[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 20, 1996
.1537 
[English]
The Chairman: We're under way. I want to welcome our visitors to the Railway Safety Act deliberations, Bill C-43.
Just before we proceed, we have one matter from Mr. Gouk. Do you wish to raise a matter?
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Yes. During the clause-by-clause on Bill C-44, I had concerns about the fee that was going to be extracted from the ports in favour of the Government of Canada. I was told that I shouldn't worry and that I should simply read the report I was given by Nesbitt Burns that explains everything. This is a report I didn't have, but I finally received it on November 12. I have now read the report, and it doesn't even mention the fees. So either I was given false information or there was additional documentation that I have still not yet received. I'd like to know which of the two it is.
The Chairman: As I recall, it was later in the evening when that discussion took place. I could get Neil McNeill to get hold of you with the officials from Nesbitt Burns so you could go through that. They made a rather extensive presentation, as I recall, on the capacity of the ports to sustain the fees and receive funding.
Mr. Gouk: There is nothing in this document about the fees.
The Chairman: I didn't write the report. Jacques will get Neil together with you, and you can go through the relevant parts of it.
Mr. Gouk: I would like to have whatever information that supposedly explains all this.
The Chairman: Why don't we access the transcripts from that portion of the discussion? The issue was whether or not charging the fee on the gross rather than the net, as I recall, would impact on the port's ability to access private capital for development.
Mr. Gouk: No. Actually, it was beyond that. There was a specific document referred to that laid out how much the fee would be and how it was calculated.
The Chairman: Yes, there was also a schedule.
Mr. Gouk: I still don't have that.
The Chairman: That was distributed also. We'll see that you get a copy of it.
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Gouk. It's always a pleasure having these discussions with you.
We'll move from ports to railroads. One of the joys of being on this particular committee is that you get to deal with all modes at different times.
Mr. Hubbard, I appreciate your willingness to sit in with us today. We're caught in one of those situations in which we're awaiting a vote. Members are over there not realizing that we're meeting.
Mr. Sanderson, you're from Toronto, and you will talk about rail safety, as I recall.
Mr. Iain Sanderson (Chair, Health and Safety Committee, Railway Issues Task Force): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The task force of which I am a member, and its subsequent committees, were formed as a consequence of the derailment that occurred in Rosedale in May 1995. This was at the suggestion of the Minister of Transport in his letter of August 31, which is part of your appendix A.
.1540
Our membership consists of concerned residents from across Metropolitan Toronto, as well as municipal councillors, MPPs and MPs Bill Graham and Barry Campbell.
We have no particular expertise on railroads or their operations. Our primary concern is for the railways to be made to operate more safely and with greater regard for communities they impact. Appendix B contains our mission statement.
We feel the particular thrust of Bill C-43 is decidedly narrow. Therefore, making comments on the details of the bill is difficult.
Of course, safety at the crossings, security of railroad property and strengthening the power of safety officers are vital issues. The minimizing of noise from whistle-blowing has long been one of our concerns. We are pleased to see that guidelines governing this operation have been clarified and that they include municipal involvement. Safety is our primary concern, and no one objects to whistle-blowing in an emergency situation.
To our amazement, however, we find that the entire section 44 has been repealed in Bill C-43, effectively eliminating public and municipal input and review, even though the review committee recommended its extension in their On Track report.
In subclause 13(1) on page 5, under proposed subsection 19(2), the term ``each relevant association or organization that is likely to be affected'' is first quoted. In the legislative summary of clause 13 on page 5, the definition given in brackets to explain this term is ``typically railway labour organizations''.
Those working for or dependent on the railway certainly have their point of view and are entitled to express it. We also have a point of view that is rather unique. We have to live with the operations 24 hours a day. We don't leave it behind after an eight-hour shift. Therefore, anything that affects the safe, sound and responsible operation of the railway also affects us. The railroads must be made to realize that part of their responsible operation is recognizing the concerns of citizens on whom their operations impact.
Organizations such as ratepayers associations and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities must be included in the definition of a relevant association or organization. These are people upon whom the activities of the railroads have a significant impact, and any legislation enacted without input from these public interest groups would be incomplete.
Other industries have long since recognized the benefits of public involvement. A prime example is the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, on whose advisory panel I sit.
As we rush headlong into the 21st century, a new attitude is needed to ensure the survival and growth of railroads with the full support of the Canadian public.
Many of the task force's primary concerns have not been dealt with in this bill, but we feel that now is the appropriate time to voice them. Please read appendix C, which provides details about citizens' concerns about speed and its effects that have been repeatedly heard and documented over the past 30 years.
Here are some of the questions with which we're concerned.
Why must it take so long for the results of an investigation to be made available to the public? The report of the Rosedale derailment of May 1995, which prompted the formation of our committee, still has not been made available. It is well documented that this body has been struggling to improve the record, but this has not yet happened apparently. Timely investigation, cause analysis, problem correction and communication are the only ways to improve the system.
Why are trains left idling unattended for hours on end in residential areas? A documented example shows 15 hours of continuous, unattended idling within 15 metres of homes. Not only is the pollution generated by an idling train intolerable, but the immense safety implications of leaving idling machinery unattended cannot be ignored. The possibility of a speeding through-train colliding with an idling train is an unnecessarily high risk. Vandalism of an unattended train that is undetected before the train leaves could cause a serious accident.
Because high-speed trains generate the most dangerous consequences as well as the most citizen complaints, we believe that they must be reduced in urban areas. The speed at which a train travels is currently dependent on the cargo: special dangerous goods at 40 kilometres per hour, dangerous goods at 56 kilometres per hour, and regular cargo at 80 kilometres per hour.
We believe that the current speed limits are too high. The lower speed limit set for trains carrying dangerous goods is invalidated when a collision involves another train moving at 80 kilometres per hour.
.1545
For this reason, we believe that all trains passing through residential areas should be mandated to go 25 kilometres per hour, which is, in essence, a collision speed of 50 kilometres per hour. Braking distances would also be increased at lower speeds, thus increasing safety.
Why are dangerous goods being shipped through the centre of the largest urban area in Canada? Increased import and export business and increasing GO Train service in the future will add to the mix of human and chemical cargo.
We feel that as long as dangerous goods pass through densely populated areas, the risk is too great. Mass injuries, deaths, property damage, evacuation, or even the closure of emergency facilities located in the area of the disaster would occur.
The best alternative is to reroute dangerous goods through less-populated areas. There must be other readily available track that can be used with little or no cost overruns even if it requires a cooperative effort by competing railroad companies.
Is there any guarantee of adequate insurance? In the event of a disaster, it must be made clear that the railways are ultimately responsible, both financially and morally, for their actions. At the present time, we believe their liability insurance to be inadequate to cover the potential loss of life and property in the event of a major disaster. At a public meeting held on June 28, 1995, CP Rail stated that they carried $250 million in liability insurance, with a $700,000 deductible, which we believe is obviously inadequate.
The number of acts governing the railroads and their operations, which is in appendix D, should be condensed down to two or three, rather than the myriad acts that now exist, none of which apparently guarantee the safety of the public and the community from the speed, vibrations and emissions generated by the railroads as they pass through residential areas.
Consider accountability. The railways are seemingly accountable to no one. Cars and trucks on the roads are accountable to the traffic enforcers in the municipalities and provinces through which they travel. Ships are accountable as they use the canals and waterways. Environment ministries pass laws to limit emissions and chemical spraying. Municipalities pass noise limit by-laws. No one is allowed to be a nuisance to another. To whom are the railroads accountable?
Finally, who will set the standards? The railroads currently set the standards and deny exceeding them, laying the burden of proof on anyone who dares to complain. We believe that the federal government should set the standards for the railways and that municipalities can enforce the federally set guidelines.
In conclusion, I cannot state too often our belief that the railroads must be made to come into line with the thinking of the 1990s when it comes to the involvement of the neighbourhoods they impact. They must welcome and embrace community input in matters that affect the neighbourhood, and there must be a better-defined way to do this. It has been our experience that without legislation, any improvement initiated by the railways has been reluctant, partial and impermanent.
The railways, as well as being a vital industry to our nation, must also be a good neighbour to Canadians. Although we don't wish to have a say in their day-to-day operations, we must have a say in how they impact us through safety, training and overall attitude.
The Railway Issues Task Force recommends that this committee exercise its authority to review the railroad acts widely and to empower the municipalities to enforce federally established standards as soon as possible.
It is our responsibility to ensure that potential disasters are averted and that our communities are made as safe as they possibly can be for our children. We hope generations to come will never look back and ask why more was not done.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Adams, do you have anything to add?
Mr. John Adams (Municipal Councillor, City of Toronto): Very briefly, I am a municipal councillor in the city of Toronto. I represent the area where the derailment of May 1995 took place.
I'm here to reinforce the concerns of the citizens' task force. I'll underline the fact that if the federal legislation, policies, enforcement and oversight of the railways don't do the job, or the railways don't do the job themselves, then it's the emergency services of the municipalities that end up cleaning up the mess.
I think there's a legitimate municipal interest in rail safety issues across this country. I just want to say that we very much appreciate the fact that you, Mr. Chairman, took the time out of your very busy schedule to attend a meeting in a church basement last month so that we could explore these issues and get some dialogue going.
I'm certainly here to advocate on behalf of our municipality the idea of some reasonable devolution of enforcement authority.
.1550
We accept the principle that the railways are a national asset. It's up to the Government of Canada, through its respective agencies and departments, to establish safety standards and nuisance matters.
But in terms of the enforcement of train speeds in highly built up urban settings across this country, we would like to see this committee undertake some work so that the authority for enforcement could be shared with or devolved to the local municipalities. It is the municipal police forces that, among others, also are responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code of Canada within that jurisdiction.
I believe that we could look at the principle of subsidiarity, as Europeans might call it, in terms of the local impacts of non-compliance with a federally determined standard of conduct by the railway to give us the tools at the local level to hold these operators accountable for their impacts on local neighbourhoods.
That's the essence of my contribution.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Gentlemen, I just have a couple of questions. You're obviously very concerned about a real growing problem in our country; however, there is a cause and effect with everything.
First of all, specifically, if $250 million in insurance is inadequate, what do you consider adequate, and what is it based on?
Mr. Sanderson: The figures they were throwing around were based on similar circumstances in the U.S. It's a $700,000 deductible. This means that if you look at awarding $100,000 per deceased person, the first seven families would receive nothing. This $250 million sounds like a lot, but in the event of a major disaster, that wouldn't even pay for the clean-up.
Mr. Adams: I would add a comment to that.
We don't claim to be experts on this. We appreciate the fact that members of Parliament Graham and Campbell and the minister saw to it that officials from Transport Canada and from the safety board attended a community meeting in Rosedale that followed shortly after the particular incident. Our general understanding from this is that there may be standards determined by governments in other countries in terms of required levels of liability insurance coverage by rail operators beyond our experience in Canada.
I stand to be corrected. I can't say that I have researched that personally. I would invite the committee to exercise some due diligence in that respect on behalf of the citizens of the country: are we meeting the standards that other railway operators in other countries, including the Americans, are required to meet in terms of liability protection?
Mr. Gouk: It is certainly one way we could measure it, but of course the minute you go to different countries, you have a lot of different parallels. I wouldn't want to have the amount of insurance on a car that I find minimally necessary in Canada when I go to the United States, where lawsuits are a lot more prevalent and incur higher costs. There is some mixing and matching.
Here's the other thing. Just to carry it to a greater area, we're talking in terms of impacts like rerouting dangerous chemicals presumably to either different routes or new routes, or having speed restrictions or a variety of other measures all of which you've made a case for.
Have you or any of your committee studied or discussed any financial impact on some of these more major measures with the railways? We have to balance. That's not to say that we should do something unsafe because we can't afford to do it any other way, but any time we add measures.... Everything is a level of safety; nothing is perfectly safe.
Mr. Sanderson: Exactly.
Mr. Gouk: If we wanted perfect safety, there would be no trains or cars.
Mr. Sanderson: Right.
Mr. Gouk: It's the level of safety we're prepared to accept. There is a break point for everything. That's why cars that are still unsafe are driven. Obviously, as long as they're driven, they're unsafe. Even if you only have one, it's unsafe.
Have there been any discussions with the railways or anyone else about the financial impact of the various things that you would like to see instituted?
Mr. Sanderson: The short answer would be no. The reason for this is that - I don't know if I made it clear - the railway doesn't welcome those kinds of discussions. They figure that's their business. They're being the benevolent parent. They say it's okay because they're taking care of it. No, there has been no open discussion. It's not that this hasn't been wanted, but that it hasn't been broached.
.1555
This is why we mentioned that there should be some kind of organization whereby, before this is brought either before a committee like yours or whatever, it's able to be discussed openly with all of those concerned: railways, citizens and municipalities.
We realize that it can't be too heavily weighted on either side, but we feel that there needs to be more open discussion. It needs to now go the other way. The perception is that it has always been in the railroads' corner. It now needs to sort of turn and be conciliatory. A balance has to be found.
Mr. Adams: If I just might add one thing on a point, take the example of the question of legal speed limits for trains in our context, which is urban settings.
I was given a history lesson. This is a series of documents or correspondence from 1964-65 from the same neighbourhood where the derailment took place. According to this information, which I read on the safe or unsafe aircraft on the way up here today, the speed limit that those trains operated on in 1964 on this same stretch of track we're talking about was 25 miles per hour. I'm an old-fashioned guy; I still think in terms of miles. But then they got rid of the clickity-clack, clickity-clack, clickity-clack by putting continuously welded rail in, after which the speed limit then went to 50 miles an hour. It remains so today for anything other than any category of dangerous goods.
What we're suggesting is that when a train - this is what happened in May 1995 - comes around a blind corner in violation of the established speed limits and ends up using a second, parked train as its braking device, causing a derailment, then you better think again. It's time to take another hard look at the consequences of the speed limits and the practices of, in this case, CP Rail on this particular line in a very densely populated area, which is within a stone's throw of an elementary school.
When the rail line was put in, there weren't any houses in the neighbourhood. I acknowledge that. The country has grown. The Government of Canada has been responsible for a lot of immigration, a lot of which has come to the Toronto area. Those houses are there now in close proximity to this very busy rail line.
We're not trying to destroy the railway or undermine it financially, legally, operationally or otherwise. We're saying that we should take a hard look at those speed limits to give ourselves a margin of error that wasn't there in May 1995.
Mr. Gouk: If those houses had not been built there, would we have no problem?
Mr. Adams: Change takes place.
Mr. Gouk: I have a great series of pictures of the airport at Los Angeles, starting in 1925. At one point, the City of Los Angeles put up a big, huge billboard. It said that if you were considering building in this area, then you should know that you're proximal to an airport. I don't know the exact wording. There's a series of pictures taken for a variety of reasons that happen to show the sign eventually only partially visible because of houses. Eventually, it's completely obliterated.
Of course, they now complain about the airport, which was there before they were. If we keep doing that we will eventually erode our ability to have airports and railways. That's why we have to look at balance instead of just ultimately saying that houses come first.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Adams, before you reply, given that we're going to have to vacate this room in about 10 minutes, I know Mr. Keyes has a question.
I know, Mr. Adams, that concerning the package you referred to from the early 1960s, there was another hard-working member of Parliament on that issue at that time, was there not? I forget his name.
Mr. Adams: It was Donald S. Macdonald, who also lives within a stone's throw of the same railway line today. He's one of my constituents.
The Chairman: So this issue of the municipal regulation and enforcement of speed limits on railways is an interesting one.
Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the gentlemen for their submission. I had a chance to read it earlier.
I just worry a little bit. If we're trying to make some progress on a dialogue that might have to take place between yourselves and the railway, or the community and the railway, I think we have to be cognizant of what is in place.
.1600
We read on page 5 that ``We believe that the federal government should set standards for the railways''. Well, I think the argument out there in the sector is that, quite frankly, we're regulated to death in the railways. We have the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which incorporates the fears you're speaking of. Transport Canada has recent safety regulations that were put into place.
You talk about the 1995 derailment. I remember that as a television reporter out of Hamilton I covered the giant Mississauga derailment of the early 1980s. At that time, they came out with regulations that outlined the necessity of the way we linked cars and what products were going to be linked to what products so there wouldn't be catastrophic explosions, etc.
So you say the federal government should set standards. The standards are there. There are safety precautions taken. There are dangerous goods acts and safety acts, etc. If we can provide you with all that information, if you're void of it, we'd be glad to do so. I know Transport Canada would be more than happy to provide you with that information.
But I think what remains to be said is that as for your organization or other municipal organizations that have similar concerns, if there was a mechanism by which we could dialogue between you and the railroads to make those concerns a little more evident, that would go a long way. Are you in need of these regulations?
Mr. Adams: Clearly, there is a federal responsibility that has been acted upon historically. We're saying that in light of our learning experience in 1995, we're asking for a revisit of some of those existing standards around speed control. We'd also ask for the devolution of enforcement authority on ``nuisance'', which I'll use as a rubric. I mean nuisance not in the everyday term, but in the legal term, which means things like noise vibration or whatever impacts on the ability of people to have the quiet enjoyment of their property.
Here's the other thing I would say. As for the balance issue that was raised by the member earlier, it's there, such that in Toronto we're trying to find a reasonable balance. We have a policy of not allowing residential development within 100 feet of a rail corridor. We know that the railway companies keep an interest on any development applications, because that's their policy and practice and if anybody tries to penetrate closer than that to a rail line, they'll object through municipal zoning procedures. They have rights of appeal as well. That's the point at which it's their policy, and in Toronto, it's municipal zoning policy as well. We need to be vigilant about that.
There are other questions about the impacts of noise and vibration. These are our legal nuisance issues. But here I understand we're trying to focus on what we see as safety issues. Frankly, it's the impact of the combined speeds of two trains that may in be collision or derailment that could contribute to a human tragedy of monumental proportions.
We did not suffer loss of human life in the Mississauga case of 1976. I think it was that year, but correct me if I'm wrong. Nor did we suffer any loss of life or physical injury in the case that happened more recently in May 1995. But the threat is there, so we have to find the balance. We don't believe the railways will voluntarily reduce their speed limits in highly built up areas. I think we need the Government of Canada, through its agencies, to exercise its regulatory authority in this respect.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Crête, you have a brief question that you wanted to ask.
.1605
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): My question will be brief, because unfortunately we have to go and vote in a few minutes. I gather from your brief that you find the current bill very limited in scope. If you had to vote on this bill, would you vote for it or against it, and what would be your major argument?
[English]
Mr. Adams: Speaking for myself on your question, I could not support the bill as currently drafted, even though it has a comparatively narrow focus, if for no other reason than the example attached to the bill of what they mean by the associations that will be consulted. We think that definition is too narrow and restrictive. The labour unions are legitimate, but we think that consulting such an organization as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is equally legitimate.
Mr. Sanderson: We had the same concerns as the homeowners. There was no definition to include our recognized association as being part of the body that would participate in the forming of this legislation. So therefore, I would feel the same. If I were asked to say yea or nay, it would have to be a nay on the bill.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mr. Jordan, you have a small question.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): I notice that in the letter sent by the former minister,Mr. Young, to Bill Graham, he's suggesting that concerns about noise pollution and vibration should be dealt with by the National Transportation Agency. Have you contacted the agency with your concerns?
Mr. Sanderson: Yes, we did. I don't remember if it was that particular.... We had someone from the National Transportation Agency come down to speak to us.
Mr. Jordan: They heard your concerns, okay.
Here's another concern that I would have. Railroads are in a competitive business these days. They're competing against a lot of other people. As for this suggestion of having all trains mandated to go at 25 kilometres per hour while passing through residential areas, gosh, that's about 15 miles per hour. You would have trains going through all night. They would be moving so damn slowly that they'd be butting into one another, wouldn't they?
Why not have some safety devices installed that would satisfy you so that it's okay for a train to be going 50 kilometres per hour instead of just saying that the only way you can do this is to slow the train down? If we used that thinking, then I guess we'd still all be driving Model Ts, and I'm not sure the roads would be any safer. Bring along with your concern the suggestion that they install safety devices on the trains that would allow them to go through at a reasonable speed. How long would it take a train to get through Metropolitan Toronto at 25 kilometres per hour starting from the west? Don't you see that as a problem?
Mr. Sanderson: I would just ask this. When you talk of a safety device, do you mean something such as what I would call a governor on the train so it can't go above a certain -
Mr. Jordan: The trains in Europe now can go 500 kilometres per hour. I was on one that went 300 kilometres per hour. They built mechanisms in to make them safe. I'm not suggesting you go through Toronto at that speed, but the speed you're suggesting is ridiculously the other way.
The Chairman: We're going to adjourn. We're going against time. We will talk in the House. Just check with us in the House to see whether or not we can come back. It will depend on whether or not there are multiple votes. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned