29 December 2005
Public Inquiry Called on Rail Traffic
Shawanaga - The day before the Ojibways of Shawanaga slowed down CPR's trains and made them
stop for 10 minutes to draw attention to railway safety issues, my husband and I had driven over snow mounds to cross CPR tracks at
the Shebeshekong Road crossing.
The day after the native blockade, the snow and ice was cleared by CPR on both road crossings on Shawanaga First Nation and
Shebeshekong Road, the site of CPR's 13 Feb 2003 chemical release derailment. Yet, railway law had required the railway
to clear snow and ice from their tracks and road crossings every winter and this had not been done on a regular basis.
Last fall, Transport Canada, the only government department with jurisdiction over railways, advised they have no enforcement or
railway inspectors located in the District of Parry Sound.
As a result, issues such as speeding trains, unsafe road crossings, ill-maintained tracks, transportation of chemicals,
trains not up to safety specs and all the myriad laws the legislature created for rail and public safety are not being enforced on
railways operating through the District on a daily basis to deter derailments.
Railway employees recommended last year that CPR go no faster than 30 kilometres per hour through Shawanaga First Nation, after two,
low-speed chemical carrying trains derailed, on 13 Feb 2003 at Shebeshekong Road and on
26 Feb 2003 on Shawanaga First Nation, approximately one kilometre away.
All meetings between band government and the railway failed to have the railway slow down. One CPR's managerial response was:
"We don't have to. We carry millions of dollars of goods."
CPR's tracks are built on water soluble mud, clay, marsh soil and sand through the First Nation and surrounding area. The tracks may
have been built for faster trains, but the ground under the tracks may not even be safe to sustain the tonnage of modern era
three-kilometre plus trains. Certainly CP's fiery toxic diesel fuel derailment in April 1997 at the north end of Shawanaga
First Nation, when the train derailed and fell 80 feet in mud, seriously injuring the train conductor, indicates the soil beneath the
tracks is not suitable for tonnage of the chemical carriers.
Dangerous goods
According to Transport Canada's Director General, dangerous goods, "railways can carry what they want." According to Transport
Canada, "chemical tankers are safe as long as the train does not derail."
Unrestricted chemical loads move throughout Canada, set to go off like chemical contamination bombs when the railway derails.
According to Jim Pawis, organizer of Shawanaga's CPR slowdown, CPR transported 159 chemical tankers through Shawanaga First Nation from
midnight to noon, 13 Feb 2004.
One train, he said, carried 89 chemical tankers. Sulphuric acid, the railway carried, burns human skin to the bone marrow in seconds
and fumes burn lungs and eyes out in seconds.
In my opinion, the railway industry is just as dangerous as moving nuclear bombs throughout Canada as these chemicals are set to go
off in derailments.
Last year, CPR derailed from a railway bridge in Brantford, flattening vehicles in a parking area below. Months later, they derailed
from a bridge in Whitby killing two people. CN derailed from a mountain bridge killing railway employees in British Columbia. Are these
railway bridges, built almost a hundred years ago, even built to sustain the tonnage of modern era trains? Or, are chemicals going to
be derailed from bridges, like bombs, before that is investigated?
The current Canadian standard for rail safety, as explained to victim evacuees of a year ago CPR derailment at Shebeshekong Road, is
the number of trains which make it through an area in a given time frame, not the mass destruction caused by one derailment.
By using the current standard, a railway can contaminate a whole urban area, as in Mississauga, forcing the evacuation of 10,000 people
for 10 days and still be considered to be a "safely operating railway" in Canada. Whom are they kidding? The criteria for
holding a railway operating license in Canada, according to Transport Canada's Director General, is "a railway must prove to the
Minister they can operate a railway safely and stay on their tracks."
An urgent public inquiry into rail safety in Canada is required, before a major crisis of mass destruction occurs. There is nothing
protecting Canada from having a major railway disaster like the chemical explosions in Iran.
The legislature acts on petitions by voters. Petitions requesting an inquiry into rail safety should be sent to Andy Mitchell's office
in this District.
We, in the District of Parry Sound, with multiple railway bridges, tracks built on mud, clay, sand and marsh soil have a lot to be
afraid of. From an industry which has derailed and released hazardous chemicals numerous times in this non-industrialized
district, and don't have laws enforced on them daily, in Andy Mitchell's riding. A ban on the transportation of dangerous goods should
also be requested in the petition until the rail safety inquiry is complete and safety issues fixed.
Railway derailments are not accidents in my opinion. They represent something very wrong in Canada's railway system, which may have
been covered up for a very long time.
Railways were built on Canada's infrastructure needs of almost a hundred years ago. They no longer serve the majority of Canadian
communities they operate through, which have their dangers imposed on them. Railways changed their business and what they wanted right
of ways for. Modern day voters have not even had the opportunity to vote on whether they consent to having dangerous chemicals
transported through their areas. No vote has been taken since the United Nations banned the transportation of dangerous goods and
Canada signed the UN agreement. There have been no studies, that I could locate, as to whether railways are even located in areas they
can safely operate the tonnage of their modern era chemical carriers. A public inquiry is required. Not only for the safety of railway
employees, but for the public at large.
It would certainly put a lot of Canadians to work if railways should be making tracks out of water soluable land areas across Canada.
A complete inquiry into rail safety in Canada is required before Canada has a major crisis.
Yours truly, Mary Shaw
Mary Shaw Gives Inaccurate Information
Where did she get such inaccurate information?
Her article is full of lies, rediculous assertions, and written so poorly that we laughed so hard at our depot that two of our men
vomited their lunches up. Where did she come up with the stupid idea that the U.N. banned transportation of dangerous goods? Does she
know anything about railroads?
Also, we dont just lay our track on clay and watch it sink in the mud. Are you aware Ms Shaw that we have regrading equipment and we
use tons of ballast per section of track? We don't want to have derailments either since it costs us millions of dollars in damages
and also in time lost.
Next time you decide to open your ill informed mouth, please try to get a few facts first. There is so much other bull in her letter
that I dont think its worth our time to correct it. Our workers at section 620 don't appreciate the lies spread by Ms Shaw and may
take legal action against her. We have started a legal fund and have contacted a lawyer to go after her unless she appologizes and
retracts her false statements - gibson620 at verizon dot net
Rail Safety
At Transport Canada we take the issues which were raised by Mary Shaw with great concern and hereby invite her to contact me at
416 321-5454.
Thanks.
Hon. Jim Karygiannis P.C., M.P. - Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
|
