Opposition quick to lay blame on Tories
Without evidence, NDP leader points finger at Conservative spending cuts as reason for tragedy in Quebec
As they sift through the ashes of their town, the grieving citizens of LacMégantic can console themselves that their loved ones did not die in vain: they have served as useful props for the advancement of Tom Mulcair’s political career.
If the NDP leader did not explicitly blame the train derailment and explosion that levelled the town on Conservative spending cuts, he certainly left the impression they could have been responsible. “This tragic accident,” he told CTV News, “reminds us ( that) we are seeing more and more petroleum products being transported by rail, and there are attendant dangers involved in that. And, at the same time, the Conservative government is cutting transport safety in Canada.”
This was no stray slip of the tongue. The same day the NDP released a statement making much the same point, in much the same language. “This tragedy reminds us,” it quoted its transportation critic, Olivia Chow, that “Conservatives have recklessly cut public safety,” to the tune of $ 3 million in the last year.
“This tragedy reminds us.” If the party is not suggesting a causal link, then it is using the disaster to score points about policies that had nothing to do with it. But in fact the only reason to bring them up is to imply that they were somehow to blame, or at the very least could give rise to similar disasters in future.
The issue here is not partisanship, as such: that’s what politicians do. Nor is there anything wrong or disrespectful about searching for explanations after a tragedy, though it is usually considered tactful to wait at least until the remains have been identified. What’s wrong is seizing on explanations without evidence, based solely on calculations of partisan advantage.
Let me repeat: there is no evidence to date to connect the accident in Lac- Mégantic to Conservative spending cuts. Indeed, it has not been established there have even been any cuts, in terms of front- line staff, or if there were, how they might have contributed to events. It’s just something to throw out there, hoping foggy minds will not think too closely about it.
To be fair, the NDP is hardly alone in this game. Commentators on the right have been equally quick to claim the disaster makes the case for transporting oil by pipe, rather than by rail. But here again, there is no evidence, the experts tell us, to say that one or the other is safer overall. Each has its advantages, and each its perils.
Certainly this one accident, as unprecedented as it is horrific, is not sufficient evidence in itself. Consider what a singular convergence of events was required to bring it about. A highly flammable cargo; an unattended train; parked on a hill; on the main track, not a siding; above a town; far enough from town to build up great speed; and, as a final piece, that fatal bend in the track as it entered town. If any one of those is not present, no disaster and no deaths. But even if all are, you still need two more: the failure ( so it seems) of the air brakes; and the failure ( so it is alleged) to lock the hand brakes.
So as you read each news story suggesting the accident was a result of some obvious regulatory failure, and not to a catastrophic mix of inclement circumstance and human negligence, ask yourself how any of them would have contributed to this particular tragedy; how, if they had not been present, it might have been avoided; or whether whatever remedy is now proposed would have occurred to anyone except in hindsight.
We are told, for example, that the townsfolk had earlier expressed concerns about the condition of the track. Great: how would even an immaculately maintained track have held a train going around a bend at better than 100 kilometres per hour? We are told that the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway used “only” one- man crews, as if it were unusual. But it’s not unusual, except in Canada: in most developed countries it’s the norm. Do runaway trains routinely plow into towns in Europe? For that matter, do they in Canada?
We are told the railways are “self- regulated.” But this is simply untrue. They are regulated by Transport Canada ( see, for example, the Rules Respecting Track Safety) and the Canadian Transportation Agency under a number of acts, including the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and are inspected regularly.
For all the oft- cited increase in traffic, Canada’s railways have, in fact, been getting steadily safer. The number of rail accidents each year — not just the rate, the number — has fallen by roughly a third over the last decade. Derailments are down by a similar amount. The rate of main- track accidents, at 1.6 per million train miles, is barely half what it was in 2005. ( Figures available here: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/rail/2012/ss12.asp)
There are things we could do, without a doubt, that would preclude another Lac- Mégantic altogether. We could make the cars out of titanium, or reroute the lines around towns, or take out the bends. But are the costs, potentially high, worth the risk: vanishingly small? We could ban carrying oil by train, but other methods, as I’ve mentioned, have their own risks — and what of the vast number of other hazardous materials that also travel by rail?
Perhaps it is reasonable to require that trains not be left unattended, or not parked on an incline, or that signals or fail- safes be installed to catch any trains that do slip their moorings. But whatever regulatory regime we come up with, it won’t alter three fundamental facts: there are events you can’t plan for; there are costs that aren’t worth bearing; and the best regulations in the world only work if people follow them.