps I'll deal with the employee part first and maybe we can talk about the other after, because it leads into the question Ms. Davies asked a few minutes ago.

The employees of railways are protected under the provisions of the occupational safety and health regulations, which is a Labour Canada provision we enforce on their behalf that basically gives the employees of railways the same protection as employees in any other transportation environment, whether it's marine or aviation or whatever.

I think in terms of the second question, with respect to those living in the environment of a railway, we fall into the kinds of things that Mr. Burtch described earlier about the nuisance provisions—

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

The Chairman: Okay. Please continue.

Mr. Ron Jackson: The provisions in this bill will provide the ability to make regulations with respect to emissions, pollution, that would protect citizens living in the environment of a railway.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: My concern is with the strategy that's involved, one party's word versus another party, and I'm really concerned that the whole thing just gets bogged down, we get a nice statement, and that's about it. Is there a safety compliance order issued? Does the minister step into the picture and give a compliance order to the railroad? Could you clarify that part of the process?

• 1625

Mr. Terry Burtch: Again, there are two to three different ways of looking at that. If it's a safety-related matter and a safety regulation, we have all the powers in the act up to and including prosecution if there is a failure to comply.

Under this act we have the authority to regulate specified emissions, which would include things like oxides of nitrogen and things like that. By virtue of having a regulation in force, if you didn't comply with it then you'd be subject to the same provisions. You would have to deal with that and comply.

As for the question of those things that are not covered by our regulations, but would be more like the nuisance and noise concerns and some of the other substances that may not get covered under our emissions regulations, they are again covered under the Canadian Transportation Agency. Their provisions are that when they receive a complaint, they must respond to that complaint within 90 days, and they have a number of powers under their act as to what they can do. That could include putting orders if they needed to and felt it necessary.

Under safety and health, of course, for employees there is a provision to ensure compliance.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm familiar with that.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I have had the opportunity to watch the rail inspection periodically and so on, and I have also had the opportunity to talk to the people and have an inside look at what goes on. This is done on a regular basis. The reason I'm asking the question is my colleague and I are under some pressure to give up support for short lines rail-line abandonment.

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

Mr. Roy Bailey: Are we back? Okay.

The question I have is this. I see this on, say, the Sioux line, which is a very prominent CPR line that runs right down through the middle of my constituency. If a branch line then becomes a short line through the various steps, would the operator of the short line be required to carry out the same inspection? If so who would they hire to do it? They certainly wouldn't have that equipment. Secondly, would the branch line have to carry the same insurance and public liability as the previous owner for the operation of that rail line?

Mr. Terry Burtch: If we're talking about a short line that is a provincial short line—

Mr. Roy Bailey: Right.

Mr. Terry Burtch: —the provincial short line would be subject to the provincial legislation. Federal powers would not apply to the short line.

Mr. Roy Bailey: They wouldn't have to have rail inspection?

Mr. Terry Burtch: No, they would not.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Oh boy.

Mr. Terry Burtch: I would make a comment that the provincial regulators would have to ensure that they are operating safely. As we mentioned earlier, there are three provinces we do not contract with, and these provinces have provisions to ensure safe operation of those rail lines.

For all the other jurisdictions they accept de facto our requirements. By contract we can ensure that they're complying.

Mr. Roy Bailey: What about the insurance and public liability?

Mr. Terry Burtch: That would be, I assume, covered under provincial legislation. They would have to satisfy the provincial regulators that they have the right to operate, and their legislation would dictate under what circumstances the licence was granted.

Mr. Roy Bailey: From where would the province gather up that type of legislation, which they've never had before?

Mr. Terry Burtch: Most provinces now are putting in place legislation or have legislation in place.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): With point 4, I guess it is, on page 2 of the background material, and I'm sure there are numerous references in the bill itself—Mr. Dromisky was raising questions with regard to regulating railway emissions—what I'm wondering about is what type of resources do we dedicate to this? My understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that railway emissions, in terms of the vast scope of emissions that can be put out by automobiles or other such vehicles, I imagine would be very small in relation to the rest of all the other transport out there. I'm wondering just what types of resources are devoted toward that type of thing and how you go about measuring them.

• 1630

Mr. Terry Burtch: At present we don't have any resources devoted to them because, of course, we don't have any authority to work in that area.

The way the railways are presently dealing with some of these specified emissions is by virtue of an agreement they have with Environment Canada. It's a voluntary agreement, and it essentially puts in place a cap on the types of emissions they will have.

As part of that, they have a standard reporting system that reports back annually on how well they're achieving those objectives and the steps they have put in place to ensure they can do it. That is, of course, monitored.

We would see doing the same thing in the short term, because by virtue of that agreement, they are providing certainly an excellent degree of environmental protection.

What we would see in the longer term, if required and we put in regulations that specified certain emission limits, would be on equipment at the state of manufacture. We would see that being resourced in terms of complying with the regulation, which would include some inspection to ensure they have the test records and that sort of thing. We would not see this as being significantly resource-intensive.

Mr. Ron Jackson: That would be similar, Mr. Anders, to the way the automotive industry is regulated in terms of emissions, where there are levels established for new vehicles when they are produced, and testing is done to ensure they meet those levels.

Mr. Rob Anders: What exactly are you going to test? I heard a brief reference with regard to oxide emissions, but how much is there really to test with regard to railways?

Mr. Terry Burtch: In most cases, railways, as you pointed out, are rather low emitters compared to most other modes of transport. For oxides of nitrogen, they have a relatively high load on the environment. It is the one area the railways tend to stand out versus other modes. That has been the main feature of the work with Environment Canada, and that would be the main area we would test.

There are regulations presently in place in the United States that govern emissions from locomotives or other railway equipment, and they specify certain types of emission levels and have certain types of reporting requirements, test conditions, and test approaches. If and when we were to put in a regulation, we feel that would probably mirror that same regulatory requirement, since this equipment moves back and forth across the border.

Mr. Rob Anders: So just oxide emissions.

Mr. Terry Burtch: No, there would probably be a few others. I don't have the details on which ones, but they would probably have particulate matter. There would possibly be carbon monoxide. I'm not sure of the details, but there would be a list of probably six or seven types of pollutants.

Mr. Ron Jackson: As we indicated earlier, Mr. Anders, in the making of regulations that would set out these limits, this bill merely gives us the ability to make such regulations.

There would be a full consultation process and a review procedure to go through all the details of just what and how the regulation would be structured and enforced.

Mr. Rob Anders: I guess you can appreciate my concern when I ask you a specific question about what you're going to be monitoring, and I get back that there are going to be several things and you can only list one or two.

The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Just in reference to Mr. Anders' question, I think basically what would come out would depend upon the type of engine used, if it were a steam engine, or if it used diesel or gasoline. Usually, I think, as expressed here, there's sulphur, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matters, and water. And, as expressed here, I would imagine the place to examine them would be at the manufacturer's, who would have those standards. They are improving over time, I think. A lot of it has to do with the way you burn it—the combustion chamber design and things like that.

I think what I'm hearing from these guys here is they don't regulate that, and they don't have the resources to do it. Now, who does?

Mr. Terry Burtch: At the present time there is no regulatory authority in any federal legislation, and we are seeking to put it in here.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: To the department of the environment, you're saying.

Mr. Terry Burtch: Right now it's done through the department of environment on a voluntary basis. It is a voluntary agreement. We would probably keep that same voluntary agreement in place because it is working very well. It has a full reporting structure behind it. The railways are complying with it. Their overall environmental performance is improving. So we would only move to regulation if we felt we had to do so to ensure that progress was continuing.

• 1635

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Diesels have a tendency to smell bad. Maybe the smell is worse than what comes out.

An hon. member: That happens in the House.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Are there a lot of steam locomotives still being produced? I'm not sure what they're using.

Mr. Terry Burtch: No, but they are experiencing a bit of a renaissance, I understand, mostly for tourism railroads and some very small operations. They effectively disappeared off the face of North America for a while, but now they've started to come back. They'd be in very restricted use.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You people are no doubt aware that there's a new development in the size of the railway car. The capacity is 50% more, something like that. In looking at that and then thinking about the transportation I grew up with and so on, I'm wondering in the construction— I don't think we're at those in Canada; I've read about them in the States. Once they build that car there, it will come here, because they exchange these. Is there anything within this bill to control the size and the weight of the rail and so on to accommodate those new cars that are in fact going to appear on the scene? You know, we talked about the different poundage of steel. Those new cars are going to have to have a heavier steel. Are we ready for that here? Because if we're not, that is a safety feature, isn't it?

Mr. Terry Burtch: Under the act we have all the authority we need to regulate in that regard if we need to do so.

Mr. Roy Bailey: By just controlling the weight of the car?

Mr. Terry Burtch: If we had to do it that way, we could do so.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay.

Mr. Terry Burtch: But at the present time we would not see any need to do that, because as essentially an integrated North American industry, a lot of these cars are subject to construction and other specification standards prepared under a group called the American Association of Railways, which, the name notwithstanding, is essentially a North American technical body. It's basically to ensure that there can be interchange of cars. In order to do so, they also have technical standards on the type of rail that has to be in place and the type of safety assurance.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Braking and so on would be changed to the size of the car, would it not?

Mr. Terry Burtch: That's correct. They would have to ensure they had adequate braking, yes.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chairman: I have no one else on the list.

A voice: Good.

The Chairman: Before we close, I'll just read out the names of groups that have called in showing a desire to appear: Canadian Pacific, safety and regulatory affairs; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; director of government affairs with CN; United Transportation Union; Canadian Council of Professional Engineers; the Railway Association of Canada; and FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

These are not committed, confirmed, or invited. It's the list we're going from at this time. If you have anyone to add or any comments—

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Your wise suggestion at the beginning of this meeting—

An hon. member: Absolutely.

Mr. Stan Keyes: —to contact these groups to learn whether they have a problem with the bill and if they have an amendment to suggest they're welcome— If not, thank you very much. Send it in writing and we'll be glad to read it. I'll stack them up on the corner of my desk and get to them through the Christmas holidays.

The Chairman: Can we get a consensus on that point?

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: We have a consensus? We have a direction for our clerk.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Are we agreed on that?

The Chairman: Those who want to appear just to tell us it's a great bill can do it in writing, but we are very interested in anyone who has problems with the bill, of course.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Perhaps they could bring specific amendments with them and not just complain and then hope we're going to work out some kind of an amendment for them—the specific clause and what that amendment will be.

Mr. Roy Bailey: It might be a good idea if they send them in advance, because we'd have a chance to look at them.

The Chairman: They won't have much time, because we're asking them to appear on Tuesday—

Mr. Roy Bailey: We have what they call Christmas holidays.

The Chairman: —but we'll try.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's why they call it holidays, Roy.

The Chairman: Can we get consensus on the schedule? Tuesday morning we hear witnesses.

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chairman: If we need Tuesday afternoon we use it.

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: If the committee decides on Tuesday morning to go clause by clause on Tuesday afternoon, we do it. It will be your decision. If not, we'll do it on Thursday, because on Wednesday we're having a presentation from a professional group from the States.

• 1640

Mr. Stan Keyes: Is there something wrong with Tuesday night to do clause-by-clause?

The Chairman: I'm available.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Or would that be too close—

The Chairman: We'll make that decision Tuesday morning. That option is open to you.

Is that it?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: When will there be a meeting on that topic? This Thursday or next?

The Chairman: This Thursday, there is a meeting with the minister.

An Hon. Member: It's the other Thursday.

[English]

The Chairman: Estimates this Thursday.

Thank you very much for your information. Good luck on the bill.

The meeting is adjourned.