[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
.1535 
[English]
The Chairman: Let us commence.
If the witnesses will give me one minute, we have just one other item of business.
Joe, if it takes more than a minute, we have to move on to the other stuff.
Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): I understand.
.1540
Mr. Chairman, this matter is not on the agenda, but as you are aware, in June I was appointed to do a further report on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway committee. This is a follow-up to the initial report that was agreed to by this committee. Once the report was done copies of it were submitted to the chairman, who was kind enough to have it translated on our behalf and distributed to all the other members of the committee.
I took some time today to brief a colleague who was not on the committee at the time. What I'm saying in essence is that the final report has been drafted and circulated. I'm sure it has been read very thoroughly by Mr. Gouk and his friends.
Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that the report be accepted and tabled in the House of Commons as a report from the Standing Committee on Transport. I will make that motion.
The Chairman: All right. You're making a special request for that right now. I want to know from the other parties whether they are prepared to accede to that at this time.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Comuzzi and I'm sure he did an excellent job, but before I actually endorse his report I would first like to read it. I've not yet -
Mr. Comuzzi: Were you not circulated that this summer?
The Chairman: Yes, everybody was circulated the report this summer, but I don't want to take any more time from this meeting to discuss that. If there's no consensus then we'll move on and bring it back before the committee at the first opportunity.
Mr. Comuzzi: Is there not enough to put it to a vote?
The Chairman: No, Mr. Comuzzi, I don't think that would be appropriate at this point.
We have before us Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, and witnesses from the Department of Transport - Mr. Jackson, Mr. Churcher, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Burtch.
Mr. Jackson, I assume you are leading this prestigious delegation.
Mr. Ron Jackson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Transport): I would like to introduce my colleagues so that you can put names to the titles. Colin Churcher is the director general of railway safety legislation. He's the person who's been most intimately involved with this set of amendments. Don Murphy is the counsel from the Department of Justice, and Terry Burtch is the director general of railway safety.
Mr. Chairman, the amendments as reflected in Bill C-43 basically stem from a review undertaken of the Railway Safety Act of 1988. This review was a statutory review that was to be conducted five years after the bill came into force, and throughout the summer of 1995 there were consultations and so on, culminating in May 1996 with a number of amendments that were tabled and referred to this committee on June 8, 1996.
The Railway Safety Act of 1988 is a very progressive piece of safety legislation. In fact it is probably a model for transportation legislation among all of the transportation modes in Canada, and is recognized internationally as a fine way to regulate railway safety.
As a philosophy, Transport Canada ensures that the rules that are in force in the railways are properly written, and we approve them. The railways decide how to meet those requirements and we monitor their performance for compliance. When we determine that the railways are not in compliance with the rules, we will take the necessary action to enforce those rules.
The statutory review that was undertaken made some 69 recommendations, and in the process of analysing those recommendations we accepted 60 of them.
I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Churcher, who can go into more detail with respect to the process that was followed in terms of consulting with our various industry stakeholders. He will also cover the substance of the amendments that are before us. Mr. Churcher, please.
.1545
Mr. Colin Churcher (Railway Legislation, Department of Transport): Thank you.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Studies on alertness of train crews have shown recently that this is not a good time of day for anybody because of circadian rhythms. We may all have trouble in maintaining alertness, so I'll be as brief as I can.
I was responsible for writing and passing into law the original Railway Safety Act in 1988. In 1989 I became responsible for the railway safety program. I was responsible for that program in Transport Canada until about 18 months ago, when Terry Burtch took over the program so that I could devote my time to looking at and writing the amendments.
Before I start I think one thing that's important to mention is that Transport Canada is not responsible for the safety of all railways in Canada. There are some railways under provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec and British Columbia. Although we work closely with the provinces, we have no powers over these railways. Provincial railways tend to use federal standards, but we certainly have no powers to make them do anything exceptional. We have no powers at all particularly over the railways in Quebec and British Columbia.
For a little bit of history, before 1988 railway safety was regulated by the Canadian Transport Commission and then later by the National Transportation Agency. It was a very prescriptive regime in which the government told the railways precisely what to do and how to do it. There are a couple of examples.
The Canadian Transport Commission in the late 1970s issued an order to Canadian Pacific about the sorts of bulbs they should have in the lights on a bridge over navigable water. They even told them the wattage of the lights they should use in the green bulbs, the wattage in the red bulbs, and the wattage in the white bulbs. In other words, it was very prescriptive. For every bridge that was reconstructed, they needed permission from government, and before the railway was allowed to operate at regular track speed, a government inspector had to inspect the bridge. Among other things this took a lot of management responsibility away from the railways. It also raised the question of liability. If the bridge had been incorrectly constructed or reconstructed, who was responsible?
In the mid-1980s it was decided to remove responsibility for safety from the other functions being carried out by the agency at that time. Accident investigation was split from it too. Now we have the responsibility for railway safety with the Minister of Transport, accident investigation carried out by the Transportation Safety Board, and economic regulation carried out by what is now the Canada Transportation Agency.
Part of the original legislation, the Railway Safety Act, required a statutory review. As Mr. Jackson mentioned, this was carried out during 1994. It was a review of the first five years of operation of the legislation. Last year we carried out consultation with industry. I see that many people you will be hearing from participated last summer in the drafting of the details. Bill C-43 was tabled in May 1996.
Here's a little bit more about the philosophy we use in Transport Canada. It's a four-part philosophy, if you will.
First, Transport Canada will ensure that the rules are properly written. We don't necessarily write the rules, we do have the power to write rules by regulation, but we do have a new feature that came in with the new legislation, under which the railways can file their own rules. A railway may create a rule on track safety rules, for example, or the operating rules. There is a procedure whereby railway labour or the unions are consulted before this comes to government. When the rule is filed with the minister, the minister has 60 days to make a decision. Once that rule has been approved, it has the same force as if it were regulation. What we've done essentially is to allow much of the way the railway manages its safety to be in the hands of the railway.
.1550
So the first part is that we ensure the rules are properly written, and we have powers to change any rules that may be filed. We also have powers to require the railways to file a rule on a particular subject.
The second thing is that the railway will decide how it can meet those requirements. Take, for example, track standards. We have a set of rules for different types of tracks, which determine how much the rails can vary from the norm, depending upon the speed of the trains.
The railways have the freedom to determine how they're going to meet those track standards. They can do it manually with a large number of track forces. They can have small machines. They can have big machines. We don't really concern ourselves with how the railway does the work. All we're concerned with is the end product. We don't concern ourselves with the methods that are used or even where the machines are maintained, provided that it provides the right type of product - the right track standards in the end.
The third part of our philosophy concerns monitoring. We will monitor railway performance on a sample basis. Transport Canada has five regional offices spread across the country: in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and New Westminster. In each of these regional offices we have inspectors who are experts on track, locomotives, cars, equipment, operating procedures, train control - that's dispatching procedures - and electrical systems. They are in fact experts on all the aspects of railway safety that have to be covered. These people go out, monitor railway performance, and measure the performance of the railway against a set of standards. We develop statistics. We can identify trends, and if we find an unsatisfactory trend, we'll go after the railway either locally or nationally to get improvements. We will keep monitoring to make sure the improvements do come about.
The fourth part of our philosophy is enforcement. We like, wherever possible, to achieve enforcement through voluntary compliance. Each railway safety inspector has the power to issue a notice or a notice in order. In fact, there's statutory responsibility for the inspector to issue a notice if he believes there's a threat to safe railway operations.
The inspector can order the railway to do pretty well whatever is necessary to ensure safety, but in most cases we will try to leave the decision on how a safety problem is met up to the railway. Maybe I should give you an example. If we find a piece of track in bad condition, we may put an order on it saying the track may not be used at all or used at only 10 miles an hour. We will not instruct the railway to fix the track. If the railway decides it doesn't want to use the track and does not fix it, that's fine. If the railway decides it wants to continue to use it at 10 miles an hour, that would be fine. If it wants to fix the track so that it can be used at 60 miles an hour, that would be okay. We would not instruct the railway on what to do to fix the problem. We would just make sure the threat is neutralized.
I'd like to move to the statutory review. It was carried out during 1994. It was a review of the first five years of operation of the legislation, and it was carried out by an independent group of three people, who I think took a very broad approach. They examined railways, they talked with unions, they talked with anybody who had an interest in railway safety. As Mr. Jackson mentioned, the report contained 69 recommendations and Transport Canada was able to accept 60 of them. I'd just like to go through a couple we didn't accept.
.1555
The first one was on drug and alcohol usage. The review was published just after Mr. Young, then Minister of Transport, made a statement about drug usage. In the response to the review, which was tabled in the House, we said this. I think it's important that I read out the section from the response itself.
- Rule G of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules prohibits the use of intoxicants or narcotics by
employees subject to duty, or their possession or use while on duty. The violation of this rule
allows the railways to take disciplinary action, which can range from having the employee enter
an employee assistance program to possible dismissal.
- It is Transport Canada's and the industry's mutual objective to maintain transportation safety
while minimizing intrusion in the operation of industry and the lives of transportation workers.
Substance use testing is an extremely complex issue with implications for all modes of
transportation and other jurisdictions.
- Keeping this in mind, Transport Canada has decided not to introduce federal substance use
legislation at this particular time.
- - that was in June 1995 -
- It is the responsibility of the industry to evaluate and, if required, develop a program tailored to
their particular needs, such as is being done in the motor carrier industry.
There were a couple of other items we decided not to proceed with. One was appeal of decisions of railway safety inspectors. At the moment, the only person who can change a decision of the railway safety inspector is the minister himself. The review made a case that there should be an independent review. Frankly, the minister was concerned that any independent review could create a position of second-guessing the minister on safety issues. We feel safety is so important that we shouldn't be put in a position of making these sorts of changes, so we decided not to proceed with that.
There was also a recommendation that there be a sunset rule for all rules that have been passed under the Railway Safety Act. The reason we have not proceeded with that recommendation is that rules, as I mentioned earlier, are largely the creation of the railway companies. They're filed, in most cases, by the Railway Association of Canada on behalf of all railways. This being the case, the industry can create its own rules or change its own rules quickly. We therefore don't feel there's any point to putting an artificial sunset clause on them, which might change other priorities.
There was also a recommendation that the environment recognize this legislation. The approach we felt was appropriate here was to have a modern piece of environmental legislation. It seems to be working well. We certainly wouldn't want to muddy it by including environmental things in this piece of legislation.
Statutory review also compared Canadian railways with other railways in the world. I'm glad to say it was a very favourable comparison. It's not always recognized that we do have a good system in Canada - not only the railways compared with other railways in the world, but also other modes of transport.
The review recommended that we have a target of reducing crossing accidents by 50% in the next ten years. Frankly, this is going to be difficult. We've already done this in the last ten years, but the department has embraced this as a target. We feel it is achievable with the full support of other parties. There are a lot of other people concerned with crossings. Other governments are involved, as well as municipalities, the railways, railway labour, and the general public. But we feel that with some strengthening of the legislation, which we have in this bill, together with other initiatives, which are already under way, this is a target that is achievable.
.1600
The review did suggest we should be making some amendments to streamline some of the processes. This will help to reduce the bureaucracy. It may appear trivial in some places to you, but I can assure you that anything we can do that cuts down unnecessary paperwork allows us to devote our resources to real, true railway safety issues.
So we feel that the reduction in bureaucracy is going to help. It hasn't changed any of the basic decisions or any of the powers of any of the parties.
Finally, the committee recommended that the railway companies should have greater flexibility in the way they operate. We're taking the opportunity to specify that the railways would have the power to file a safety plan, which would be approved by the minister in the same way as a rule might be approved. This could achieve a little more flexibility.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the consultation we carried out last summer. We got together in the same room with all the people we thought had an interest in railway safety. These were representatives from Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, VIA, which runs the passenger trains in Canada, and the Railway Association of Canada, which is an overall umbrella organization you'll hear from later on this afternoon. It also represents the other railways in Canada.
From railway labour, we had the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, we had the United Transportation Union, and we had the Canadian Auto Workers, which is responsible for maintaining most of the railway cars in Canada. We also had the Canadian Railway Labour Association, which is an umbrella organization for all the railway unions. We had the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and also the Canada Safety Council.
We got together to look at the review, and we were able to develop a set of drafting principles. I'm pleased to say that the parties in the consultation process will be able to see their concepts and a lot of their wording in the legislation itself.
We didn't get complete agreement. I think we would be silly if we thought we were going to get complete agreement. But everybody had an opportunity to have their say, and everybody had an opportunity to comment. The philosophy of that group is well reflected in the legislation. They worked well to identify the issues, and there were some thorny issues. I'm glad to say that we were able to reach a high degree of agreement on the changes that were required.
In addition to that, I have regular meetings by teleconference with all provinces that have an interest in railways. That's all provinces in Canada except for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and they participated in the development of the legislation too, so we have quite a wide basis for the bill.
Briefly, there are two new items we're putting in the amendments. The first one is whistling in communities, audible warning in communities. I'm glad to say that the concept we've developed here was actually conceived by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These are the people who represent residents who live close to the trains and who may be woken up in the middle of the night by the train blowing the whistle.
The whistle is an important safety device. It's used to warn people that there's a train coming at a crossing. I think everybody is familiar with the two long, the short and then the one long whistle. It's almost part of our heritage, but it actually comes from the Morse code for ``Q'', which in the trenches in the First World War meant wait. So it's like a Morse code message telling the motorist to wait because there's a train coming.
.1605
In the past I think the attitude has been that the railway was here first, the community built around us, so they have to put up with the train noise. I don't think those arguments are acceptable any more.
The procedure we've established in here is that two conditions must be met for the railway to stop whistling at a crossing. One is that the municipality must pass the motion - in other words, the community must want it. Second, the location must comply with Transport Canada standards for where it's acceptable to stop whistling. If those two conditions are met, under this proposal the railway must stop whistling.
There are a couple of additional things. In some cases the standards are a little bit subjective. If there's any question of interpretation, the minister's decision has to be final. These sorts of things, the sorts of criteria that we have - not only does the crossing have gates, bells and lights, but whether there is a history of trespassing in the area. Is there any other reason why people might be out on the tracks when they shouldn't be out on the tracks? Transport Canada must have the final decision as to whether those conditions are met.
We feel this will eliminate most whistling. There will still be cases where the train whistle must be used - like in an emergency - and the locomotive engineer must have that freedom to blow the whistle if he sees somebody on the tracks ahead of him. If there is some temporary work taking place and the rules require that the bell and whistle be used.... For example, on two tracks where a train is passing on one and there's a work gang on the other track - obviously, in these cases we must warn people that a train is coming.
Some question was raised as to why we should have a set of national standards. Frankly, if we don't have a set of standards for whistle cessation, we believe the accident rate will increase. In the United States they have eliminated whistling, in some cases without taking a good look at it, and unfortunately the accident rate has increased.
We have been using our standards for at least the last eight years in Canada. We did a study last winter that showed that even if we stop whistling, by using our standards there is no reduction in safety. In some cases there is a possibility of a slight improvement in safety.
The reason is that before we allow whistling to be stopped, we look closely and make sure our standards are being adhered to. For example, if there's a shopping centre on one side of the tracks and a school or a community on the other side, we make sure the students have a safe way to cross the tracks.
The Chairman: I would ask you to bring your remarks to a conclusion. A couple of members want to ask questions, and we're going to run out of time.
Mr. Churcher: I'd be happy to.
We will be proposing additional powers at grade crossings to help reduce the accident rate there.
The other item we are proposing in the bill is to streamline the bureaucracy. As part of our safety plans there will be greater involvement from the unions, and we're also rewriting the security provisions to bring them in line with more modern security legislation such as the Marine Transportation Security Act.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation. We'd be pleased to take questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Churcher. I am going to ask my colleagues to be restrained. We've received word that we're going to be summoned to the House a little earlier than we thought, and I wish to get all of the witnesses in today. I trust I will have you gentlemen before me several times through this process.
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
M. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): You said that compared to other countries, Canada has a good safety record. This past summer, the public was struck by the fact that the number of train derailments between January and July of 1996 increased by 50 per cent over the same period in 1995. Would you care to comment on this increase?
.1610
Secondly, in a number of countries, and this is the general rule in Europe, level crossings are equipped with gates. Do you intend to recommend or demand more gates, particularly at crossings with high volumes of traffic?
Thirdly, continuing our comparison, in Canada, trains travel at much lower speeds than they do in other countries. As a rule, shouldn't this have an impact on safety? Do you take this factor into account when drawing comparisons with other countries?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Burtch.
Mr. Terry Burtch (Director General, Railway Safety, Department of Transport): With respect to the first question, which was regarding the increase in derailments and the concerns, there has been an increase in derailments this particular year. When we've looked at the past trends in railway safety, Canada does continue to have a very safe record. With respect to this year, there was a definite increase in the first three months of the year due to severe winter conditions.
We have had a number of meetings with the railways to talk about the causes of those problems and what corrective actions they have in place. They are instituting a number of measures that we believe are going to bring this problem under control. We're very confident that the railways are responding quickly, and we should have this well under control quite quickly.
With respect to the question of the increase in the number of gates in comparison to other countries, we have some guidelines and procedures out there that look at when gates may be required over and above additional protection. Our people inspect crossings and monitor them. If we see safety problems, we can recommend the installation of gates. It will typically depend to some extent on the speed of the trains, the traffic, and the number of trains. We would see that there will probably be some increase in the number of gates as the amount of traffic increases around them. That is generally being done as we see problems arising at the sites.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: You mention that one of the things you're going to amend is something that's going to cause a streamlined bureaucracy. I can't wait to see that, because I think that's a bit of an oxymoron.
I have just two comments, one of which is with regard to whistles. I'd like to know if it's ever been considered. Deaf people sometimes cross the tracks on their own, but blind people don't. Have we considered replacing whistles with strobes, particularly for night operations, which is the most sensitive time, with which you have a visual warning instead of an audible warning?
The only other question I have is with regard to the original act of 1988, which had a provision for a railway safety consultative committee. I recognize that was never implemented, but this act in essence wipes that out. Could you just comment briefly on whether or not there was any merit to that in the first place and why it's been taken out.
Mr. Churcher: Mr. Chairman, I will first address the question of whistles or strobe lights.
There are a number of things that have been looked at. Many crossings have flashing lights, which are fine if somebody is deaf. In some locations, where there may be particular problems - if there's an old people's home or something like that - we'll work with the community to find additional things that should be done at a crossing to take into account the needs of the community.
Mr. Gouk: Just to clarify, when I mentioned strobes, I meant on the train, not to stand alone.
Mr. Churcher: I've looked at those strobes. They use them in the States a lot. I've ridden between Washington and New York, and I feel I liked it better.
We have ditch lights on the trains now. There's a headlight and two ditch lights so that you have a triangle. It's easier to gauge the speed the train is coming at you by the way the shape of that triangle changes. Studies that have been done in the States, I believe, show that the strobe lights are not as good as the ditch lights. In fact, in the States they are in the process of changing to the ditch lights that we have.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Gouk: What about the second question?
Mr. Churcher: There was a second part of the question.
The Chairman: Very efficiently, please, Mr. Churcher.
Mr. Churcher: The railway safety consultative committee was not set up. There was a decision taken by the minister, because he thought the consultation that was going on under the normal way of business was quite adequate. We have a proposal to take it out, because we don't need legislation to set up a committee in any case. If we need it in the future, we can do it without legislation.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.
.1615
I want to thank Ron Jackson for the work he and his department have done on Bill C-43. And it's not just FCM who had complaints on the whistle-blowing. I'm sure you could probably talk to most if not all of the members of Parliament in the representations they've had on the whistle-blowing in their constituency offices. So I'm glad to see the effort being done there with safety still being the priority on the issue.
Specifically, I've had a few calls on section 35, particularly subsection 35.(1), where the department outlines company-sponsored medical examinations. Yet over on the French side it says the medical examinations should be organized by the company. Of course, the concern there by the railroads is that ``company-sponsored'' may assume that the railroad would pick up the costs of such an examination. Will that recommendation be heard from the railroads and altered at all in an amendment?
Mr. Churcher: Mr. Chairman, I think the key thing is that the railway company should be responsible for ensuring that a medical examination is carried out.
Mr. Keyes: So will you be changing the wording?
Mr. Churcher: We would be prepared to consider some changes.
Mr. Keyes: Thanks for the clarity. Thanks again, gentlemen.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Churcher, Mr. Burtch and Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Might I have, from Canadian Pacific, Miss Faye Ackerman?
Miss Ackerman, you're here from Calgary. Did you come by train?
Ms Faye Ackerman (General Manager, Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Pacific Railway): This was on such short notice that I had to fly.
The Chairman: Welcome. You have half an hour. If you can constrain your remarks that would give members time to ask the many questions I know they have.
Ms Ackerman: I should be spending no more than about ten minutes going through my brief and then you'll be able to ask me as many questions as you want.
Good day, gentlemen. Canadian Pacific Railway is in favour of most of the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act. The proposed amendments are the culmination of an open and thorough review process in which CPR has participated fully.
The Railway Safety Act was an innovative piece of legislation when enacted in 1989. Bill C-43 will improve it. It will set up a framework for communities to request cessation of train whistles. It sounds like Colin Churcher wrote this section. It will ensure more union involvement in developing safety rules and exemption requests. It will establish a framework for proposed performance standards and safety plans. It will clarify and strengthen federal powers at railroad crossings and encourage grade crossing closures in an effort to reduce collisions between motor vehicles and trains. It will improve the administration of the act by streamlining approvals for railway works. It will clarify and strengthen some of the powers of the railway safety inspectors, and it will simplify railway security measures.
Canadian Pacific Railway believes, however, that further improvements can be made to the bill, especially given the growing diversity of the Canadian railway industry. This brief contains recommendations in five areas. First is crossing safety.
.1620
Behaviour of drivers and pedestrians approaching highway rail at grade crossings is the main contributor to the vast majority of crossing collisions. Persons using highway rail at grade crossings are often unaware that long distances are required to stop a train and that railway vehicles are incapable of stopping for motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic.
We recommend that a clause be added to give the railways the right of way at grade crossings. Such provisions exist currently in New Zealand's Railway Safety and Corridor Management Act, and I've attached pertinent sections to this brief.
This right of passage in essence would assist the railways in resolving individual site problems with municipalities or road authorities. It would sharpen public awareness about driver safety at level crossings, and we think it will reduce grade crossing accidents.
CPR suggests the railway right of way provision should also be included in the model rules of the road, which form the basis of provincial highway regulation.
To change the topic a bit, U.S. governments and railroads recently launched a new program of televised public service announcements entitled ``Highways or Dieways''. These announcements are heightening public awareness of crossing safety in the United States.
Canadian railways collaborate with the federal government on public education as it relates to rail crossing safety through a program known as Operation Lifesaver. However, federal funding has been declining in recent years. We recommend that the government restore its level of funding to this program.
With respect to medical examinations, CPR supports the amendments that are being made to section 35. However, as one of the members pointed out, there is a conflict of wording between the English and French versions. I won't read it, but I'm very happy to see that Transport Canada will be willing to make that slight modification to make the two versions comparable.
Substance use legislation and regulation were sought by CPR and the other railways for many years following the Foisey report on the Hinton collision. When it became evident that the federal government would be reluctant to enact legislative authority, CPR revisited and enhanced employee assistance programs.
In addition to assistance with substance abuse, the present employee and family assistance program encompasses family, financial, stress, and similar problems.
With regard to the power and qualifications of railway safety inspectors, section 31 affords railway safety inspectors the power to shut down particular railway operations or particular railway equipment. These powers may be exercised based solely on the judgment of such inspectors.
There is nothing in this bill or in Transport Canada's internal guidelines that tests or compels competence or appropriate qualifications of persons who act as railway safety inspectors. Without proper qualifications and in the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes a threat or an immediate threat to safety, there's too wide a range of subjectivity. This can lead to inappropriate notices and orders.
CP recommends that Bill C-43 provide a requirement for setting out such qualifications and a means of demonstrating that they are met. These requirements should vary depending upon the specific technical subjects over which an inspector will be granted the responsibility to exercise authority.
With respect to an effective appeal process, principles of public administration require that at least one level of appeal exist for the review of decisions made by federal boards or representatives of such boards in circumstances in which the delegation of authority by statute can limit rights or freedoms.
The appeal principle is expressed in subsection 31(9) of Bill C-43. The only recourse railways have is to appeal notices and orders they believe inappropriate to the Minister of Transport, who might be expected to rely upon technical advice from Transport Canada staff.
The Railway Safety Act review committee recommended an alternative process, one that is independent of the regulator, and we have reproduced that recommendation for you.
As Mr. Churcher indicated to you, Transport Canada did not agree, arguing that there is a need to avoid dividing the accountability for safety. Transport Canada acts as a ministerial agency reporting to the minister and not as a body independent of the minister.
Like Transport Canada, Labour Canada is a ministerial agency. Its jurisdiction is conferred under the Canada Labour Code. The code establishes safety officers who have broad powers like the railway safety inspectors. However, Labour Canada has established a process to review the decisions of its safety officers outside the administration of the agency itself.
.1625
A tribunal reviews directives of the Labour Canada safety officers. The tribunal may confirm, rescind or vary the original directive. The tribunal maintains no contact with the agency nor any of its representatives. It thus maintains and appears to maintain clear independence.
The acts giving Transport Canada authority to regulate aviation and marine safety also provide for an independent appeal process of its administrative decisions.
In some cases the board established under the Aeronautics Act may only confirm a decision of the safety inspector or refer it back to the minister for reconsideration. Specifically, where the decision is subjective, for example an immediate threat to safety, the board may overturn the decision. If it involves objective criteria, such as design specifications, it can be reviewed and returned to the minister for reconsideration.
In both the marine and aviation modes, the review boards are independent and intended to be comprised of persons knowledgeable in their respective areas. As in any review, fairness cannot be accomplished without timeliness. Requests for review must be made within a reasonable time following the decision, although that timeframe may be dependent on the nature and complexity of the matter on which the decision was made.
As in the case with other acts, an appeal should not suspend an agency decision. Thus, an order under the Railway Safety Act would stand pending the decision at appeal. However, orders that suspend or severely restrict an operation should compel an immediate review.
Therefore, CP recommends that subsection 31(9) should be revoked and have it replaced with an alternate appeal process, an independent review. As I've indicated, many models exist for this. The board should have competence in railway matters to enable its decisions to be reasonable and fair.
The last point is on security provisions. The proposed amendments to the security provisions brought in by the bill are an improvement over the original act. They allow workable security arrangements. However, CPR would like to recommend one change.
Section 39 provides for a screening of persons or goods prior to those persons or goods being placed on board railway equipment. The wording and intent of this section were modelled after the marine security provisions that this committee reviewed about a year ago.
The definition of goods in subsection 4(1) includes the words ``freight, baggage or personal belongings''. Interpreted in its broadest sense, security screenings could be applied to any freight carried in any rail vehicle or stored on any rail property. Such an application would be inappropriate and unnecessary, since general security provisions for freight railway operations are adequately addressed in section 40.
Therefore, we recommend that the definition of goods be altered to remove the word ``freight'' or that a statement be added to section 39 to specifically make its application to passenger operations.
In conclusion, regulatory renewal must be an ongoing process. The Railway Safety Act was a good act. Bill C-43 will make it a better act. CPR asks that consideration be given to the foregoing recommendations in order to bring about further improvement.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. You met the test of brevity also. Brevity and clarity are not a bad combination.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Thank you for your presentation. On reading your brief, I noted that you seemed especially concerned about accidents. You make a number of recommendations regarding, among other things, level crossings, the lack of government funding in the area of safety at level crossings and proficiency requirements which you feel should be standardized. You also state in your brief that drivers are the main cause of accidents.
In short, the situation we face is the same as in the occupational health and safety field: we must first try to eliminate the problem at its point of origin and if this proves to be impossible, find a way to ensure that the situation does not occur again. Do you feel that your suggestions are a step toward zero tolerance of accidents and do you expect to see more positive results in two or three years' time?
You failed to mention that the legislation previously contained a general statement of principle on the subject of railway safety. Why was this?
.1630
[English]
Ms Ackerman: With respect to zero tolerance of accidents, some of the European countries are very close to that. I think in the long run if we all spend enough money on it, we can probably get down to a very low level of grade crossing and trespassing accidents, but it's going to take a lot of money. We've spent a lot of money. The government, the railways and the municipalities have spent a lot of money over the last ten years to get where we are.
I think and CP Rail thinks that to get to the next level without spending a lot of money, we need to alter driver behaviour, which is why I talk about government funding for education. You have to remove the idea people have, as they approach level crossings, that they can beat the train.
As we have all done, we've changed our attitudes toward drinking and driving. We need to change the attitude that the general public has when they approach a grade crossing. I think that will be a way to get our grade crossing accidents down much further, without spending a lot of money.
The second question was about principles. During the review I pushed very hard to actually have those principles of rail safety expounded in the act, and the decision was made that it would not be included. I didn't bring it back to this table because I think it's been reviewed often enough. The people who are in the industry understand what the principles are; newcomers may not and it's an educational process that they go through.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Basically, the statement of principle establishes some guidelines for implementing the legislation. In the bill now under consideration, section 3 of the act which deals with railway safety is repealed. In the absence of a statement of principle, the legislation will have to be interpreted section by section, without the benefit of a statement of principles.
I would also like to examine a little further the recommendation that you made respecting the right of way of drivers at level crossings. It seems to me that this provision is designed more to protect railway companies by reducing their liability. While companies would be far less responsible, the number of accidents would not necessarily decrease.
To reduce the number of accidents, it would undoubtedly be a good idea to recommend that gates be installed at each level crossing. The principle to which you alluded would enable Canadian Pacific or any other company to declare that it has the right of way under the law, which would reduce its liability. However, I'm not certain that this would result in fewer accidents.
[English]
Ms Ackerman: It may have that appearance on the surface of reducing responsibility. What it's intended to do is to very clearly lay out to the public that they have a responsibility as they approach that grade crossing. The train cannot stop for them; they must stop for it. That's what it's intended to do. It's intended to provide leverage in dealing with municipalities and road authorities to correct situations that exist that are beyond the railroad's power to correct. It's off our property; we can't do anything in many cases.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: You haven't answered the first part of my question.
[English]
Ms Ackerman: I'm not sure I got it all.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It had to do with the statement of principle.
[English]
Ms Ackerman: That is of the principles.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
Ms Ackerman: I personally would be happier to see a very carefully worded statement of principles put back into the beginning of this act. That's my personal preference. So I agree with you that in anybody coming behind interpreting the act, that statement could guide them.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Great, I get a call just as that's happening.
I have a couple of things. First of all, just so I'm clear, could you define grade crossing for me? Does that exclude a controlled crossing, for example?
Ms Ackerman: A grade crossing that is level with the road, where the road and the railway meet at the same level, is a crossing at grade.
Mr. Gouk: Okay. I'm going to have a serious look at that, as I am all the things. You've laid it out well.
.1635
With regard to the wording of that, if we were to proceed with some kind of amendment that would give you some right of way, would that be appropriate rather than the 800 metres you've referred to where it's a controlled crossing where the control device has been activated as the determination for your right of way, as opposed to a distance?
Ms Ackerman: I would offer that if this committee seriously considers that, I would happily go back and try to recommend some words that you could then throw out.
Mr. Gouk: But the concern would be of course that wherever you have a controlled crossing, one of the great risks for accident is if that control device is faulty and drivers are relying on that as opposed to peering up and down the tracks. Then that onus should remain on the railway.
The only other thing I wish to ask at this time with regard to funding is that obviously if a vehicle or someone else proceeds onto the railway track and ultimately is involved in an accident with the train, there's an insurance cost involved. Have you approached insurance corporations regarding the funding of driver training and driver awareness?
Ms Ackerman: We have not, but I think that's something that perhaps through the railway association's operation lifesaver program we could do.
Mr. Gouk: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I have just one very quick question. Thank you, Ms Ackerman, for your presentation to the committee today.
I'm still floppy on the idea that giving railways the right of way at a grade crossing suddenly sharpens public awareness about driving at that crossing. Currently who has the right of way at a grade crossing? When I'm coming to a train track and the bells start ringing or the gate comes down, I can assure you that as far as I'm concerned that big engine and all those trains have the right of way at that crossing.
Ms Ackerman: But we still have 345 crossing collisions a year because other people don't believe.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, and I agree that there's an education. But I don't understand how giving you the right of way at a grade crossing educates the public. Where's the connection?
Ms Ackerman: I think if that concept is embedded in the model rules of the road that form provincial regulations, highway motor vehicle regulations in each province, that it then can become a more enforceable penalty. People who manage the highway system don't spend a lot of attention on grade crossings because they've got 99% of the problems elsewhere.
Mr. Keyes: I'm not so sure we would have the authority to implement some kind of amendment in this legislation that would dictate to the provinces how they should be controlling their particular grade crossings.
I think we're all for educating the public, as Mr. Gouk suggested, through the programs and the young drivers training on approaching a level crossing. I still have a problem of understanding how giving a right of way to the railroads at a grade crossing is going to reduce the level crossing accidents.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): The grade crossing then is anything where a railroad crosses over where a car normally goes, and reverse. Why not just call it a crossing?
Ms Ackerman: Because we have crossings that are separated.
Mr. Jordan: Elevated.
Ms Ackerman: Yes, bridgeways. We typically said we'd call them by different names.
Mr. Jordan: You people are interested of course in railway safety. The people who were here just a little while ago mentioned that there was a process now whereby a municipality can pass a resolution, and so on. Who pays for whatever kinds of upgrading or whatever steps would have to be taken to make the lessening of train whistles? There's a safety factor there I would think. Is CP going to pay for it?
Ms Ackerman: Traditionally the arrangement has been that the federal government funds 80% of the capital cost of the improvement, the municipalities fund 12.5% and the railways fund 7.5% of the capital costs. The ongoing maintenance costs traditionally have been split 50-50 between the railways and the municipalities. In the long run you probably get about a one-third split in terms of cost to upgrade the crossing protection.
Mr. Jordan: Do you think that formula is likely to remain in place? Has that been discussed?
Ms Ackerman: That has not been discussed. We have argued that we're even paying too much, since it's mostly roadway users and roadway traffic that cause the need for an upgrade.
Mr. Jordan: No, but you're the people who are making the noise. The whistle comes from you people.
Ms Ackerman: Right.
Mr. Jordan: I think you should pay it all, but that may not be. So that hasn't been discussed as to how you're going to split the cost. There are going to be costs involved, as you know, to make these railway -
Ms Ackerman: The fact that whistle cessation is being put back in this legislation doesn't alter the process that's been put in place.
Mr. Jordan: I see.
.1640
Ms Ackerman: We have allowed whistle cessation for the last six years. It just has to be a very controlled, safety-oriented process.
Mr. Jordan: Is that the situation? Do you have people who, along with municipal people, would go down to look at the situation and say this is what you must do?
Ms Ackerman: That's right.
Mr. Jordan: They you would agree with it and on who's paying for it.
Ms Ackerman: That's right, we would agree to pay our share, which is normally 7.5% of the capital cost.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan. We'll have to talk about that a little more sometime.
Thank you, Ms Ackerman. I appreciate your appearance here on relatively short notice.
Ms Ackerman: Thank you.
The Chairman: Now we will hear from the Canadian National Railway.
Faye, are you headed back tonight?
Ms Ackerman: No.
The Chairman: Okay, shall we begin, Mr. Huart?
Mr. Michel Huart (General Attorney, Canadian National Railway): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will try to be as brief as Canadian Pacific. I understand you have copies of our brief in your hands.
The Chairman: We do indeed.
Mr. Huart: First of all I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and make our presentation. With me is Mr. Mike Lowenger, the director of regulatory affairs for Canadian National Railway. I'm the general attorney, system, for Canadian National.
CP went before us, and I want to express our support for all the arguments made by Canadian Pacific in their presentation to this committee, as well as our support for the comments made by Transport Canada earlier.
At the same time we want to express our pleasure with the process that was followed with respect to developing Bill C-43. It was was a concerted effort among the various parties, which were the government authorities, the railways, the unions, and several other interested parties such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. This essentially acknowledges the fact that safety is a partnership between various parties and that various parties have to cooperate to reach the goals we are all trying to achieve.
I will walk you briefly through our document. I'm not planning to read this, I will simply bring to your attention the various recommendations, starting on page two of our document.
I will bring to your attention recommendation one. Again, before I go through these recommendations, CN supports the findings and recommendations that have been translated to Bill C-43. We want to bring to the attention of this committee some of the key points, which in our opinion could be refined a little bit more.
First of all is recommendation one dealing with the railway safety inspector or railway safety officer. There is a change recommended by Bill C-43 relating to this notion. We would like to emphasize that as the law evolves right now, we are facing a situation in which the notion of inspector versus the notion of investigator has, in our opinion, to be clarified, not only for the benefit of the railways who have to understand - and I'm talking about the inspector showing up at various sites in the field - whom they're dealing with but also for the benefit of the inspector who has to discharge certain authorities.
You will see in our brief that we essentially see the inspector as being the friendly person, the person who comes in to assist in identifying safety-related issues and to assist the railways in improving the situation. By comparison, an investigator is a person who acts in the context of the prosecution and therefore in the context or role or capacity of the police officer, and that's a perception issue.
.1645
The second recommendation we're making has to do with section 16 of the Railway Safety Act. It touches on something that's already been addressed before this committee today. Our recommendation is that there be in the bill the possibility for the minister to issue a directive or a policy statement to the Canadian Transportation Agency. Why do we say this?
Over the past years, and we go back a long way with the Canadian Transport Commission and the National Transportation Agency, the tradition of cost sharing has been developed. Cost sharing is important, in our opinion, because it reflects something very important: the fact that Transport Canada under this current legislation has recognized that safety is a shared partnership. Everybody shares in safety - the municipalities, the provincial roads authorities, the federal government, the unions, and the railways.
In that context, in our opinion it is essential that the provisions we find now in section 43, for instance, of the Canada Transportation Act be added to the current Railway Safety Act. The intent there would be to make sure, by a general statement, that the Canadian Transportation Agency reflects in their cost-sharing decision the sharing of the responsibility for safety.
On page 4 of our document we talk about an exemption for testing, and we put on page 5 our recommendation number 3. We suggest that the proposed amendment to proposed section 22.1 be revised to reflect the requirement for timely exemptions for certain other limited duration situations that may arise but do not fall under the testing classification.
You may wonder what kind of a situation this would encompass. In our brief we give a very simple example of a train that is being used for cinematic purposes. Obviously, if we're using an old steam locomotive we wouldn't want to have all kinds of exemptions presented. This sort of thing, through a simple amendment, could be corrected.
Again is the issue of proposed section 35, medical examination. With my background, I of course read Bill C-43 first in French and it was very clear in my mind what it meant. I was very pleased to hear from Transport Canada today the answer to a question from a member on the position they want to take in connection with this issue.
We also raise the issue of substance testing. We're well aware that in the document or little booklet On Track, prepared by the review commission, the position of the minister was to disagree with the recommendation on substance testing.
Our recommendation reads as follows:
- The Minister should reconsider the response to Recommendation 8.1 of the Railway Safety Act
Review Committee and authorize modifications to Section 18(1)(c)(iv) of the Act that would
clearly give the railways the authority to implement substance use testing programs for
employees in safety-critical positions.
The reading of On Track discloses, for instance, that reference was made to the Toronto-Dominion Bank policy and the Imperial Oil policy to show that such policies can be implemented at the corporate level in companies within the Canadian legal context. In order to support the need for safer situations, and we consider it would simply contribute to additional safety, it would be nice to have this matter highlighted in Bill C-43.
This is in essence our presentation. We'll of course be pleased to hear any questions you may have with respect to these topics.
.1650
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: That was very interesting. Could you clarify for us your third recommendation regarding exemptions and give us a few examples?
Mr. Huart: Pursuant to this bill as it now stands and to the current Railway Safety Act, a consultation process is in place to give railway companies, and in particular associations of workers, the opportunity to comment on proposals that have been submitted to the Minister of Transport.
With Bill C-43 and the Railway Safety Act, an attempt was made to set time limits which were much easier to administer in situations involving regulations or changes.
Certain situations do not necessarily give rise to different regulations. I am referring here to a locomotive which does not meet existing standards and which would be used in the making of a film. We sometimes receive applications from agencies that are making films or advertisements and who want to use a piece of equipment on our track which does not meet existing standards and regulations.
A process must be in place to grant exemptions to these regulations. Of course, in such instances, a application must be made for an exemption and a number of authorities will be invited to comment on the process. We feel that in certain cases, applications should not automatically have to be reviewed and that a specific category of exemptions should be created.
Obviously, when we talk about using a locomotive to make a film, we are not talking about using this piece of equipment for transportation purposes. We are not trying to shirk our responsibilities as a public transportation company. We are talking about an isolated incident which should not be paid a great deal of attention.
Mr. Mercier: The small tourist train travelling between Hull and Wakefield is not authorized to use steam for environmental reasons. Does your proposed application make provision for the use of such equipment for tourism purposes? Would it be possible to grant an exemption in this case?
Mr. Huart: Personally, I don't see this as a case where an exemption should be granted. I'm talking here about very specific situations, such as an application in conjunction with the making of the film. In the case of the Wakefield train, we're talking about a business which provides, in a much broader sense, a public service. Passengers travel on this train and it has conductors.
I believe you're more concerned about the environmental aspects of using an old locomotive. However, and I wouldn't want to go too far out on a limb on this, the promoters and producers of the film are the ones responsible for receiving the necessary approval at the local level.
Mr. Mercier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Gentlemen, I actually have no questions. Your brief has been well laid out and I will consider your recommendations quite seriously.
The Chairman: I am informed, gentlemen, by this side of the table that the same situation exists. I did'nt realize CN could be so absolutely forthcoming and clear in its presentation so as to elicit no questions.
M. Huart: That's one of the consequences of privatization.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
.1655
And now, may I have to the table the Railway Association of Canada.
Mr. Ballantyne, I understand you're president of the Railway Association of Canada.
Mr. R.H. Ballantyne (President, Railway Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that's right, and my colleagues with me are Jim Speirs, who's vice-president, and Roger Cameron, who is the general manager of public affairs. Among the three of us we have a total railway service of about a hundred years, so we've been in the business for a while.
The Chairman: The other two guys look a lot younger.
Mr. Ballantyne: That's because it's such a good industry to be in.
One thing I'd like to say as a preliminary remark is that Mr. Speirs, who will be making the presentation, was working with Canadian National in the days when the Railway Safety Act was first under consideration and was implemented. So Jim brings a considerable history of the whole process to this particular meeting.
So again I'd like to thank the committee for hearing us, and with that I'll ask Mr. Speirs to make the presentation, after which, of course, we'd be glad to answer questions.
Mr. J.N. Speirs (Vice-President, Railway Association of Canada): The Railway Association of Canada represents all 32 of the common carrier railways in Canada. The membership is comprised of transcontinental, regional and local or short-line railways, including passenger operations, and U.S. railroads operating into Canada. The membership accounts for over 98% of all railway activity in Canada. It employs some 51,000 people and has annual gross revenues of about $7 billion.
Of the 32 member railways, 21 are federally regulated and 11 are under provincial jurisdiction. Four provinces - Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - have adopted the federal form of railway safety regulation and have contracted with the federal government to have Transport Canada railway safety inspectors ensure compliance with national safety requirements. Therefore, the Railway Safety Act and any amendments will apply to virtually all railway operations in Canada, not solely the major carriers.
As background, prior to the passage of the Railway Safety Act in January 1989, the RAC had the opportunity, along with many other interested parties, to participate in the consultation process initiated by Transport Canada in bringing forth the new act. We commend the department for this initiative and greatly appreciate the opportunities the act created for modernizing the regulatory regime governing the operational and safety aspect of Canada's railways.
We consulted extensively with the Railway Safety Act review committee during their activities through 1994, and again in 1995 with Transport Canada officers in the consultative process that translated the recommendations of the review committee into the amendments to the Railway Safety Act we now see before us in Bill C-43.
The RAC generally endorses the amendments contained in the bill and has but a few suggestions that we feel will further enhance the application of the act, and these are as follows.
With regard to crossing safety, section 12 of the bill provides for grants for works that would improve safety at a crossing. Section 14 provides for grants for programs related to education or research that would promote safe railway operations. The proposed new subsection 12.(1) provides for grants to a person for the closure of a road where that person has rights.
Recommendation 6.8 of the Railway Safety Act Review Committee recommended that Transport Canada develop a plan to cut the crossing accident rate in half in 10 years, and that this plan should not be limited to crossing improvements but should include research and education needs.
This recommendation is supported by a review of crossing accident statistics that reveals that at public crossings more than half of crossing accidents and their resultant injuries and deaths occur at crossings already equipped with some form of automatic warning device.
.1700
Clearly, hardware-based solutions alone are not doing the job. The vast majority of crossing accidents are caused by driver behaviour. Crossing safety is not solely a matter of railway safety, it is a matter of public safety in which the railways and all three levels of government are partners. The public must be educated in the risks associated with crossings and be made aware that trains take substantial distances to stop and cannot take evasive action. The RAC strongly urges the act be further extended to provide grants specifically directed at education and research programs to improve crossing safety.
With regard to the Canadian Transportation Agency, in the exercise of their duties railway safety inspectors have taken action that on occasion results in the need for railways and other parties to incur expenses to remedy a perceived safety deficiency. Since Transport Canada regulates on safety issues and not cost apportionment, any disputes regarding cost sharing of joint projects between a railway and another party are referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency for resolution.
Notable issues in this category are the matters of grade crossing improvements and fencing of railway rights of way. Since these actions are in many instances initiated by Transport Canada's railway safety inspectors, we suggest it may be helpful if the minister were to issue broad policy guidelines to the Canadian Transportation Agency for the formulation of dispute resolutions. Guidance in this regard may be drawn from subsection 43.(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, which we have quoted in our brief and which you can all read at your leisure.
With regard to exemptions for testing, we believe proposed subsection 22.(1) in Bill C-43 should be extended to recognize those occasions where a railway may need relief from existing regulations and rules for a short and limited term under circumstances that do not qualify as testing and are not of the magnitude to warrant a 60-day notification period followed by a 60-day decision period as required under section 22. An example of this might be the one-time movement of a unique piece of equipment.
With regard to railway safety inspectors, modifications to subsection 27(1) would replace the title of ``railway safety inspector'' with ``railway safety officer''. We feel this may cause confusion and conflict with the title of ``safety officer'' borne by employees of a railway company. We suggest the title of ``railway safety inspector'' be retained, but we also see merit in the suggestion of Canadian National Railway that there be a differentiation made between ``inspector'' and ``investigator''.
With regard to medical examinations, the RAC supports the revised wording in subsection 35.(1) which prescribes medical examinations at intervals determined by regulations or rules. However, the subsection also states - and Mr. Keyes made this point earlier - that employees ``shall undergo a company-sponsored medical examination''. This wording has led to the interpretation by some parties that a railway will not only arrange for the medical, but will also bear its expense. The RAC is of the view that legislation should not be written in such a way that would appear to oblige a railway to bear an expense that should more properly be assigned through the collective bargaining process. The RAC therefore suggests more neutral wording be used for this passage.
In summary, the Railway Safety Act is good legislation. It provides protection for the public and returns the responsibility for managing safety to railway officers. Bill C-43 generally enhances what is already good legislation and the RAC supports its adoption with the changes we have noted earlier.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our remarks. My colleagues and I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear and we will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speirs.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I notice a common thread between your proposals and that which the railroads have already submitted, particularly with regards to the inspectors. CN has endorsed that exactly and CP has taken the innovative way of ignoring it and simply referring to inspectors instead of officers. I would think the government will probably concur with that. We will certainly give it every consideration.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Mr. Cullen.
.1705
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Mr. Ballantyne, Mr. Speirs, thank you.
I have a couple of questions. First, there was a reference made by the Department of Transport people to the option that a railway might have to submit a safety plan in lieu of a number of different safety regulations or rules. I'm wondering if you could just paint a picture for me of what that safety plan might look like, not in the sense of the details of what would be in it, but the kinds of issues it would address and the factors that would go into a railway's decision to submit a plan as opposed to submitting a bunch of detailed rules and regulations.
Secondly, as someone who uses the train from time to time between Toronto and Ottawa and Montreal, you get the impression that there are more incidents of railway track sabotage. They cited a case not too long ago where someone was charged with putting something across the tracks, and then there was a story circulating a week or two ago about a switch to another line being in the wrong position. Is track sabotage an issue we should be concerned about? What are the railways doing about it? Is it just an aberration that comes up from time to time?
Mr. Speirs: With regard to safety plans, it would be more a compendium of statements that would demonstrate that the railway is exercising due diligence in pursuit of its activities with regard to train operations or track maintenance or equipment repair, inspection and supervision.
Again, yes, we would see this as being a set of objectives that would be established, rather than being a set of hard and fast rules. We would freely discuss them with Transport Canada to make provision for mid-course corrections if the objectives weren't being met. It would be a living document to be worked on, perfected, improved, as new innovations, as new perceptions of ways of improving operations and further improving and enhancing safety would occur. It would really be an expression of due diligence rather than of hard and fast prescribed activities.
With regard to sabotage and tampering of switches, or vandalism in general, this has always been a concern of railways. Railways try to secure their property to the highest degree possible. The railway police and track patrols are always on the lookout for circumstances where vandalism may have taken place, where switches may have been tampered with.
The RAC recently issued a letter to all of our member railways in the aftermath of that very unfortunate accident involving a VIA train at Brighton almost two years ago, where vandals had placed a length of rail on the track and jammed it into the ties. It virtually demolished two locomotives and two passenger cars. Fortunately, while there were some injuries, there was no terribly serious injury and no loss of life.
We are always vigilant in that regard and we have asked all our member railways to make sure that any construction materials are cleaned up and removed immediately from the railway so as not to present opportunities for those who might be set on mayhem or vandalism.
Mr. Cullen: I have a short follow-up question. Excuse the naivety of the question, but can a locomotive engineer tell when he or she is going down the track if a switch is in the wrong direction, or is that something that can only be tested on the ground by inspectors?
Mr. Speirs: No, the switches will have targets on them that will indicate the position of the switch. That can be seen at some distance.
Mr. Ballantyne: In addition, the switches are also locked. If it's a switch that's manually controlled, it has a switch lock on it and the railway employees are the only people who have keys to those switch locks. The remotely controlled switches, of course, are under the control of the central train dispatcher or the rail traffic controller, and they can't be tampered with without the electronic control system pointing that out to the train dispatcher.
Mr. Cullen: Okay, thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, a short question.
.1710
Mr. Keyes: I suppose if anyone's intent on derailing a train, they're going to snap off the lock and pull the sign around to the signals anyway. There's not much you can do about that. But it leads to my next question.
Maybe it would be useful, Mr. Chairman, for the committee to have from the RAC, from CN, and from CP just what the breakdown is on how many accidents have taken place at say grade crossings.
Of those accidents that have taken place, how many accidents took place at grade crossings where there were either signal lights, drop gates, or preventative measures alerting the particular individual driver or pedestrian to the possible danger if you were crossing with these things in place.
What would be the breakdown of the number of blind, deaf or disabled people who have been involved in those accidents?
Frankly, how many of those were determined to be suicidal when they stopped them?
The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that if all these figures came out and they were all evaluated, I have a tough time sometimes trying to figure out how government is supposed to regulate against stupidity.
I mean, if a gate comes down, if the train is coming, the whistle is blowing and somebody decides he's going to get around the gates because he's a little late for a dinner party, I don't know how you regulate against that kind of thing.
I'd like to see the figures to prove exactly just how far we can go within reason.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, I do think the regulation of stupidity is the responsibility of a different committee.
A voice: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: Mr. Ballantyne, if you'd like to -
Mr. Gouk: You notice that I refrain from any comment on that.
Mr. Ballantyne: Any locomotive engineer would certainly concur that there's a great degree of stupidity out there. The locomotive engineman is on the line all the time. In fact you'll hear from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers probably tomorrow. I'm sure their representative will have something to say about - really, this is the only way to say it - the stupidity evidenced by some motorists at crossings.
Let me go back to the question of statistics. There are good statistics. They come from an independent source, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which is a federal government agency. They're the custodian of the statistics. They publish them every month on everything, including grade crossing accidents. They do breakdowns. They have access to the information as to time of day, the kind of vehicle that was involved, whether it was a crossing that had a warning system, whether it's gates, the time of year, all that information. So there's good information. I would suggest that the TSB is the right place to get it from.
Mr. Keyes: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Speirs: May I just add one comment? Transport Canada has organized a two-day seminar, beginning tomorrow, specifically to address the issues of crossing safety and what the alternatives might be to improve safety. We commend that initiative, and are going to participate in it.
The Chairman: Might I be permitted one brief question?
When Mrs. Ackerman spoke on behalf of CP she raised this question of establishing a right of way. I was thinking of your comment, Mr. Ballantyne, about the engineers themselves. In meeting with some of them, I understand that they feel quite frustrated about it. It's because of their inability to control the locomotive, or to stop it within a reasonable period of time.
Has your association considered this issue of establishing a right of way in law for the trains?
Mr. Ballantyne: Yes, we'd certainly support the CP position on that. As well as the points Mrs. Ackerman has made, I think there is some precedent. It's generally established that at a waterway, for example, the marine vehicle tends to have the right of way.
With regard to railway vehicles, the physics - which is beyond the control even of the federal government - is the thing that really governs. The fact is that it is just not physically possible for a 10,000-tonne train on steel wheels, on steel rails that have a relatively low coefficient of friction.... And the vehicle can't be steered; it's the tracks that do that.
.1715
So the practicalities and the reality are such that it would seem to us to make sense. The fact that this would then become a normal part of the traffic control laws in the provinces, and it would be taught to drivers, would be helpful, so we would support it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time here.
If I could ask the indulgence of members of the committee, I would like them to remain behind for a few minutes. There is just one very brief item I could deal with, for which we have to go in camera.
So would the rest of you who are not members of the committee please rise.
Mr. Gouk: Just before departing, I have a couple of things that don't need to be in camera that I can just touch on briefly.
First, given that we do have 15 minutes before the bells, had Mr. Comuzzi remained.... I have perused his report sufficiently so that we could have dealt with it now, subject to one question. Just so he's aware.
The Chairman: Just wait and see whether we may have the ability to do that in any event.
Mr. Gouk: I have one other matter. Notwithstanding the discussions that took place this morning from the Bloc regarding how long it takes to prepare something.... I did not disagree with the parliamentary secretary on that, but I would point out at the same time that the bill has been tabled for three months, and we have not as yet received the Transport briefing book on this.
The Chairman: Which bill are you referring to?
Mr. Gouk: Bill C-44, sorry. Given that the government can't put their own briefing book together -
Mr. Keyes: No, it's already in your office, Jim.
Mr. Gouk: As of when?
The Chairman: Yesterday.
Mr. Gouk: No, it is not.
Mr. Keyes: Well, every member of the committee has received it. The clerk sent it out to everyone: three black binders with a rope around them.
Mr. Gouk: When did it go out?
The Clerk of the Committee: Yesterday afternoon around three.
Mr. Gouk: We were informed by Transport when we checked today that they had just completed it this morning, and sent it to the clerk's office.
Mr. Keyes: For another briefing that we had for interested members of Parliament outside the committee.... And we didn't have the 30 pounds of materials for each member available to come logistically to the House.
Mr. Gouk: So we have three volumes delivered today that might be dealt with in the House after three months. It's an interesting comparison of what we were talking about this morning.
The Chairman: Might I ask that we go in camera now? Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]