Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 4 - Evidence, November 16, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, met this day at 6:32 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This evening, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications begins its consideration of Bill S-4, to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. The minister is delayed in the house for a vote. If you agree, we can start by having Mr. Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, and Carla White-Taylor, Director, Rail Safety Secretariat, give us a little bit of a history of the bill. Once the minister is freed from his house duty and his votes, we will suspend the departmental officials, if they agree — if not, we will still do it — and we will automatically go to the minister. The minister has committed to spending 30 minutes with us tonight.
Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, Transport Canada: Good evening. I will just give you a recap of why we are and where it began. Mostly, it started around 2005 when there were several high-profile accidents. The government at the time decided that it was probably appropriate to launch a review of the Railway Safety Act. There had not been one since 1994. Mr. Cannon appointed a four-member panel, with Douglas Lewis, the former Solicitor General and Minister of Transport, as the chair; Pierre-André Côté, from the University of Montreal and a lawyer; Gary Moser, a former ADM or DM from the province of B.C., and Martin Lacombe, who is a railroader with a lot of experience. They conducted 15 public meetings across Canada. They received more than 70 people and employees who came to make presentations. They received a total of 185 papers and conducted 81 bilateral meetings with all sorts of stakeholders, unions and companies. At the end, they produced a report called Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety, with 12 chapters and 56 recommendations.
During the same period, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities also conducted their own rail safety review, and they generated 14 recommendations. Altogether, we received at Transport 70 recommendations, which were all accepted by the minister.
How did we address those recommendations? The majority were what we considered joint recommendations, so between Transport, the industry and the unions. We created six working groups, and we separated the joint recommendations between these six groups. There was one dealing with safety management system, one dealing with rules, environment, proximity and operation, technology, and information collection, analysis and dissemination. On all these groups, we had representatives from Transport Canada, the industry and the unions. The six working groups have completed their mandate. Only two have to table their report next month at our next steering committee. Basically, out of 56 recommendations, the department has addressed about 46.5, because we only addressed half of Recommendation No. 5. Most of the recommendations from SCOTIC were adopted as well. Following that, a total of 21 or 22 recommendations led to regulatory amendments, so we have prepared the bill that you have before you.
We went through SCOTIC early this year, in March, and we had unanimous support from all the members for the bill. There were about eight amendments proposed either by unions or by the members of SCOTIC. They are included in the bill. That is the history of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now turn to questions.
Senator Merchant: Thank you. My questions are relating to safety. Regulated companies such as railways keep trying to get the courts to hold that if a company complied with the legislation, for instance, in this case, the safety regulations, then the court cannot or should not find the company negligent. The courts have generally rejected those attempts. I wonder if these amendments affect the way the courts have decided this issue. That is my first question to you.
Mr. Bourdon: To my knowledge, so far, there have been about 10 prosecutions since 1998. Would you have an example of a case? I am not aware of any case. It may happen from time to time that maybe we did not have the proper grounds to prosecute. I remember one case.
Senator Merchant: The issue is that they think that if they complied with the legislation, then they could not be found negligent. However, what if there is negligence there? The courts have not actually accepted this. That is why I was wondering.
Specifically, I come from Saskatchewan, and I know recently three boys in Montreal were killed by a train, and I know that there was a derailment in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, some years ago. There were lawsuits as a result. In North Battleford, Saskatchewan, there have been several incidents at the rail yards. I am familiar with litigation that has been going on. My question is whether the reports by railway employees to the Transportation Safety Board, TSB, or to Transport Canada will, first, be protected communication, so that they may not be proof of punishment, if they are protected and, second, be protected against admission in court to show negligence. In short, should they be privileged?
Mr. Bourdon: It is confidential reporting.
Senator Merchant: The conundrum is that if you do not protect the communication, then you will not get truthful reporting.
Mr. Bourdon: Yes.
Senator Merchant: If you do protect the communication, then the companies have access to this.
Mr. Bourdon: No, they will not. It is confidential reporting. The first amendment to the bill was that there would be a provision under section 47 that the employees could report those incidents to the employer without being disciplined, but there was an amendment put forward at SCOTIC that that will be reported to us. It is strictly confidential. We are getting that, actually. Not regularly but, from time to time, we do have employees calling us. We investigate, and at no time will we give their name.
Senator Merchant: That way you are getting a truthful report.
Mr. Bourdon: Exactly. TSB already has a program in place called SECURITAS and they work along the same line. Many times, we are being asked to investigate and we do not know who the employee is.
Senator Merchant: I understand. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have four quick questions to ask you. First, are there events that led you to consider legislative changes to the Railway Safety Act?
Mr. Bourdon: Yes. It started on August 3, 2005, following a derailment at Lake Wabamun when 800,000 litres of bunker oil and 88,000 litres of creosote were spilled into the lake. It was Canadian National. Two days later, on August 5, 2005, there was another derailment in Cheakamus Canyon, causing a sodium hydroxide spill. In both cases, all vegetation was destroyed as well as what was in the water. A few other incidents happened afterward and that is when the decision to review the act was made.
Senator Boisvenu: When was the last review?
Mr. Bourdon: The Railway Safety Act came into force in 1989. Section 51 of the act provided for a review after five years. The first review was done in 1994. A blue book titled On Track was published. The minister at the time, Mr. Collenette, ordered an internal study and the act was amended in 1999; however, the amendments were minor.
Senator Boisvenu: So from 1999 until today?
Mr. Bourdon: It is practically the same act.
Senator Boisvenu: Why was it not reviewed in 2005 or in 2004?
Mr. Bourdon: At the time, the compliance statistics of most companies were relatively satisfactory, but something happened and things accelerated and we decided to look at it.
Senator Boisvenu: Will this new legislation affect all railways, including regional and tourism transportation, which are developing more and more?
Mr. Bourdon: If we compare with the act that is currently in force, our jurisdiction is limited to railways that —
Senator Boisvenu: National?
Mr. Bourdon: Not national, but railways that have a Certificate of Fitness from the Canadian Transportation Agency. That is how it is determined that a railway is under federal jurisdiction. There are three conditions: crossing the American and Canadian borders, crossing provincial borders, or if it is deemed to be for the good of the country. Those are the railways over which we have jurisdiction.
When railway companies that are under provincial jurisdiction use federal tracks and are in non-compliance, we have to go to the railway that owns the track. For example, if Montreal's Agence métropolitaine de transport is in non- compliance, we go to Canadian National or Canadian Pacific. This act will change or will now require all railways using federal tracks to obtain a safety certificate from us. It does not change anything when they are on provincial tracks. The number of railways we regulate will therefore increase greatly.
Senator Boisvenu: Have you estimated the costs this could lead to for companies?
Mr. Bourdon: We do not have an estimate, but currently all companies must submit what we call a safety management system. It is probably the tool that will be deemed appropriate to determine whether the company has everything in place to show us that it operates safely.
Senator Boisvenu: I suppose that companies that were not subject to this before the act will have to be and that there will be costs related to that?
Mr. Bourdon: There will be costs, but they are really good safety management practices that set out the rules that will apply to them, because the rules sometimes differ from one railway to another. The regulations apply to all railways. They will have to show us that they involve employees in decision-making, that there is a risk-management system and that there is a system to report accidents and investigate them. It is a good tool, and I think everyone wins at the end of the day.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: I was concerned about the protection for railway employees who report to whomever in regard to safety.
Mr. Bourdon: We never tell who they are.
Senator Cochrane: The names are not released?
Mr. Bourdon: No.
Senator Cochrane: You said that, thank you. Will the establishment of this safety management system, SMS, create additional costs for railway companies?
Mr. Bourdon: Currently, all the federally regulated railways do have a safety management system in place. The provincial short line operating on a federal track will be required to put one together. We already have some that filed SMSs with us years ago to show how committed they were to safety.
Senator Cochrane: Will there be an extra charge?
Mr. Bourdon: There is always a bit of work associated with that, but it is good safety management to have such a plan in place.
Senator Cochrane: Are you not saying yes or no?
Mr. Bourdon: If I look at our experience with the federal railways at the time I was with Industry, most of the railways already have all those components in places. It is just to put them together in the same system.
Senator Cochrane: I will hold you to that one. My next question is in regard to amendments. Will these amendments affect regional public transit organizations that offer commuter rail services on tracks owned by federally regulated railways?
Mr. Bourdon: Yes, they will need to obtain a railway operating certificate.
Senator Mercer: Thank you both for being here. I appreciate the fact that you are getting a little more grilling than you probably planned on this evening.
There is a provision in this act for a railway operating certificate. I was surprised when I had a briefing on this that there was not a certificate before, similar to what airlines would have or I suppose bus companies must have.
Regarding the use of that big hammer that you will now have — the big threat of withdrawing the railway operating certificate — what mechanism will be put in place for overseeing and managing that aspect?
Mr. Bourdon: First, the railway operating certificate, which we call the ROC, will be defined by a regulation. When we develop the regulation, it will be done according to the cabinet directive on streamlined regulation, where the stakeholders will be involved at all stages. There will be consultation with the industry, so they will have an opportunity to have input into that regulation.
To answer your question, it will depend on how severe the situation is. To my knowledge, so far there has never been an event where we would have pulled back an operating certificate if they had one.
Senator Mercer: You indicated at the beginning of your presentation that with the two reports, there were 70 recommendations in total. Then I heard you say that 46.5 of 56 were implemented. I lost where the other recommendations went.
Mr. Bourdon: The ones from SCOTIC?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Bourdon: Most of them were incorporated. There were three or four where they asked us to come back to the committee to talk about the progress we were making, but since there was election in between, that disappeared with the former committee. However, the other recommendations are all incorporated.
Senator Mercer: I was having trouble with the math, that is all.
In modern days, we have been fortunate to have few incidents. One of the most famous incidents in my lifetime was the derailment in Mississauga in 1979, which launched the career of probably the greatest municipal politician in the history of Canada, Mayor McCallion.
In your opinion, if this act had been in place prior to that incident in Mississauga, would it have had any effect? If it would not have had any effect prior to the accident, after the accident would this act have been of some help in fixing what went wrong in Mississauga?
Mr. Bourdon: It is hard to tell because one of the fallouts of the Mississauga accident was the implementation of scanners for hot box detectors. They put more scanners in place so as to detect those hot boxes, which is something that probably could have been done with the act they had in place at the time.
Senator Mercer: Perhaps they did not have scanners in 1979.
Mr. Bourdon: I was in high school, so I cannot really remember. I just know they have more of them. That was one thing they started.
Senator Mercer: Another thing that concerns me about the bill, and I am supporting it, is this discussion of the fact that we need to have a method in implementing the Railway Safety Act. After joking about the scanners, I am sure there were not scanners then of the kind available today.
Is there a review mechanism that would allow you on perhaps not an annual basis but on a multi-year basis to review the regulations and the technology you are using to enforce and implement this bill?
Mr. Bourdon: Even the act we currently have provides all the flexibility to introduce new technology. Most of our regulatory instruments are through rules, and there are provisions under section 22 that a railway can request an exemption to the rule. Usually the way it works is if they want to implement a new technology, we are involved. They evaluate the technology and do the risk assessment. When they are done, they come to us, and if safety is enhanced or if it guarantees exactly the same level, we will allow the new technology.
Senator Mercer: Has the Transportation Safety Board had an opportunity to express their opinion on this current legislation from their perspective?
Mr. Bourdon: That I do not know. Maybe it appears at the end of the report. I know they got a full briefing from me on this bill. Whether they were consulted when the report was put together I do not know.
Senator Mercer: It would seem to me that these people will have to pick up the pieces when something goes wrong.
Mr. Bourdon: I know they got a full briefing on it.
Senator Mercer: I appreciate that. I was concerned about the consultation.
Mr. Bourdon: They were consulted as well.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you, Mr. Bourdon, for your presentation.
Are there any additional measures that you would like to see addressed in this bill that are missing or that would improve railway safety? Is anything missing that you would like to see included?
Mr. Bourdon: To be quite honest, I think this bill is very complete in its format. I am very pleased with it.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: For railways, contrary to aviation, in which after taking off the plane is not on anything, there is what moves and what is stationary, the tracks. The tracks are not necessarily the property of the railways. How does this bill balance the responsibilities of the owner of the stationary property, the track, with the moving railway car owners, those who rent their route.
How are the responsibilities of both balanced? Because I can have a good safety certificate, but what happens if the owner of the track does not do what is necessary?
Mr. Bourdon: In the case you mention, the owner of the track is a company under federal jurisdiction. In that case, the company must have a safety management system in place, and if another company uses its tracks, the safety management system is supposed to indicate the fact that someone else uses those tracks.
When we verify the system, we ensure there is a link between the two.
Senator Boisvenu: Are you going to extend the target clientele?
Mr. Bourdon: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: Are you planning a harmonization committee?
Mr. Bourdon: Currently, railways under provincial jurisdiction that use federal tracks must comply with federal regulations. The only change will be in accountability. In the example I gave earlier, if a railway under provincial jurisdiction is in non-compliance, we will have the power to go directly to that operator to request corrective action.
Senator Boisvenu: You are therefore extending the application of the regulation. I also saw that in paragraph 3.1(e), you are extending it to other areas such as the environment.
Mr. Bourdon: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: There will be a financial impact. If you extend your responsibilities, does that mean there will be an impact on human resources, and others?
Mr. Bourdon: That is a good question. I forgot to mention it in my opening remarks. After the reports were tabled, in 2009 we received $72 million over five years, about $15 million per year, which gave us 56 additional person-years. We received all the necessary financial and human resources for the additional work this bill led to.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Senator Boisvenu brought up an interesting aspect that I had not thought of before. A railway operating on someone else's line happens all the time. Where is the liability if something went wrong? If we have Railway X travelling on Railway Y's line and something goes wrong and someone is culpable, where is the liability?
Mr. Bourdon: According to our act right now, as we speak, we only have jurisdiction to the federally regulated railway. In this case, that would be the host railway.
Senator Mercer: The people who own the line?
Mr. Bourdon: Yes, the people who own the line, a line being used by another railway through running rights or through an order from the CTA. It is clear that this bill will prevail over any agreement between a host railway and another operator.
Senator Mercer: It seems to me this is a fairly risky undertaking, I suppose, with the two major railways in Canada, CN and CP. There is enough faith in that they have been operating for so long and they conform to the regulations, but if there are other lines that do not have the same depth of history in the country with operating a railway, what happens if someone defaults on this liability?
Mr. Bourdon: The only answer I can give is that we do not expect to have more railways operating. It is only a question of accountability to us.
Currently, all those provincial short lines operating on federal tracks use federal legislation, and it has never been an issue. The only difference now is that if there is non-compliance, we will be able to go to them rather than the host railway. That will not change.
They are already in compliance with this regime. They know the operating rules and are maintaining their equipment according to the same standards. It is not a real issue.
The Chair: I would like to remind the audience that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has begun its examination of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.
Next Tuesday, we will hear from witnesses representing Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and the Railway Association of Canada as well as VIA Rail Canada. On Wednesday, we will be hearing from a second panel with the Teamsters, the City of Ottawa and Transport Action Canada.
I forgot to introduce Mr. Bourdon and Ms. White-Taylor to our senators here.
[Translation]
We have Senator Verner from Quebec City, Senator Boisvenu, from Quebec, Senator Eaton from Ontario, Senators Greene and MacDonald from Halifax, more specifically from Cape Breton in the case of the latter, Senator Zimmer from Manitoba, Senator Cochrane from Newfoundland, Senator Martin from Vancouver, Senator Merchant from Saskatchewan and Senator Mercer from Halifax.
The minister is at his fourth vote. I do not know if you still have questions.
I would like to come back to the good practices committee. You told me that currently there is no committee that coordinates the different people responsible for safety practices.
Mr. Bourdon: A federal-provincial committee generally meets once or twice a year. This committee was created to have the most complete harmonization possible of rules and regulations. The Province of Ontario, among others, passed our regulatory regime in its entirety and most provinces adopted the same rules and the same regulations.
Moreover, we do work for six of the eight provinces where railways operate, such as provide inspection services. It is done with about the same standards we have, and there is good harmonization. It is important, especially when railways have to use federal tracks, that they speak the same language.
Senator Boisvenu: This committee will then continue to operate after?
Mr. Bourdon: Absolutely. Then, after the review of the act, we created the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, which meets about three times a year. The four unions participate, as well as representatives from Class 1 railways, which are CN-CP and Via, and also a representative for the Railway Association of Canada, a representative for the municipalities, and suppliers. There are about 19 of us in total and there are about 4 in my office. A representative for the provinces is also present.
Senator Boisvenu: How will this act allow both track and train owners to be more proactive and to prevent situations such as those you experienced repeatedly five or six years ago?
Mr. Bourdon: First, there is the obligation to obtain an operating certificate. Currently, when you want to start a railway, you have to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Senator Boisvenu: I thought railways were being closed down.
Mr. Bourdon: There are still a few. You go the Canadian Transportation Agency and obtain a Certificate of Fitness. The only thing they check is if you have enough money to cover damages. They do not check if you have good rules in place. The first tool we will have before allowing a railway to operate is the certainty that they have everything they need to operate safely.
In the current bill, it is not possible to give a fine. When there is a high-risk situation, operational restrictions are imposed. For example, if the track is not in good shape and the speed is normally 60 miles per hour, the speed is reduced to 20 or 30 miles per hour. If it is even more serious, we have to go to court. That costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time.
The two other modes of transportation, marine and air, can issue fines; so it becomes a tool that is somewhere between the two. This bill will allow us to issue fines of up to $50,000 to an individual guilty of negligence or up to $250,000 to a company. It will give us additional tools to ensure compliance that we do not have currently.
It will not be done randomly with inspectors walking around with notebooks. The budget already provides for people to be assigned. The inspector will examine the situation and submit a recommendation. It will be sent to a specialist. The fine will then be determined. If the railway company believes the fine is too high or not justified, it can take its case to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal.
The Chair: Is there a distinction between passenger transportation, traditional freight transportation and dangerous transportation? Is the verification procedure different for those three?
Mr. Bourdon: For operating standards, how the train gets from point A to point B, there is no difference. Everyone is subject to the same operating regulations.
If you operate a passenger train, then there are additional regulations, ensuring that passengers are safe in the car. This means emergency and evacuation measures and breakable windows. When you take Via, people near the emergency exits are informed.
Regarding dangerous goods, there is the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which ensures that cars are properly placarded and that, for example, if there is a derailment, there is an emergency plan that is launched immediately to contain it, if there are evacuations. There are different standards at some levels, but, for other things, it is perfectly harmonized.
[English]
If everyone agrees, we will thank the witnesses for their participation and testimony. The minister is at the fifth and final vote, so it will be a maximum of a few minutes.
[Translation]
Thank you for coming.
Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to order once again.
[English]
This evening, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is continuing its consideration of Bill S-4, to amend the Railway Safety Act.
[Translation]
The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, is here to make a presentation and then we will move on to questions.
The Hon. Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
[English]
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important piece of legislation. This bill, called the safer railways act, amends and strengthens the Railway Safety Act of 2001 and furthers our government's commitment to ensure a safe, reliable and economically viable passenger and freight railway system.
I would like to begin by saying that these amendments have been supported since the outset by all stakeholders. During the second reading debate on this bill in the other house, members of all parties shared personal stories concerning the economic and environmental damage and personal tragedies that have resulted from rail accidents in their own ridings. Their reactions to the proposed amendments were very positive.
I believe our shared support of this important safety legislation reflects the common desire to ensure that our national railway system — which is one of the most important components of our economic infrastructure — remains one of the safest in the world. The safety and prosperity of Canadians is of paramount importance for all of us.
[Translation]
Before going further, I would like to remind the committee of the origins and purpose of this bill.
In 2005 and 2006, a number of high-profile derailments in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia resulted in fatalities, serious injuries, significant environmental damage and negative economic impacts for railways and communities. Accidents such as these cause concern for the public and the government and focus national attention on rail safety.
Following these derailments, the Minister of Transport of the time appointed an independent panel to review the existing Railway Safety Act, identify possible gaps and make recommendations for improving both the act and railway safety in general.
Over the course of a year, that panel traveled from coast to coast gathering input from a full spectrum of concerned stakeholders including the railway companies and their association, the railway unions, shippers, suppliers, municipalities, other national organizations, other levels of government and the public.
The panel's final report, called Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety, was tabled in the other House by the Minister of Transport in March 2008. In their report, the panellists noted that although the Railway Safety Act and its principles are fundamentally sound, more work is needed, and a number of legislative improvements are required. The report contained 56 recommendations to improve rail safety in Canada.
[English]
The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which also conducted extensive stakeholder consultations, accepted the panel's recommendations and tabled its own report in the house in May 2008, with 14 recommendations, many of which built on those of the Railway Safety Act review.
We agree with the recommendations of those reports and have taken steps to action them through a variety of government, industry and union initiatives, and through these proposed legislative amendments to the Railway Safety Act, which are required to address key recommendations and enable many safety initiatives.
In sum, these proposed amendments to the act will improve rail safety in Canada for the long term. They are the culmination of two important studies and extensive consultations. They provide increased safety for Canadians and Canadian communities; economic benefits to the industry by decreasing the likelihood of costly accidents and delays; a variety of benefits to external stakeholders, including provinces, municipalities, shippers and the traveling public; and last, but far from least, support for a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment for all Canadians.
[Translation]
That being said, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities — the same committee that launched its own review of rail safety and made many of the recommendations reflected in this bill — has examined the contents of these proposed amendments thoroughly, and given the bill their unanimous blessing with only a very few minor adjustments. During its examination, the committee heard strong support for this Bill from a number of key stakeholders including railways, the unions and the municipalities
I would like to point out that the expansion of reporting options for safety violations was the only significant amendment made by the committee to the original version of the bill that was referred to them after second reading. There were seven other amendments made by the committee, all of which are minor technical adjustments and clarifications of definitions.
Personally, I think that is a very impressive achievement as very few bills make it through committee with such overwhelming accord.
Finally, the committee heard strong support to move this bill forward as quickly as possible so that we can begin implementing an enhanced railway safety regime that will clearly benefit industry, benefit labour, benefit communities and benefit the Canadian public.
[English]
By reducing the risk of accidents, we will enhance the competitiveness of our railways, increase the public safety of Canadians and add an additional layer of protection for our natural environment.
There is no controversy over the intent or the content of this bill. We all want better railway safety in this country, and this bill is the blueprint to ensure that we can achieve that.
These amendments are a priority for our government. In Budget 2009, the government affirmed its commitment to a safe, reliable transportation system by earmarking $71 million over five years to implement important rail safety measures and legislative initiatives. These amendments to the Railway Safety Act that we see before us today are the fruit of that commitment.
[Translation]
Since the launch of the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, Transport Canada has worked continuously with stakeholders through the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, joint technical working groups and individual consultations across the country to ensure that this bill will meet the needs of all parties engaged in the rail industry. The net result is a strong and forward-looking bill that will update existing regulatory authorities, bring railway legislation in line with other modes, and significantly improve the safety of our railways for the benefit of all Canadians.
This bill is not only essential, it is timely. Our rail industry is growing and increased growth means increased opportunity for accidents. We cannot let that happen. Both the railways and those using the railways are saying this bill is long overdue and needs to be implemented now. I strongly concur. One more serious derailment is simply one too many.
Accidents can always happen, but we have to do everything we can to prevent them, that is our goal.
[English]
The railways were the foundation of our national growth in the past and they remain integral to our prosperity in the future.
With your agreement, we can take a significant step forward to improve the safety of our railways, fortify our economy and infrastructure and further protect Canadians. Let us seize this opportunity to enhance the rail safety of our country.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. As you know, we have previously had the pleasure of asking questions of your officials, which means that committee members have already asked some questions, but I have the following people on my list: Senators Eaton, Martin and Boisvenu, who would like to ask you some additional questions.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Minister, in your opinion, which amendments to this bill are the most important ones?
Mr. Lebel: The accountability of railway companies is important, as is the fact that all railway companies, when they will ride on federal tracks, will have to be accredited, "federally" speaking. In the past, when there was a problem with part of a track which belonged to the federal government, whether it was a track used for public transit or for another purpose, we had to go after CN and CP.
But under this bill, we will be able to deal directly with those companies. We do not want to impose fines on them, but when there are reasons to be more rigorous in rail operations, this will certainly yield better results, and there will be less of an impact on the environment and, as a consequence, fewer accidents.
Senator Eaton: Let us talk about the impact on the environment. Which amendments will contribute to better protecting the environment?
Mr. Bourdon: It will be the obligation to produce environmental plans for Transport Canada. They will then be reviewed for compliance. As it now stands, there is nothing of the sort. There will also be amendments governing the polluting emissions of locomotives, and companies will have to make available data so we can see whether railways are in compliance with the regulations which will soon be enacted. There will also be stickers for equipment to certify that it is also in compliance. But the big change relates to the obligation to submit environmental plans to Transport Canada.
[English]
Senator Martin: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and to your officials who have answered quite a few questions already. As a British Columbian, I am pleased to hear about the focus of this bill and the necessity to ensure the safety of passengers and the goods that will be transported.
My question is in regard to the enforcement tool. One of highlights of the bill is added new enforcement tools. Sometimes tools can be too blunt, perhaps, or too sharp. Can you speak to the enforcement tool? Are you satisfied with what it will do and what it needs to do?
Mr. Lebel: As I said, our goal is not to use them, but they are there. I had a chance to visit your beautiful province this summer to meet with CP and CN on the ground and to visit their installations. They certainly do not want to pay any money for accidents. Now they understand where they are, and we are sure these tools will help us provide a safer service for all the population.
Mr. Bourdon: We talked earlier about the administrative monetary penalties, up to $50,000 to and individual and $250,000 for a company, but we are also increasing the judicial penalties by five. On summary conviction, an individual that was $5,000 will go up to $25,000, and a company that was $100,000 will go up to $500,000. On indictment, an individual was $10,000 and goes to $50,000, and a company used to be $200,000 and will go to $1 million. That is per day of non-compliance.
Senator Martin: It will definitely be an incentive to follow and ensure the safety, and to comply. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, Mr. Minister. Without wanting to be a brown-noser, I would like to begin by congratulating you for bringing your provincial partners on board in support of this bill, which is not always an easy thing to do, and also for having included the environment in it. This shows that our government cares about the environment. Congratulations as well for having introduced the tool of administrative penalties which, in my view, was almost unavoidable.
I will probably not get into the draft regulations. Canada is a very big country, and in my opinion, the railway industry should be the basic mode of transportation for goods, among other things, especially in light of the energy crisis which is looming over the horizon, and which will probably become a fact of life.
You come from Lac-Saint-Jean, so you know as well as I do, since I come from Abitibi, that there has been a huge drop in the transportation of goods by rail, that many rail lines have been decommissioned, and that they are being used for recreational purposes. I believe this is a significant loss of assets for Quebec and Canada.
From the outset, you said that this industry is really growing. In your capacity as Canada's Minister of Transportation, how do you see this industry in the future, and what role should the government play to make it more dynamic and strong?
Mr. Lebel: This may have been said a little earlier, but I would like to remind you that in 2007, the minister of the day had struck a committee comprised of the Honourable Doug Lewis, Mr. Pierre-André Côté, Martin Lacombe and Gary Moser. These people came from across Canada, and they worked on this issue.
What is clear, and this is the case in other sectors of activity, is that the cost of energy in Canada or in parts of the country, where the cost of energy is cheaper, is such that using certain types of fuel is more advantageous. These types of fuel are not used in other countries, because those countries do not produce them. When you pay two or three times as much for gas or oil in other countries, this makes it more expensive to drive a car, which many people still do, despite the fact that they sometimes have to drive long distances. I think that there is a cause-and-effect situation which will come about as a result of restricted supply in certain sectors. However, as far as we are concerned, we have already begun to raise awareness and encourage the use of means of transportation which will lower greenhouse gas emissions. We would rather focus on public transit and make it a priority everywhere, in every project undertaken by the Department of Transportation. This would include any announcements on the construction of bridges or other things. We want to maximize the use of public transportation everywhere, and we intend to use our infrastructure as a way to improve public transit.
A short while ago, we announced the appointment of a facilitator to review the transportation of goods — Mr. Dinning has been appointed for a six-month mandate. The purpose of this review is to help us to further improve railway transportation for people who use it to move their goods. We are doing all of this to ultimately provide better service, thus creating a win-win situation for both users and rail companies. They will be able to reach agreement on how to deal with eventual problems or misunderstandings. They will have a platform to work out and solve their issues, and this will improve our country's economy, it will promote transportation by rail, and it will decrease greenhouse gas emissions, which will be good for Canada's environment.
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to recognize the competence of your two officials, who provided exceptional answers to our questions.
Mr. Lebel: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: Thank you for coming. I know you had a vote and have been running through the hallways and everything, so thank you for that.
I am just wondering if you see any advancement in the need to cut back on transportation on our highways. Our highways are becoming depleted in lots of areas. Can you see more competition with the truckers going to, say, the railway?
Mr. Lebel: That is part of the question. It is true that truckers are a very important business in Canada. At the end of the day, it is always the users who decide the way they want to move their goods. We have to provide the best railway system we can, but sometime we can do otherwise and use trucks. We will always try to facilitate the use of the best way to move goods, but we must remember that, at the end, it is the users, the people who pay for the service, who decide which one they pick.
Senator Cochrane: I hope you will do a lot more advertising.
Mr. Lebel: We will try. Our two main railway companies are important in the deal, and they need a lot of advertising. They are close with their customers, so they are always trying to improve their business.
Senator Cochrane: With regard to the amount of money, $71 million over five years, have you allocated that amount to specific areas, such as save so much for safety, security, supplies and staff? Do you have that narrowed down?
Mr. Bourdon: Yes. Out of the $71 million, $28 million went to the Grade Crossing Improvement Program, a program we have in place that pays up to 80 per cent of eligible costs to upgrade safety at crossings. We assist municipalities and companies at high-risk crossings, and $28 million went towards that, which is about $6.5 million per year. It started with $4 million the first year, $4 million the second year, and then it went up to $6.5 million and it will stay at that level, plus the $7.5 million we already had, so we are close to $13 million to $14 million per year towards the Grade Crossing Improvement Program.
The remaining $44 million was for extra staff, 56 more FTEs. They were broken up such that 25 staff went to safety management systems, five for outreach, a certain number of engineers to help with the Grade Crossing Improvement Program, enforcement officers and analysts. It was all broken down according to the type of people we needed in order to fulfill this mandate.
Senator Cochrane: How many staff in total?
Mr. Bourdon: Fifty-six. There were 23 in Ottawa and 33 in the regions.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Lebel and Mr. Bourdon.
I would like to remind the audience that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has begun its examination of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. Next Tuesday, we will hear from witnesses from Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and the Railway Association of Canada as well as VIA Rail Canada. On Wednesday, we will be hearing from witnesses from the Teamsters, the City of Ottawa and Transport Action Canada.
(The committee adjourned.)