Bill S-4 (Historical)

Safer Railways Act

An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act

The amendments amend the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport by, for example, requiring companies to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate indicating compliance with regulatory requirements;
(b) strengthen that Department’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines;
(c) enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive who is accountable for safety and a non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies;
(d) clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters; and
(e) expand regulation-making powers, including in respect of environmental management, and clarify the process for rule making by railway companies.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Therien, I want to clarify your comments that whistle-blower protection should be in the Railway Safety Act. Bill S-4 granted the authority. I think the statement was that the regulation should be in place.

[Emile Therien, Past President, Canada Safety Council, As an Individual]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for having me.

For you people who are not from Ottawa, I apologize for our weather.

In light of that terrible tragedy at Lac-Mégantic last July, Transport Canada was taken to task in many quarters regarding its commitment to rail safety in this country. That awful train accident, the worst in the history of our country, took lives, injured others, caused extensive property damage, and basically decimated a proud and vibrant community.

I have been a long-time critic of rail safety in this country, often being severely critical of Transport Canada and the railway companies. There were very serious problems. Between 2003 and 2007, the average number of main-track derailments in this country was 103, or two a week. That did not include the number of non-main track derailments, mainly in yards or terminals. In the year 2007, then Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon stated in the House of Commons that “rail safety in this country has gone down the tube.”

As regulator, Transport Canada, with overall responsibility for railway safety, conducts audits of how a railway company maintains its safety management systems. It does not engage in the inspection of tracks and switches. The companies’ safety responsibilities include day-to-day safety and inspections. However, Lac-Mégantic, Plaster Rock, and other serious rail incidents aside, I sense that there has been a monumental shift, albeit spearheaded by legislation, in how Transport Canada and the industry approach safety, with very encouraging and positive results.

Since 2007, train accidents in this country have decreased by 23%, and passenger train accidents by 19%. In addition, there were 16 main-track derailments for the first quarter of 2012, representing a significant decrease from the 2011 total of 38 and the total five-year average of 34. In addition, from January to March 2012, total accidents by million train miles are 11.33, down from 14.29 in 2011 and the five-year average of 14.3. Why is this happening?

Transport Canada does, indeed, take railway safety very seriously and continues to take action to ensure that rail safety is a high priority. Only a few years ago, the government increased the rail safety directorate’s financial resources by over $72 million in order to enhance railway safety oversight, and an additional 25 inspectors were hired. Additional resources were also assigned to education and awareness, such as the operation lifesaver program, a joint program of the Canada Safety Council, the Railway Association of Canada, and Transport Canada. I won't go into details on this program but it's in my presentation.

Transport Canada also promoted amendments to the Railway Safety Act through Bill S-4, which received royal assent in May, 2012. These amendments will strengthen Transport Canada’s oversight and enforcement powers to ensure compliance with all safety regulations by the railway companies. These important changes can only encourage rail companies to create, maintain, and enhance a culture of safety.

One important category that has also shown significant improvement when it comes to rail freight is the discharge of dangerous goods. Statistics show an ongoing downward trend. The Lac-Mégantic and Plaster Rock incidents aside, most leaks, fortunately, are small. Organizations and individuals attribute this decrease in incidents involving dangerous goods to the proactive stance and leadership over the years by the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate, which falls under the authority of the Minister of Transport.

The TDG General Policy Advisory Council has played and continues to play a large role in this success. This council, which meets twice a year, brings together stakeholders—police, firefighters, industry, including rail, provincial governments, unions, safety interests and others—with very different interests and agendas. But at the end of the day, through consensus and thoughtful discussion, decisions affecting the movement of dangerous goods are made in the best interests of the health and safety of all Canadians.

The next meeting of the council will be held here in Ottawa on May 15. I have represented the Canada Safety Council on that important committee for many, many years. I mention some of the activities here, and I'll bypass them in the interest of time, but they are the objectives or the activities of that directive, and here I think that things are going well.

Regarding SMS and the railway industry, the amendments to the Railway Safety Act in 1999, many years ago, gave railway companies the authority to implement safety management systems, or SMS, defined as a framework for integrating safety into day-to-day railroad operations. SMS includes safety goals and performance targets, risk assessment, responsibilities, rules and procedures, and monitoring and evaluation processes.

With SMS, companies were supposed to identify risks before they became even bigger problems. With SMS, many critics said Transport Canada largely gave up its safety oversight role.

Since its introduction it has been very controversial. The friction it caused between management and employees of railway companies led to an acrimonious work environment, which in and of itself has a very bad effect on safety.

Proponents have long claimed that SMS is not self-regulation or deregulation, and has not fundamentally changed the way the companies operate. Railway company management say that SMS has enhanced both safety and the culture of safety in the industry.

Opponents of SMS claim otherwise. Railway workers feared that allowing the companies to oversee the government’s safety standards and regulations was a conflict of interest. They pointed out that along with SMS came a reduction in the number of inspectors, thereby eroding the authority and function of the regulator. With SMS, spot audits, historically regarded as critical safety checks, came to an end. Workers were also concerned that SMS gave companies the responsibility to evaluate and manage risks, based on the level of risk they were willing to accept. A risk threshold set by the industry may not be as demanding as one set by Transport Canada. The question must be asked, is transferring the determination of risk levels to the industry, in effect, a deregulation of safety?

Concerns have also been expressed that SMS allows companies to regulate themselves, in the process removing the government’s ability to protect Canadians and their environment and making it possible for the industry to hide critical safety information from the government and the public.

I recognize that SMS is not restricted to Canada. But in view of the poor safety record that accompanied its implementation here, going back to 1999, a critical assessment of its impact on rail safety at this time is in order. The government must take firm action with respect to problems, perceived or not, to maximize safety for Canadians and the protection of our precious environment.

In December 2006, then-transport minister Lawrence Cannon set up an advisory panel to review the Railway Safety Act. The panel came up with 50 recommendations to improve rail safety in Canada. The panel’s report recognized that SMS had not resulted in the overall safety improvements that were expected. The panel called for a strong and proactive role for Transport Canada’s rail safety directorate and a strong commitment to funding and staffing.

I understand there is currently a lack of protection for railway workers who report safety violations to Transport Canada. They are not allowed to bypass their company’s SMS. If that company has already accepted the complaint as a tolerable level of risk, nothing can be done, and Transport Canada will never know about it. Whistleblower protection must be incorporated into the Railway Safety Act, and soon.

I'm almost done, Mr. Chair.

Safety is not a frill. The railway companies are a very important industry, and we've all alluded to that. They employ thousands of Canadians from coast to coast and some in the United States. The products they move—agricultural, industrial, commodities, etc.—are an integral and important part of our economy responsible for a large part of our prosperity.

That being said, Canadians must be assured that rail safety is not being compromised in the interest of profits. It is false economy to cut back on safety. Costly, preventable catastrophes happen because potential risks in the system are accepted as normal.

When the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed in February 2003, seven astronauts died. The report on that disaster revealed that it was a result of flawed safety practices. Even after Challenger blew up in 1986, also killing seven astronauts, NASA did not improve its safety systems. The August 2003 Columbia accident investigation report found that managers accepted flaws in the system as normal and frowned on dissent.

I would not like to think this is the kind of atmosphere that has developed and continues to simmer undetected and unknown to the government and the public in some segments of railway companies until one day other unspeakable tragedies, not unlike those in Mississauga in 1977, and Lac-Mégantic last July, occur.

Just one last thing. I think as an ongoing discussion, especially in this city and across the country, the terrible and tragic collision between a VIA train and an OC Transpo bus in Ottawa last September 8, which left six bus passengers dead and 30 injured—many seriously—has raised many concerns about the safety of railway crossings in this country.

Transport Minister Raitt announced recently that under the grade crossing improvement program, Transport Canada would inject over $9.2 million for improvements at over 600 railway crossings across the country. I would hope a large part of this money focuses on public education and enforcement.

Let's put the facts into perspective. As reported by the Canada Safety Council there were 169 rail/highway crossing crashes in this country in 2011. Of those, 25 people were killed and 21 were seriously injured. It is suspected that some of those killed were suicides, very much a mental health issue. A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train than in a collision involving another motor vehicle. Most collisions occur within 40 clicks of the motorist's home. The principal cause of the level-crossing collisions is a failure of the motorist to stop or exercise due care and caution or to observe and comply with existing laws and regulations. Roughly 50% of all rail/highway crossing crashes occur at crossings equipped with flashing lights, bell or flashing lights, bell or gate, or whatever goes along there.

Many of these collisions can be reduced by driver behaviour combined with enforcement and common sense and at a very modest cost. In the grand scheme of things, should this not be the priority?

Thank you very much.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

But the mechanisms are there now as a result of Bill S-4 amendments.

[Phil Benson]

You're referring to the Bill S-4 amendments?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Very good. That's important for the committee.

We could get into other questions about whether you can bridge the cultural divide with respect to the leadership there. I don't know how you overcome that with respect to regulation and other things. Mr. Vena, from CN, was here at this committee. He said they did 1,000 audits a day “to see what our employees are doing”, as if employees are to blame for safety in the system.

I want to turn for a moment now, if I might.... Actually, before I do, would you like to comment on the effect of Bill S-4, and whether or not what happened in the upgrades to the Railway Safety Act are in any way changing the structural relationship or hold the promise to changing a structural relationship between unions and the company? By that, I'm talking about the integration of health and safety committees with the company.

Mr. Benson, maybe you want to comment.

Rail Transportation

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the hon. member opposite for her intervention in this proceeding tonight.

As was noted, there have been a number of actions taken by this government with respect to rail safety. I have been on the transport committee since 2007, prior to my appointment as a parliamentary secretary last year, and a number of important safety remedies have been undertaken.

I recall back then that an independent rail advisory panel was struck to make recommendations to the minister and the government at the time. A number of those recommendations, in fact almost all of them, have been fully implemented.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did an important review as well, and many of its recommendations were put into place.

Bill S-4 came forward with a number of important amendments, among them, everything from mandating that a company executive be appointed specifically for safety at the company, the requirement for environmental management plans, and whistle-blower protection. A number of important measures came out of that as well.

A number of important steps have been taken in light of Lac-Mégantic as well, and important new directives from the minister regarding the proper testing and classification of dangerous goods.

An important consultation took place between the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that resulted in an important information-sharing protocol that establishes a registry of designated first responders in communities, who will be contacted with respect to historic information about the types of shipments that will be passing through communities, and the additional requirement that if there is any market change in that regard, that there would be a more immediate notification to the people on that registry of what is passing through their community.

That was important obviously for the ability of first responders and communities across the country to begin planning what resources they need for what typically would come through their communities, and what types of exercises they need to do in modelling response.

A number of additional consultations resulted in directions as well. The requirement now is for environmental response action plans for very flammable, dangerous goods, things like aviation fuel, ethanol, crude—things that were not there before, and a task force that would come, bringing together first responders and municipal officials to talk about that response and how we do that.

As the member alluded, important steps were taken on DOT-111s, the immediate banning of the worst offenders and the phase-out of retrofit over three years for the remaining ones.

I should also note that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has also been asked by the minister to look into a number of additional measures in all modes. The rail aspect of that will be wrapping up in about another two weeks and interim findings will be coming in a report on that particular segment.

There has been testimony regarding positive train control, which is a broad term for a number of different possible automatic braking features that could be done. The question of advance notification has been raised in the questioning, and the committee has not come to a decision on that or a recommendation to the minister, but I invite the member opposite to stay tuned to what the committee is doing in terms of its important work.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

Dr. Fleming, earlier when questioned you said that leadership drives culture to a large degree. As a result of Bill S-4, and pending regulations, we'll have an executive who is accountable with respect to culture and who is appointed, and prevalent whistle-blower protection. The unions are structurally involved on the front end in a joint fashion about driving safety culture. Those are aspects that, in and of themselves, while they may represent accountability, don't necessarily drive safety culture, if I understand your presentation correctly. Is that also true? That's not to say we don't want to have them.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

But the pending regulations as a result of Bill S-4 will very much formalize the union in that particular process and that will be an important step forward on behalf of workers to ensure they are moving forward in the active planning and information sharing around improving safety management systems.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you so much for your presentations today. This is obviously a very serious matter.

Mr. Boudreault, I really commend you for your passion and commitment to safety. Obviously more needs to be done, and that's why we're here.

I would like to know if you know about Bill S-4 and about all the new regulations and measures in there that we've put into place. You do have a copy of it somewhere, or somebody can get him a copy or something.

I wanted to ask you particularly about the training. What kind of training currently exists for people who are running the trains right now? I mean, we know about the SMS. That's the plan, but what about the actual training?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Actually, as a result of Bill S-4, we will have the power to yank licences as well.

One of the questions that's been under some advisement, if you will, is the question of extending emergency response action plans to the Bakken type of crude, if you will, and to aviation fuel and other types of more flammable substances. Is it the position of your union and members that ERAPs for these particular classes of chemicals are an important step forward in improving the safety regime? What's your recommendation to the government on that?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So the new administrative monetary penalties that are coming in as a result of Bill S-4 and its regulations are an important additional tool of compliance that can be used. In the old way, we had to prosecute a company in order to obtain a fine. The administrative monetary penalties will be an important step forward in enforcement as well.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Regional Chief, British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations]

Gilakasla. Good morning, members. Thank you for having me here.

My name is Jody Wilson-Raybould. I am the regional chief for British Columbia. I am appearing here today along with Karen Campbell from the Assembly of First Nations and as the portfolio holder for first nation governance.

I want to also acknowledge Chief Louie and my colleagues on the First Nations Lands Advisory Board who are here as well.

Let me turn to Bill S-2.

Canada's intention to enact legislation in the area of matrimonial property is of course not new. I have presented twice at the Senate's committee on human rights, once on Bill S-4 and now on Bill S-2. While Bill S-2 contains positive changes from previous iterations, the overriding concerns that I raised previously remain.

Before I discuss these concerns with the committee, let me first say that Bill S-2 should not be characterized as a bill dealing with women's issues and probably should not be before this committee, with all due respect to the members of this committee. This is because these matters are not simply women's issues. For my husband, who is in this room and who lives on our reserve, it is his issue as well.

It has also been suggested that some of those who have spoken out against the bill or are behind the opposition to it are somehow trying to prop up a system that is unfair and that benefits some at the expense of others. While there may be individuals who are content with the status quo, this is certainly not the case for me nor for the organizations nor for the chiefs I represent. We all appreciate that there is a legal gap in the Indian Act that needs to be filled. We all know that many citizens or their spouses may be left at a disadvantage when it comes to settling a divorce, when their spouse passes away, or when they seek access to the family home.

Our criticism of the federal government's approach in Bill S-2, as in other federal bills, is not of the intent to fix the problem but rather of the government's considering it acceptable to design our post-colonial governance for us. Our contention with Bill S-2 is not about the need to fill a gap in the law but rather about who is filling the gap and with what rules.

Family and divorce law, wills and estates, and land law generally are complex at the best of times. When applied on reserve and governed under the Indian Act, they become even more complex. When considered in the light of indigenous legal traditions and our challenges with decolonization, the issues become even more so. Ideally, matters such as matrimonial property rights and interests should not be considered in isolation from other areas of interrelated law but should rather be addressed comprehensively when our nations are rebuilding comprehensive governance reform and moving away from the Indian Act.

Having said this, I appreciate that the federal government wants to do something about filling the gap with respect to matrimonial property. This is not without risk, as the federal government is walking a legal tightrope by making laws in areas that many people, including legal scholars and our leadership, assume are a part of a nation's inherent right of self-government and are protected in Canada's Constitution. Also, it is doing so without our free, prior, and informed consent as articulated in section 19 of the UN declaration.

In the past, and despite its best intentions, I have called the government's current approach to legislation neo-colonial. I know others do not see it this way. There certainly seemed to be a number of conflicted senators, when I presented on this bill at Senate committee, who on the one hand wanted to fill the gap but on the other hand were concerned about being paternalistic. This work is not easy.

For our part, dating back to 2006 the AFN has coordinated a number of dialogue sessions with our first nation citizens on how to approach the division of matrimonial property. There were three main issues that came forward: one, recognition of first nations' jurisdiction; two, access to justice and dispute resolution and remedies; and three, addressing underlying issues, such as housing shortages and the lack of access to temporary shelters. These have since been reiterated in resolutions from our chiefs in assembly.

With respect to jurisdiction, the promise of rights recognition and reconciliation in section 35(1) of the Constitution should require, for legal certainty, the explicit recognition of first nations' inherent right of self-government as part of any legislative solution in which such powers are not delegated. This should include recognition of the full range of powers necessary to effectively govern matrimonial property. Bill S-2 goes part of the way in this direction by recognizing the jurisdiction of first nations to make laws in the area of matrimonial property. However, the bill is not optional and until such time as first nations exercise their jurisdiction, provisional rules designed by Canada will apply.

Under Bill S-2, one of the most significant changes between Bill S-4 and Bill S-2, and something that we requested, is that the provisional rules will not come into force for one year, giving our nations a chance to develop their own laws before the provisional rules apply. I note we had asked for a longer period of time.

Assuming the bill becomes law, it is our intention to do whatever we can to assist those nations that want to enact their own laws before the provisional rules apply, and if not by then, as quickly as possible thereafter. Unfortunately, in the absence of comprehensive self-government options, our nations will have the same challenges as Canada had in developing the provisional rules when trying to figure out how to fit the round peg of a matrimonial property law into the square hole of the Indian Act. These challenges include reconciling the system of land tenure under the Indian Act with the extralegal, the informal rules for customary interests in land that exist outside of the Indian Act, the challenges of wills and estates, and trying to harmonize a nation's law with applicable provincial family law that may be at play at the same time.

With respect to recognition of broader jurisdiction and implementing the inherent right of self-government, we will continue to develop and advocate our own comprehensive governance solutions that support our nations in moving beyond the Indian Act, not simply the piecemeal or stovepipe approach the government is currently following. Where our nations have made matrimonial property laws, they have done so either under a land code made in accordance with the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management or under self-government arrangements, where the various aspects of the law can be considered in the broader context of self-government.

With respect to the second point, access to justice, dispute resolution, and remedies, there is no question that figuring out the provisional rules, seeking an order and then enforcing that order, will be a challenge for many of our citizens. Seeking a remedy in court under Bill S-2, will, we believe, be more expensive than for persons living off reserve. Due to significantly lower levels of income on reserves, it will, therefore, be more difficult for many couples to access the new remedies. Legal aid systems across Canada are chronically underfunded and are not meeting current needs, let alone the future demand created by the potential adoption of this legislation.

The remedies with respect to the provisional rules rely on access to provincial courts. The general assumption of access to provincial courts is unfortunately not practical or realistic in many parts of the country. Furthermore, with respect to enforcement, the preliminary research we have uncovered shows a correlation between increased harassment and threats of violence against women who file for protection orders in instances where there are issues with their enforcement. We question the capacity and ability of such orders to be effectively enforced, particularly in remote communities with limited access to police services. A law—any law—is only as good as the ability to enforce it.

The problem of access to courts, and appropriate dispute resolution and enforcement generally, has been one of the impetuses for first nations to develop their own justice systems. It is important to empower our nations in doing this work themselves, particularly given the opportunity for success in enforcing their own laws. While Bill S-2 is explicit on the authority of provincial courts to hear disputes in relation to the provisional rules, it is not as clear with respect to the access to justice for first nations under their own matrimonial property laws, both with respect to the extent of the first nation's jurisdiction and how a first nation could rely on the provincial or federal courts to enforce its laws if it so desires.

The bill would have been stronger had these concerns we raised previously been addressed as previously discussed. At some point, we must tackle this issue. Pushing forward this legislation in absence of a more comprehensive approach—

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

With “on the right track”, I will assume no pun was intended there

I agree with some of the points made by my colleague. I thank him for the question. This is a network and that is why we would like to see, as we are in fact proposing, a Canada-wide strategy that would enable us to make the appropriate investments at all levels, because what he said is entirely true.

The reason why the railway has a positive impact for farmers in my riding is precisely because the service goes to Windsor and farther beyond. That is a fact.

In terms of the fact that CN and CP are private enterprises, that is a difficult question. We agree on that, but when we consider the fact that the infrastructure was built by people from our region and elsewhere and that a lot of money has been invested in it, and also the government’s responsibility to ensure that we have a proper rail network, there is good reason for more dialogue between the government and CN and CP.

With this bill, certain obligations will be instituted, but this is the kind of dialogue that will happen more often. I realize that it is never easy to deal with that reality.

Lastly, with respect to Bill S-4 on railway safety, there were many points on which the parties agreed. I venture to hope this is an indication that we will be able to get along better, because it can only be a positive thing for my region if we continue to do that. I venture to hope.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to meet with your committee today to provide an update on the transport, infrastructure, and communities portfolio and to speak to our supplementary estimates.

I'm pleased to be joined by my colleague the Honourable Steven Fletcher.

I am also pleased to introduce Louis Lévesque, the new Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Also joining us are Anita Biguzs, Associate Deputy Minister for Transport Canada, and Marie Lemay, Associate Deputy Minister for Infrastructure Canada.

I will first address our priorities in transportation and infrastructure, and then Minister Fletcher will speak to two crown corporations in our portfolio.

This has been a busy year for transportation issues and related legislation. I look forward to continuing our work to support Canada's transportation system to ensure our economic prosperity. Transportation is critical to economic growth, job creation, and Canada's competitiveness in the world. The funding we seek through the supplementary estimates will help to achieve those goals.

As you know, the government places great importance on the role that trade plays in fuelling our economy, creating jobs and improving our quality of life. Transportation, in turn, helps to drive trade and requires coordination between many players across all modes so that supply chains can move goods efficiently, safely and securely.

This is why we developed Canada's gateway and trade corridor approach, which established the Asia-Pacific, Continental and Atlantic Gateways as a way to ensure our competitiveness and future prosperity.

A key principle of this approach was partnership. It required that the federal government work with other government and private sector partners to develop projects that would strengthen both our transportation systems and Canada's international trade links.

Supporting our trade and gateway agenda involves many initiatives. One is the need to build bridges, quite literally, to improve our transportation corridors. Accordingly, since 2009, the federal government has invested nearly $380 million to maintain the safety and the structures of the existing Champlain Bridge corridor.

In October 2011, I announced the construction of a new bridge for the St. Lawrence in Montreal to replace the Champlain Bridge. Developing a new crossing in this corridor remains a priority for our government. Not only are these structures vital transportation links for people and goods in the region, but they also provide a valuable trade corridor that is responsible for some $20 billion worth of commerce.

The environmental assessment for the project was launched last January and will be completed by 2014. While the current structures continue to be safe, we are taking action to ensure they remain in safe operating condition. We will continue to work with key stakeholders throughout the duration of this project.

Another project that will greatly contribute to Canada's competitiveness and long-term prosperity is the Detroit River international crossing, which is the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit. This new publicly owned bridge is critical to the economic security of both Canada and the United States. Let me make a few points to put this in better context.

The vast majority of our trade crosses the border by truck, much of it at Windsor-Detroit. With more than 8,000 trucks a day,

—again, that's 8,000 trucks per day—,

it is the busiest Canada-U.S. border crossing. To give you an example, Chrysler alone makes 1,200 crossings a day. In 2011, Canada-U.S. trade reached $689 billion.

This project will advance Canada's economic action plan and will provide much-needed border crossing capacity to handle the anticipated growth in commercial and traveller traffic for many years to come. Not only will it create 10,000 to 15,000 construction jobs in Michigan and Ontario, it will also generate new trade-related jobs and investment opportunities along the Quebec City and Windsor corridor. This, in turn, will make the North American manufacturing sector even more competitive.

Understandably, then, a new bridge is a very high priority for shippers and manufacturers. To expedite construction, we have introduced the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act to ensure the successful and timely construction of this bridge. Canada will recoup this investment over time from toll revenues; the same in Montreal.

The Windsor-Detroit crossing is only one of many initiatives Transport Canada has pursued with the United States, in support of the economic action plan.

Our two countries also cooperate closely in the marine mode. This past September, we announced that we would join the United States Coast Guard in a new pilot project to inspect vessels in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway. These inspections will focus on improving vessel safety, security and pollution prevention.

In addition, we are aligning Canadian and American regulatory requirements more closely under the Regulatory Cooperation Council. This will make the system more efficient while also reducing impediments to trade for Canadian and American businesses, while also increasing marine safety and security.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada is also committed to ensuring that our rail system continues to be safe and secure for Canadians.

I am proud to note that, on May 17, 2012, Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, received royal assent. Bill S-4 significantly modernizes the current Railway Safety Act, in order to reflect changes in the industry and to strengthen Transport Canada's oversight and enforcement capacity in Canada.

According to the transport safety board, train accidents have decreased by 23%, and passenger train accidents have decreased by 19%, since we launched the Railway Safety Act review in 2007.

On the topic of rail transport, Mr. Chair, I shall note that we are also taking steps to make the rail-freight supply chain more efficient and reliable. Earlier this year, we completed a facilitation process with shippers and railways to develop a template service agreement and a dispute resolution process. This past June we released the facilitator's final report of his findings. The process will provide useful tools for both shippers and railways to use in their commercial negotiations.

I remain firmly committed to tabling legislation this fall to amend the Canada Transportation Act, and our government is committed. These amendments will give shippers the right to service agreements with the railways. They will also provide a process to establish such agreements should commercial negotiations fail.

Mr. Chair, from rail safety and efficiency, I now turn to other actions taken by the Government of Canada to maintain an efficient and safe transportation system.

The purpose of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to balance the efficient movement of marine traffic with the need to construct works that might interfere with navigation.

This has been the case for more than 130 years and will not change. However, over time, the scope and application of this law has expanded to the point where it now applies to brooks, streams

and culverts. These are very, very small waterways.

The time spent on navigation assessments for works that have little or no impact on navigation has created huge backlogs for important projects, such as bridges and other works that might interfere with navigation.

In fact, 80 separate navigation assessments were done for ducks on a single lake near Edmonton. These applications took as long as a year and a half to approve, even though each one was essentially the same. It was a waste of time and tax dollars. That is why we're essentially proposing amendments aimed at refocusing the act on its original intent to protect navigation while supporting economic development.

These proposed amendments introduce a streamlined approach to balance the need to ensure safe and efficient navigation with the need to construct projects that support economic growth.

They also focus on the regulating works of the busiest waterways and relying on common law to protect navigation in other navigable waters.

And I would like to add that all environmental protection processes will continue to be enforced. Nothing in this Act in any way compromises either federal or provincial environmental laws. This includes the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Mr. Chair, investing in Canada's infrastructure is a key element of the Government of Canada's plan to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

Our government is strengthening the economy by investing in infrastructure projects that help to support both trade and the safe, secure, and efficient movement of goods and people while sustaining our environment.

These investments involve partnerships. So, over the past year, we have worked with provinces, territories, municipalities and other stakeholders to develop a new long-term plan for public infrastructure.

During the summer, we held 14 round tables across the country, meeting with more than 200 stakeholders. They reinforced both the need for strong and sustained federal support for infrastructure and the practice of building partnerships to develop these projects.

We will take this input into consideration and, looking ahead, will establish a new long-term infrastructure plan to build on our successes and contribute to provide lasting benefits for Canadians. This plan will help to leverage new investments in infrastructure, while continuing to respect the capacity of Canadian taxpayers.

Mr. Chair, I am proud of the government's actions to strengthen Canada's transportation systems, support our commitment to trade and fuel the future prosperity of our country.

I can speak for hours about what we have done, Mr. Chair, with all this marvellous team behind me.

[Michael Bourque]

The specific example here is that during the passing of Bill S-4, the Railway Safety Act, we asked for the exemption to be 12 months instead of six months. That's simply because we operate in four seasons, and in order to introduce a new technology, we need to test it in all of those seasons before we can be certain it's going to be effective. We thought that was a relatively simple request to understand and implement, and it is important to our industry, yet we still are faced with the six-month exemption. That means it adds complexity and difficulty to anything we introduce if there's going to be a significant difference between the way that piece of equipment operates in the heat of the summer versus the cold of the winter.