Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 3 - Evidence, May 18, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 18, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 7 p.m. to continue its study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order.
[English]
Tonight, the committee is continuing its study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the east and west coasts of Canada.
Our witnesses for tonight are the co-founders of Safe Rail Communities, Helen Vassilakos and Patricia Lai. I invite Ms. Vassilakos and Ms. Lai to make their presentations. Afterwards, senators will have questions.
Eleni Helen Vassilakos, Co-founder, Safe Rail Communities: Good evening, everyone. We'd like to thank you for this opportunity to participate in your important discussion on strategies for getting crude oil to market. We appreciate the essential role of crude oil in our national economy. We are not anti-oil, anti-rail or anti-pipeline. We are pro-public safety.
Safe Rail Communities was created in March 2014, after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. We are ordinary citizens deeply concerned about the transport by rail of dangerous goods, especially volatile crude oil. Our presentation today will remain focused on oil by rail.
My name is Helen Vassilakos, co-founder of Safe Rail Communities, an initiative led by me and my neighbour Patricia Lai. Our street runs parallel to the CPR Mainline, which runs through the centre of Toronto. Our homes are located within metres of the rail line. For us, Lac-Mégantic was a wake-up call. Before Lac Mégantic, we went about our daily lives without much thought about what was travelling through our communities. Surprising to us is that, to this day, there has been no judicial inquiry made into the disaster, which arguably is one of the most catastrophic disasters in Canadian history.
I operate a home daycare and Patricia has three young children. We are very uneasy seeing long unit trains carrying volatile crude oil while at our street parkette with the children. Our neighbourhood is not unique. There are thousands of neighbourhoods likes ours throughout Canada. Patricia and I began to research rail safety so that we could have a clear understanding of the issue. We were alarmed by what we learned.
First, the Transportation Safety Board had been warning for over two decades that the DOT-111 tank cars used to carry dangerous goods such as volatile crude oil and ethanol are defective and unsafe.
Second, there was a huge increase in the shipment of volatile crude oil by rail. In 2009, there were only 500 of these tank cars travelling across Canada. By 2014, this number was approximately 140,000.
Third, the public is not provided with vital information regarding the transportation of dangerous goods by rail.
Fourth, industry does not carry enough insurance to cover the true cost of a catastrophic derailment in a densely populated area.
Fifth, we discovered through our environmental petition to the Office of the Auditor General, submitted in January 2015 and responded to in June 2015, that the Government of Canada has not conducted any studies or reviews of the possible risks to public health and the environment with respect to the significant increase in crude oil shipments. It is our opinion that industry is operating under a broken business model that places much of the risk onto the public. We are expected to take on the risk to both public safety and the public purse while the industry profits.
After two years of intensive research and consultation with experts, we have identified reasonable recommendations.
First, set a safety-based standard based on maximum vapor pressure for the volatility of crude oil.
Second, ensure that all dangerous goods are properly classified.
Third, prescribe unlimited absolute liability for rail carriers and shippers of dangerous goods. Carriers and shippers must have sufficient insurance to cover the full cost of a derailment in a densely populated area. The cost is estimated to be up to US$6 billion according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Fourth, strengthen government oversight of the safety management system and increase the number of on-site rail inspectors.
Fifth, strengthen government monitoring and enforcement of train speed limits.
Sixth, increase transparency and accountability by providing real-time data about dangerous goods shipments to first responders and historical data to the public and by providing the public with railway route analyses and risk assessments regarding the shipment of dangerous goods by rail.
Seventh, phase out unsafe tank cars immediately. The latest tank car standard allows railways to continue carrying crude oil in unsafe DOT-111 and CPC 1232 tank cars for up to 10 more years.
Eighth, implement mandatory rail safety technology, such as positive train control, automated track inspection, dragging equipment detectors and automated railcar monitoring.
Ninth, implement independent risk analysis of all the factors that may contribute to a catastrophic derailment involving dangerous goods.
We strongly believe that these measures will go a long way towards assuring the public that dangerous goods are shipped as safely as possible and that Canadians will not be left paying the cost of any future derailments. We also believe that it's our government's responsibility to set the standards for industry to follow in order to ensure public safety.
Unfortunately, after almost three years since the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic, there remains much to be done to reassure families living, working and playing within our communities of their safety. Tinkering with the system will not be enough. We need substantive amendments to bring about meaningful change. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Senator Doyle: You mentioned in your presentation that there's been no judicial inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Why do you think that is? Why do you think there's been no inquiry to date?
Ms. Vassilakos: We're not sure. It would be expected as many other disasters historically have had a judicial review. There are so many questions still that the public has a right to answers for. I don't think we'll get to the bottom of it unless there is a judicial review or a more comprehensive review than the Transportation Safety Board report.
Senator Doyle: Getting closer to home, in your view, are there too many rail lines routed through or near the communities that you represent? Does your organization have any specific community proximity policies with regard to transporting oil and dangerous goods by rail? Do you have any such policies that you can tell us about?
Ms. Vassilakos: Do you mean with regard to new developments?
Senator Doyle: Yes.
Ms. Vassilakos: We're not urban planners. From what we understand, it's a 35-metre setback with the City of Toronto at this time. That's what city planning works with. We're regular citizens and not in the business of city planning. Our homes are within metres as so many communities were built around the rail lines many years ago.
We'd like to look at what can be done to make the transportation of dangerous goods as safe as possible for those who already live close to rail lines. Cities should take that into account when they're planning.
Senator Doyle: In your view, how well is the Government of Canada doing with regard to the inspection of rail and pipeline facilities as they go through your communities or communities that you represent?
Ms. Vassilakos: We understand from the Auditor General's report and the Transportation Safety Board's report that it's definitely not adequate enough. We have people sending us documentation of bridges that need to be looked at. We don't think that they're doing enough. There aren't enough inspectors on the ground, like the Auditor General had mentioned in his report. We'd like to see more on-site inspectors to actually look at what's happening on the ground, rather than paper auditing the safety management systems.
Senator Doyle: Do you have any views on the movement of crude oil by rail or pipeline? Does your organization have any views on which method is safer for your communities? What might be the best ways to move it?
Ms. Vassilakos: We're not the experts in that.
Senator Runciman: Thank you both for presenting to the committee tonight. I much appreciate it.
I spent about 29 years, on a part-time basis, living in Toronto, so I'm familiar with the CP line through the city. Of course, you've got the two main lines in the city of Toronto, with CN at the southern boundary and the CP line.
Have you done any research on how many freight trains run through the city, on both lines, on a daily basis or a weekly basis?
Patricia Yuen Yee Lai, co-founder, Safe Rail Communities: That would be something we would like to know, but it's not something that we have the resources to sit around and watch all day. We both have full-time jobs. Trainspotting is not something that we spend much time with.
For us, our homes are so close to the trains it's not hard to know when they are passing by, but, no, we have not done any formal research on how many trains go by. That is something we would like to know. We think that rail communities should know how much is passing by their homes.
Senator Runciman: Have you asked them, CP?
Ms. Lai: Yes, we have.
Senator Runciman: And they've declined to respond on how many freight trains?
Ms. Lai: Yes. That's an issue of security, they've told us, in terms of what is actually travelling by our homes and how often and when.
Senator Runciman: Who have you appeared before to make your case? How are you carrying out this lobbying effort with respect to train safety?
Ms. Lai: We are a not for profit. This is all on our volunteer time. As I said, we both have full-time jobs on our own.
But we are a national initiative. We understood that railways fall under the federal jurisdiction. We've done everything in our power to bring our concerns to light in terms of educating politicians, our local MP, and communities across the country that are concerned about this issue.
Senator Runciman: Have you met with federal officials other than a local MP?
Ms. Lai: We have, actually. We feel fortunate that we've been able to make contact with Transport Canada, with the minister himself. He was in Toronto during Rail Safety Week. So we were able to speak with him at a closed round table meeting in Toronto that week.
Senator Runciman: Have you taken a look at the issue of the length of trains, freight trains, if that's a significant factor in derailments? Do you know what I'm talking about?
Ms. Lai: Yes, we feel it is. It certainly can't help that these unit trains are so much heavier, with the infrastructure of the rail being what it is. We have lots of communities and citizens along the rail who send us photographs of rail that's in very poor condition.
Ms. Vassilakos: The length of the train was mentioned in the report that I had mentioned that was done by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the United States. They did identify the length of the trains as being of concern. It's the only risk assessment document that we've been able to find; there aren't any risk assessments or any sort of assessment of these sorts of things in any documentation here in Canada. They did outline the length of the trains being of concern.
Ms. Lai: Just to go back to your first question, we have appeared before this committee before, as well as the House of Commons standing committee, but that was with the previous government.
Senator Runciman: Just a stat. I'm not sure how up-to-date this is, but it's the one I came across. Up until the 1990s, the average freight train was about 5,000 feet, 1.54 kilometers, and weighed 7,000 pounds.
Now, on average, it's 12,000 feet, so significantly longer. Obviously, there are a lot of benefits to it from the railway company's point of view. For one thing, it reduces their labour costs by 30 per cent.
Certainly, that's something that we're taking a look at, but, hopefully, you can do so as well.
Part of the increase has been the lack of pipeline to transport oil. That's one of the issues, obviously the key issue, we're taking a look at.
I wonder if you've expressed a view on that to the officials you've talked to or even to Ontario officials, for example, who have been resistant to the Energy East pipeline travelling through the province, which would take some of the load off of the rail transport industry in terms of crude oil. If that's something you haven't looked at, perhaps you should be looking at it in terms of making your views known there as well.
Ms. Vassilakos: From what we understand, even if pipelines are built quickly, tomorrow, they would still require railway to ship much of these types of crude oil to market. Apparently, smaller markets need railway to get those to the cross-country pipeline. I'll guess they'll take some of the pressure off, but, from what we understand, even in the petroleum industry numbers, crude by rail is projected to triple from now until 2018.
So we really want to focus on making the transport of crude oil as safe as possible by rail. That remains our focus. We would hope that it's shipped as safely as possible by pipeline as well.
Senator Manning: Thank you for making the presentation to us this evening.
A couple of, I guess, exploratory questions first. Safe Rail Communities was created in March 2014. Can you tell us about the organization itself in some detail? Is there a membership? Do you draw on people from across the country? How do you communicate? Just give us some idea of the organization itself.
Ms. Lai: We're a very close knit community, where we live, and one of our neighbours came across an article — I think it was February 2014 — indicating that the train that crashed in Lac-Mégantic had actually passed through Toronto.
For some time, those of us who spend time in the little parkette, which is right next to the tracks, had started to notice an increase in the number of black DOT-111 trains so close to our homes and were thinking, "That seems odd that there are so many of these tank cars with markings that don't look very safe.''
But we sort of took it for granted that everything was okay. So when we learned that this route was the same route that that train had taken, we became very concerned. A few of us got together and started to think about what this meant. As Helen mentioned, we started to do some research and were alarmed by what we learned.
Very quickly, when we realized that the railway operations fall under federal jurisdiction, we contacted our MP — at the time it was Peggy Nash — and asked for some guidance to create our first federal petition and basically started by raising awareness around the issue, around what we learned, asking for more safeguards and more transparency around the transport by rail of crude oil.
Things continued to grow. We don't have a membership. We are registered not for profit. We have a board, but mostly it's around connecting with other communities, other community organizations, other groups who are concerned about this issue and who share our goals in trying to increase the safety and transparency of transport of crude by rail.
Senator Manning: Thank you very much, and congratulations on your efforts. It's always interesting to understand where you came from.
A couple of notes in your presentations. In 2009, according to what you've told us, there were approximately 500 of these tank cars, the DOT-111 tank cars, travelling across Canada. By 2014, this number was approximately 140,000; would that be correct?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes.
Senator Manning: Of these DOT-111 tank cars?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes.
Senator Manning: That is in a seven-year span.
In regard to the comments you made, for example, "the latest tank car standard allows railways to continue carrying crude oil in unsafe DOT-111 and CPC1232 tank cars for up to 10 more years.'' After they are deemed unsafe they are allowed to carry them for 10 more years; is that what you're saying here or am I reading this incorrectly?
Ms. Lai: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Manning: After being deemed unsafe by the Transportation Safety Board?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes, for the last two decades. The Transportation Safety Board, since the 1990s, has been warning that these are unsafe and not suitable to carry dangerous goods. In fact, they are defective.
Senator Manning: In your research or in your presentations or your lobbying efforts, have you been given any reason why that would be the case?
Ms. Vassilakos: In regard to why the Transportation Safety Board was deeming them unsafe?
Senator Manning: No, why were they allowed? What I'm trying to get to is the explanation. Have you received from anybody you have talked to an explanation of why they are allowed to use something that's deemed unsafe for 10 extra years?
Ms. Lai: No, we're wondering ourselves.
Senator Manning: I don't blame you.
I pass a lot of trucks when I drive on the highway home in Newfoundland and Labrador and a lot of the trucks have stickers or labels indicating whether they're carrying propane or oil or whatever the case may be. We don't have a railway in Newfoundland and Labrador any more by the way, we operate on trucks. Most of those trucks have some type of label in regard to dangerous goods that they are carrying.
In your second recommendation, you say, ". . . ensure that all dangerous goods are properly classified.'' Could you give us some indication of where the concern is there? There must be something that you have found that you're uncomfortable with the level of classification for. Please explain exactly the detail of that.
Ms. Vassilakos: The Transportation Safety Board had actually, in its report, mentioned that it wasn't properly classified. This very volatile crude oil didn't behave the way regular crude oil should have. Regular crude oil doesn't explode. This is extremely volatile crude oil that wasn't classified properly for its container.
Classification has to do with the type of product that it is and in which container it would be carried. The reason why we're concerned is because the Transportation Safety Board had voiced concern about it as well.
From what we understand right now, Transport Canada is working, along with the Americans, on reclassifying this very volatile crude oil.
The government had no idea what was in this crude oil. They hadn't classified it before it was allowed to be shipped in these containers so they're doing the classification now. They're actually in the process of classifying this stuff.
Senator Manning: They're in the process right now?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes.
Senator Manning: Again, did I hear you say you had the chance to talk to the minister while he was in Toronto during rail safety week? Did I hear correctly that you had the opportunity to have a round table with him?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes.
Ms. Lai: It was a closed round table. We were invited to attend.
Senator Manning: In that discussion, did the classification of dangerous goods come up for discussion?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes, and stabilization as well. As well, the minister invited us to come back and speak to the director general of rail safety and the director general of the transportation of dangerous goods. We did have a meeting with them last week as well.
Senator Manning: Do you feel comfortable in any way, shape or form that we're making headway here in relation to the classification of the dangerous crude oil that's being shipped?
Ms. Lai: When we see some output or outcomes we will, but until now it's just been discussion. We haven't seen anything yet.
Senator Manning: Basically you put the case forward and you haven't received anything back.
One of the things you have here is, "The public is not provided with the vital information with regard to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail.'' Getting back to my earlier point, many people in the public would agree with that statement.
In regard to the information that you have received in relation to transportation of dangerous goods, period, have you reached any level of comfort? If you're involved in this organization, I'm sure you're gathering more information than the ordinary citizen would. You're putting the time and effort in and, as I said earlier, you should be congratulated for that.
With the amount of information you are gathering, are you receiving more detail about the dangerous goods that are being transported?
Ms. Lai: In a word, no.
Senator Manning: That takes care of my next question of how you get this information out to other people, but if you don't have the information you can't really pass it on, can you?
Ms. Lai: No.
Senator Manning: The relationship you have with gathering of the information, you mentioned the people you talked to in relation to the government. When you're dealing with CP itself or some other rail company seeking information, how have you found that exercise? Have you been successful in your requests or not and, if so, how much? Give us some detail on that, please.
Ms. Vassilakos: We've actually written to both of the class 1 railways, both CN and CP, asking questions around the risk assessments, what their emergency response plans are and the amount of liability insurance they carry.
Essentially, they told us that they won't give us that information. CN did disclose that they have $1.24 billion in liability. Other than that, they really didn't disclose any other information.
We have five access-to-information requests in with Transport Canada as well, and both railways were asked to provide us with emergency response plans that they have in place and that information wasn't disclosed to us either, and neither were their risk assessments.
Senator Manning: It seems, to me anyway, it has to be at times a very frustrating experience that you're going through in relation to the fact of the information you're receiving.
If I were to ask you today, based on the information that you have, whether you gather it from government or the railways or your own personal research, what would you see as the number one priority for the Government of Canada to move on in relation to creating a safer, more environmentally friendly access to transport of oil?
Ms. Vassilakos: Stabilization of this crude oil on site, strengthening of the safety management system and the regulatory framework and transparency.
Right now we don't have enough information as citizens to make informed decisions. People buy homes on our street, they leave our street because they're afraid of this stuff and there are people who are buying the homes right afterwards, or moving into our neighbourhood, without having information to be able to make an informed decision.
Senator Manning: Thank you very much.
Senator Greene: Thank you very much and congratulations on your efforts. I have one small question. Can you provide a reference or a source for the phrase: In 2009 there were only 500 of these tank cars, whereas by 2014 the number was approximately 140,000?
It's such an amazing fact that it might be something that we want to use in our report. In order to do that, we would need a reference or something like that. Could you provide that?
Ms. Vassilakos: We could absolutely provide you with that. It's the Railway Association of Canada's actual numbers. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has documentation as well. Originally, they had the increased projected to be 510,000 before 2016. Now, since the subsequent downturn in the economy with crude oil, that number has changed to 182,000 approximately by the end of 2016. You can certainly find that information through both channels.
Senator Greene: I'm sure our clerks will do that. Do you know if those numbers relatively track the American experience?
Ms. Lai: No.
Ms. Vassilakos: The Americans have their own numbers. We can get that information to the clerk and they can share it with you as well. The American numbers are different.
Senator Greene: I'm sure they're different. Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald: I thank the both of you for your good work. You say you're ordinary citizens. I would say you're extraordinary citizens to take the time and effort to put this through. I want to remind you and maybe everyone around the table that it only takes a handful of good people pulling in the same direction to make meaningful change. I'm hoping that you will be part of helping us make some meaningful change. Thank you.
Your Safe Rail Communities initiative you began in February 2016. I'm curious, what was the response to your e-petition in terms of numbers and support?
Ms. Vassilakos: Our initial petition?
Senator MacDonald: Yes. Did people catch on and jump on?
Ms. Vassilakos: All of our paper petitions that we've had, we have had thousands of signatures. Much of it has been at events, door knocking throughout the GTA. We do have an electronic e-petition now online as well.
Senator MacDonald: Are people still responding?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes, absolutely.
Senator MacDonald: In terms of your e-petition, to what extent does the implementation of your recommendations you believe improve public confidence in the transportation of crude oil by rail?
Ms. Vassilakos: If all of the recommendations in our e-petition were to be adopted?
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Ms. Vassilakos: We believe it would go a tremendously long way towards having the confidence that any dangerous goods are transported as safely as possible. We want 100 per cent of what can be done to be done in order to ensure that this stuff is shipped as safely as possible.
Senator MacDonald: Would I be presumptuous in assuming that you share my position on the transportation of petroleum products, which is the safest, most efficient and cheapest way would be by the transportation of these products by pipeline? Would we share that position?
Ms. Vassilakos: We don't have expertise in that. From what we understand, it's going to be shipped by pipeline and rail. Regardless of which way it is shipped, we want it to be shipped as safely as possible. Our focus has been rail because all our resources have to go to rail. We lack the resources to look at pipelines in-depth. We really do lack the resources.
Senator MacDonald: You understand and appreciate that when it comes to shipping these products by pipeline, there's a public process we have to go through. When it comes to shipping these products by rail or by truck, there are absolutely no restrictions on this in terms of moving across provincial boundaries. You understand that?
Ms. Vassilakos: Yes, we do understand that, and we were made very well aware of that after Lac-Mégantic.
Senator Runciman: You were talking about transparency earlier. You mentioned neighbours selling their homes and others buying into the neighbourhood and not being aware. I'm wondering how you see that kind of transparency working. It's a safe assumption when you're talking about freight trains that there's going to be nitric acid, ammonia, crude oil, jet fuel. How would you see CP passing through your neighbourhood? What do you see in terms of transparency?
Ms. Vassilakos: We need access to what the real risks are. We had a family that moved a year after they bought their home. They could not stand living in their home anymore because they learned after the fact that there was a huge increase of this type of volatile crude oil.
People need to be more informed to make decisions around this. We could sell our homes tomorrow and that wouldn't solve a single thing. We would still have a problem. The problem would be left to the next person.
What we're looking for is an indication that our government is doing everything possible to make the transportation of these goods that we use as safe as possible.
I've lived in the neighbourhood for 20 years. I know dangerous goods are being shipped through. I just want to know the government is doing everything it can to make it as safe as possible.
Senator Runciman: I saw one other statistic here that should give you some degree of comfort. CP has the best industry safety rating in North America for 11 of the past 13 years. That's a positive for you to take away.
Senator Eggleton: I have read your statement, and I commend you for all the work you're doing. I live about three or four blocks from the mid-town CPR line. I've lived a good deal of my life very close to it, so I understand the concerns and I share those concerns.
When I was a member of Parliament in the House of Commons, I represented the area which line 9B passes through, which is up around Finch Avenue. It passes very close to the subway line. That's the pipeline, which is part of what is being discussed these days.
I want to ask you about Protective Direction 36, which Transport Canada issued just last month, and this has to do with the municipalities and first responders getting more data on dangerous goods. There has always been a controversy about how much that should be made public, the fear of telling people who might have dark motives in advance of what goods are being shipped on what line and what kind of goods.
How do you feel about that in general? How much beyond the first responders and beyond the municipal officials should just be left there as opposed to being made public? How do you feel about that?
Ms. Lai: The information that's going to be made available to municipalities and first responders is still historical data. It's still not real-time data. So it's still not going to be all that useful for the people who are going to be helping us. I think that was our biggest disappointment with that protective direction.
Yes, the public should know, maybe not right away, maybe they need to know the day after the fact. If we rely on first responders to help us in a crisis situation such as Lac-Mégantic, and they don't know what is on that train, I don't know how they're going to help us quickly enough. That's our primary concern with that protective direction.
In terms of everybody else knowing, it goes back to what Eleni was speaking of around transparency. We're not asking for the public to be told in advance what's coming.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. So you accept that the first responders and the municipalities, who have responsibility by and large for the first responders, the first responders should know in a very timely fashion and you think right after that the public should be made aware?
Ms. Lai: The public has the right to know what is passing by their homes. I don't think Eleni and I have talked about exactly when would be appropriate, but we certainly don't feel it's necessary they know in advance.
Senator Eggleton: That's fine. Thank you very much.
The Chair: One of the topics the committee is examining is the issue of social licence for large oil transportation. Basically it's more a question that relates to building of pipelines. Should proponents consult stakeholders like you?
Ms. Lai: I think they should consult us.
The Chair: How?
Ms. Vassilakos: Through public meetings and open dialogue where we can be part of the discussion.
The Chair: Have you had the opportunity to participate in some of the debates concerning the option of trains versus pipelines?
Ms. Vassilakos: No.
The Chair: Thank you. That's the end of the questions. I really appreciated your presentation. We're happy we could accommodate you by delaying, and we appreciate the fact that you participated. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, the next meeting will be on Tuesday May 31, when we come back, and we will be taking a break from our oil transportation study. We'll hear from the former minister David Emerson, who chaired the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel.
(The committee adjourned.)