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.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

We just finished with Bill S-4 on the Railway Safety Act. Why weren't these changes included in that piece of legislation?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

The Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

May 17, 2012

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 17th day of May, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The schedule indicates that the bills assented to on Thursday, May 17, 2012, were Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act—Chapter 7, and Bill S-1003, An Act to authorize Industrial Alliance Pacific Insurance and Financial Services Inc. to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of Quebec.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Has the motion been circulated? Okay, then I move:

That, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities immediately commence a study on the subject matter of the sections of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, which directly fall within the mandate of this committee, namely Part 4, Division 31, Railway Safety Act; Part 4, Division 45, Canada Marine Act, and Part 4, Division 48, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act.

If the committee would allow me a few minutes, I will talk a bit about these three sections because just recently we dealt with Bill S-4, Safer Railways Act. This committee just spent at least one meeting on that. We've had many meetings prior to this session of Parliament studying and improving the Railway Safety Act. It just passed the House two weeks ago after it had gone through the Senate, and it has been studied at least twice. All of that was occurring while this was being drafted, which is bizarre. To not have this section of the Railway Safety Act in front of us for discussion doesn't make any sense at all.

Let me address this more precisely. I'll talk briefly about the Canada Marine Act and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act. The government is proposing that section 16 of the Railway Safety Act be amended following subsection 4 by adding:

However, if a grant has been made under section 12 in respect of the railway work, and the proponent of the railway work, or any beneficiary of it, is a road authority, the maximum amount of the construction and alteration costs of the railway work that the Agency may, under subsection (4), apportion to the road authority is 12.5% of those costs or, if a higher percentage is prescribed, that higher percentage.

Precisely what does that mean? If there is a road authority, then the construction work would be 12.5%. Why 12.5% and not 15%, or why not 50%? It's not clear.

Then section 16 of the act would be amended by adding the following after section 5:

The Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any railway work, or any person or railway company, from the application of subsection (4.1).

So the government could choose, if it wants, to exempt any part of this percentage. Then, there is a clarification in proposed subsection 5.2:

A regulation made under subsection (5.1) may exempt a group or class of persons or railway companies, or a kind of railway work.

It's not very transparent why this is proposed. Having this debate at the finance committee makes no sense; it should be in front of this committee.

I then looked at section 16 of the Railway Safety Act. What does it talk about? Well, let me tell you what it talks about:

That the proponent of a railway work, and each beneficiary of the work, may refer the apportionment of liability for the construction, alteration, operation or maintenance costs of the work to the Agency for a determination if they cannot agree on the apportionment and if no recourse is available under Part III of the Canada Transportation Act or the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. The referral may be made either before or after construction or alteration of the work begins.

We're just trying to understand what this is all about, and so I went back to look at part III of the Canada Transportation Act and realized that this section 16 and the Marine Act and the Air Transport Security Authority Act—which I am going to get into—are really complex.

What we've noticed is the centralization of power in the ministers and the cabinet, that is, in the order in council.

Do we believe in that direction? Why are we doing this with the ports? Why are we doing it with air transport?

Safer Railways Act

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill S-4. This is no surprise, I agree. We have before us what I would call an apple pie bill, meaning that it is good and that everybody likes apple pie. Nobody is against motherhood and apple pie. So, obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of rail safety.

Bill S–4 amends the Railway Safety Act in order to encourage rail companies to create and maintain a culture of safety, particularly—and I come back to the specific areas in the bill—by strengthening rail company safety; by protecting employees who raise safety concerns and by requiring that an executive from each rail company be legally accountable for safety.

The bill also enables the government to penalize offenders with tough new monetary penalties and enhanced legal penalties.

The amendments also seek to 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. The amendments also clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters.

Why would anyone be against that? Still, it is easy to tell rail companies to be safe, but if the government does not help them, if it just stands by watching important branch lines deteriorate over time and complaining about the resulting danger, then it is not part of the solution; it is part of the problem.

This government and its predecessors are to blame for the appalling state of our rail network—particularly in Quebec. For example, on Wednesday, January 18, 2012, there was an article by Radio-Canada—which will no longer be able to question the authority of the Cartman government if the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages's new code of conduct comes into force.

The title of the Radio-Canada article was “The Gaspé needs $95 million to save its railway”.

I will read this very short article:

Residents and elected officials are rallying to maintain the Gaspé's railway network, particularly the Matapédia-Gaspé line.

A series of actions, which will be put in motion over the coming weeks, were announced on Tuesday at a press conference in New Carlisle.

Members of the Société du chemin de fer de la Gaspésie or SCFG, which is owned by municipalities in the region, need an investment of $19 million a year to repair the rail line and improve safety.

A study conducted by the SCFG...that was released in December found that an investment of between $93 million and $100 million is needed to maintain and repair the 320 km of track between Matapédia and Gaspé.

During the protest that was held at the New Carlisle station...SCFG management gave [the governments in] Quebec City and Ottawa an ultimatum.

Without a commitment from the governments, the Matapédia-Gaspé line could be shut down completely by March 31 [2012]. Already, VIA Rail passenger trains have not been travelling on this line since December 21. For safety reasons, VIA Rail is transporting its passengers by bus to Gaspé.

The president of the SCFG and mayor of Gaspé, François Roussy, is aware that a request for $95 million in funding is significant; however, the funding is vital to the survival of the railway. “We must use every means available to us to mobilize our governments,” he told a group of residents and elected officials...

[Meetings have been held.] Members of the SCFG want to meet with Premier Jean Charest and with the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec as soon as possible...to let them know how difficult it will be to encourage private investment in the region without a railway that is in good repair.

[The minister], who is also the federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, responded to the needs of the SCFG on Tuesday. He indicated that he could not commit to granting the request at the moment, but he promised to look into the matter.

It took VIA Rail ending service to the people in the Gaspé to get even that wishy-washy answer from the minister.

How can the government justify the fact that it is dragging its feet when it comes to assuring the safety of VIA Rail passengers, yet it is threatening the workers at that company with special legislation, because a strike could hurt the economy?

The closure of a section, the dilapidated state of the network, believe me, that is what is really hurting the economy. It is easier for this government to abandon workers than to help railroad users.

We will vote in favour of the bill, because we believe that the rail network is essential to the Quebec economy. Furthermore, if the Conservatives were to propose bringing in a high-speed train between Quebec City and New York, the Bloc Québécois would support it.

However, the fact that we are voting in favour of this bill does not mean that we necessarily support the Conservatives' way of doing things, which involves forcing others to pick up the tab for its own failings. That is typical. They ignore rail safety for years and then threaten to fine any businesses that use these unsafe networks.

Thus, the federal government needs to follow through on its desire to tighten safety rules and make available the funds that railway companies so desperately need in order to maintain the railway network, particularly in the Gaspé.

I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. Thank you for the time given to me here today.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your intervention, which I found very fair.

With respect to Bill S-4 and rail safety in Canada, this bill is certainly of interest to my constituents. We have a railway that is over 100 years old. It has an unusual history that I will share with my colleagues in a moment or two.

On the one hand, the government says that it wants to improve rail safety in Canada, but on the other, it wants to privatize Canadian railways. I do not know how the government can square those two objectives without considering the fact that Canadians railways have been neglected and have deteriorated to the point that rail service to some of the regions has been cancelled.

We have been waiting quite some time for a bill of this scope that can improve rail safety. However, we must also work together to ensure that our railways do not deteriorate. A railway's safety cannot be assured if the rail line itself has deteriorated to the point where trains can no longer travel on it.

In Canada, for instance, two railways have deteriorated to such an extent that trains no longer use them. I am referring to the Malahat railway on Vancouver Island and the Baie-des-Chaleurs railway, which no longer travel on the rail lines. This is precisely because the railways were left to deteriorate to the point where passenger safety could no longer be guaranteed and commercial goods could no longer be transported on these rail lines.

Some communities are now in a precarious situation because they depended on the railway, the tourism it created and the goods it transported. These communities no longer have access to the railway because the government drags its heels when it comes time to ensure the safety of the railway. The communities affected by these deteriorations are now in dire straits. They are no longer able to do what the Conservative government is proposing that they do and that is to take over. Remote communities are told not to worry because they can restore the railway themselves. There are also told that legislation will be passed once they have finished restoring the railway.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I would be sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, if I may.

The bill the Senate is proposing today on improving the safety of our railway is meaningless if the railway has deteriorated and the means are not in place to restore it. By the way, I am a little disappointed in everything the Senate proposes, regardless of the bill, but that is another issue.

The Conservatives would have us believe that privatization is the answer to just about all Canada's problems, but this privatization will not work.

In the Gaspé, a consulting firm was hired to assess the condition of our railway and to determine what it would take to restore it. The cost of upgrading our railway was estimated to be $93 million. The government is saying that the municipalities in the Gaspé are supposed to find $93 million to repair their railway. That does not work. They cannot do it.

Furthermore, the government sold them on a project in 2006 when it told them that their section of the railway would be privatized, the ownership transferred to the municipalities and a co-operative of municipalities would be created and would be responsible for the work to be done. At the time, CN and its allies did not conduct a real assessment of the government's needs and trotted out any old figure.

They said it would cost $19 million to restore our railway. That was not the case. Today, five years later, we see that $93 million is required. There is a $73 million deficit to make up in order to restore our railway. We asked the Conservatives whether they were prepared to help us improve our railway, and the answer we got was total silence. We got no answer.

The communities in the Gaspé, and it is apparently the same on Vancouver Island, depend on their railway. It is a job creator and a wealth generator. It is worth a lot more than the $93 million that has to be found in order to restore it. It creates jobs and it means that tourists can come to our region and spend money. It makes it possible for new businesses to set up and have a safe and effective shipping service. But we do not have the money to restore it.

We want to get serious and enact a bill that says safety is the primary concern. Safety is important, but people still have to be able to use the railway. But it has closed down. I am very happy for this bill to be passed, but the railways outside the major centres are going to be left behind, and that is not going to change. They are going to continue to deteriorate. The government has privatized them. It no longer believes in railways for remote regions and it is abandoning them.

Now it is deciding to focus only on railways in urban areas. I am very happy about that, but even there, the Conservative government is abandoning us. Certainly there is no money in places outside urban areas. The Conservatives are not prepared to give us a hand. We do not have the money to hire people ourselves and buy the resources that are needed to improve our railway.

I would like to give the House an idea of how the railway stands in the Gaspé. The railway network in the Gaspé is a section that is unique in Canada. It is 202 miles long, and it is probably the section with the most bridges anywhere in Canada over the same distance. There are 93 bridges in 202 miles. That is why our railway is so expensive. It has been let go and our bridges have been allowed to deteriorate. That is why we have no VIA Rail service today. We have a “VIA Bus”.

The railway in the Gaspé is supposed to be class 3 track. Trains are not supposed to exceed 45 mph, which is about 70 km/h. At present, trains go over some bridges at 5 mph. That is why VIA Rail no longer wants to go there, because it has become ridiculous. Not only do the trains travel at 5 mph, but they cannot brake on the bridges. If they do, even at 5 mph, the bridge could collapse. This is really very disturbing. It is very important that money be invested so the railway is brought up to standard.

It is all well and good to pass legislation that is, in theory, very useful to Canadians, but if the Conservatives are not prepared to allocate the appropriate resources, at the end of the day, this bill is worthless. This bill is more theoretical than anything else. It needs to go much further than what the Conservatives are proposing. We need a real national transportation plan, a plan that improves transportation for Canadians and that sees it as a given that the environment must be protected, in short, a green plan. That is what we need, a cost-effective plan that generates jobs and wealth.

For the time being, I do see that happening. I am waiting for the Conservatives to propose something appropriate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his tireless leadership on the rail issue, his involvement in the rail caucus and everything he does to try to improve rail and rail safety in the country.

It is certainly a shock that today a country as vast as Canada still does not have a high-speed rail link. We are even having trouble speaking about a higher speed rail, which would involve getting rid of level crossings in some of the corridors. This would help to improve rail safety.

With its far-flung population centres and vast land mass, Canada is unique in its geography. As such, our railways have always been an integral part of how we connect with each other across this massive country. Railways are not just a means of transportation, they tie us together at a much deeper level, as many of the speeches today have done, in particular, the member for Timmins—James Bay's speech just a while ago.

I know a great number of members in the House, myself included, rely on VIA Rail as a means to getting to and from our constituencies. In just the one year since I was elected I have already travelled over 25,000 kilometres on our rail network.

Railways are used every single day by thousands of people and it has been this way for hundreds of years now. The benefit of railways are clear. Trains are substantially more fuel efficient than motor vehicles when it comes to moving passengers, and especially cargo, over great distances. Of course, by potentially electrifying rail lines, greenhouse gas emissions could also be reduced in the coming years.

Despite the shortcomings of safety regulations, travelling by train is still roughly five times safer than using a car. It is still the main mode of transportation for Canadian goods. With 70% of all freight in our country shipped by rail, it is literally the backbone of our economy. Every interruption to our rail network comes at great cost to our economy. Rail lines provide crucial links to our biggest trade partner, the United States, and of course also connect to our ports in Halifax, Vancouver and Churchill, to provide access to important overseas markets for Canadian companies.

In large urban centres, commuting by rail is a vital component of our public transit networks, helping to get millions of Canadians to their workplaces every single day. VIA Rail connects to our country's most vibrant cities, carrying more than four million passengers a year. It could do a lot more with more government support.

The Railway Safety Act was implemented in 1989. It sets out a regulatory framework to address, for railways under federal jurisdiction, matters of safety, security and environmental impact. Transport Canada has noted that the Canadian rail industry has changed significantly since the act was amended in 1999. Operations have become increasingly complex and traffic is growing rapidly.

The department points out that in February 2007, the minister of transport, infrastructure and communities launched a full review of the operation and efficiency of the Railway Safety Act through an independent advisory panel. According to the department, the findings indicated that although the Railway Safety Act is fundamentally sound and efforts have been made to improve rail safety, more certainly needs to be done. The advisory panel's final report, Stronger Ties - A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety, published in November 2007, included 56 recommendations for the improvement of rail safety, some of which require further legislative changes to the Railway Safety Act. Then in 2008, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities issued its own report, which included an additional 14 recommendations.

On February 26, 2012, a VIA Rail train derailed in Burlington, Ontario, killing three VIA employees and injuring 42 passengers. We are still in the early stages of investigation but the indications would seem to suggest that speed and a lack of signals inside the train may have played a role. The crash reinforced what the NDP has long said, that although railways in Canada are relatively safe, tragic accidents can and do still occur. These preventable accidents should be avoided at all costs.

The federal government has a key role to play in the effort to make train travel safer. Federal initiatives, like Bill S-4, would go a long way toward making train travel safer for passengers and rail employees. However, other initiatives, like the NDP's call for positive train control and calls for the Conservatives to reverse their cuts to VIA Rail and transport safety programs, including rail safety, would also help to create a safer rail system.

While we applaud the eventual passage of Bill S-4, it is unacceptable that the bill and the important provisions it contains has taken so long. Now more than ever we need to see these changes realized. The NDP welcomes the bill and we see it as a step forward for Canada's rail safety. However, it is time for the Conservative government to take action and satisfy the long-standing demands from the independent experts at the Transportation Safety Board. More talk is not what we need. Action is what we want.

By the time the bill is passed, it will have been five years since the recommendations of those experts were first published. That is too long when making changes where safety is concerned. Canadians are demanding that we make the railway safer and we are more than happy to oblige.

We are happy to see the bill before the House, but it is a pity that it has not been a priority of the Conservative government, the government that likes to boast that it is the champion of the safety of Canadians. Let it try to say that to the families and victims of the derailment in Burlington, or to the families who lost their homes in St-Charles-de-Bellechasse in 2010.

The safety of Canadians is important. The bill is needed for railway workers, passengers on the trains and people who live near railway lines. It is also important to our economy, as I said before. Every disruption to the rail network potentially affects millions of dollars worth of goods and time.

The government likes to advocate for smaller government and for getting the government out of everyone's business. Large oil companies and their employees, the shippers that use the rail lines, citizens who live near the railways and passengers who travel by train would all disagree. They understand that government does have a role to play. It has a role to play as a regulator and protector to ensure the safety of all Canadians. It is a shame that it has taken the Conservative government so long to provide this measure that would ensure safety is enhanced, and it could go further.

Unfortunately, in the ideological zeal of the government, safety and well-being are often left to free market forces to decide. The government expects industry to regulate itself, but that rarely happens and so unnecessary accidents and tragedies occur.

I would like to now focus on some propositions we have made since the bill was introduced.

The first proposition from our party is that the government should not cut safety from its budget. The upcoming budget would cut money that could go toward safety. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the amount of money spent on something should not be the measure of its effectiveness. Yet the people who enforce safety regulations and who have developed new safety systems need to be paid. They need to be remunerated for their work and it is not work that anybody can do. It takes experts to do this work. We cannot shortchange them. Nor can we cut corners in this area. When corners are cut on safety, we see the results. People who work in the transportation sector say that it jeopardizes safety. The government cannot say it defends safety on the one hand and then cut safety with the other.

We also ask that the proposed cuts of $200 million to VIA Rail be reversed. VIA Rail has challenges and it needs to implement certain systems.

The NDP would like positive train control implemented in Canada. It was done in the United States. In California there was a tragic accident in 2008 and the leaders decided that positive train control should become part of the system. There are positive benefits to implementing it. Yes, it is costly, but there are companies in Canada that contribute to this technology. Therefore, investing in this technology to improve safety would also be an investment in our economy. It would stimulate the innovators who contribute to positive train control and other technologies that make our railways safer.

We would also like to see voice recorders in locomotives. This would help to find out what happened when things went wrong. When there is an accident, it is in the interest of everyone to find out the full story of what happened so things can be improved in the future.

We must always be vigilant in working to ensure that we never take our hands off and that we are always working to ensure that life becomes safer for Canadians as they travel, going about doing their business and contributing to the economy.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's intervention about high-speed rail. However, since Bill S-4 is about a safer railways act, I wonder if the member has any comments on the requirement for a rail operating certificate.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough Southwest.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this matter as the NDP critic for high-speed rail between Quebec City and Windsor. The dream is eventually to connect with Detroit and Chicago. Rail provides our future with an incredible opportunity, and I will come back to that in a minute.

I want to note a number of important things with respect to Bill S-4 that are important in terms of jurisdictional changes in updating and modernizing the act. These changes are important not only in terms of Canada's overall economy but also in how they relate to people in our constituencies.

In relation to a rail issue taking place with CP right now, I would like to thank Mary Reaume and Mary Kavanaugh in Windsor. I am pleased as well to note Robert Taylor and Randy Marsh from CP and councillor Allan Hoberstadt and staff person Ian Bawden. These individuals have agreed to meet to work on a rail noise, vibration and flooding issue.

I would like to talk a little about that, because modernizing the act would provide a little more accountability, and hopefully more co-operation will take place with respect to rail issues.

We were able to get funding from the Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving fund to separate a grade on Howard Avenue in Windsor. This is a fund for border infrastructure improvements. It is a very busy area, and there were a lot of issues with regard to pedestrians and with trucks and cars backing up.

A proper process was not in place or it was missed somehow in the planning process, and residents suffered repercussions when the grade separation took place. Consequently, residents living behind on Memorial Drive have been subjected to flooding, noise, vibration changes—a whole series of things. They have submitted a petition asking for a panel to look into this. I would like to thank those residents for their patience. Perhaps we can identify this with a meeting coming up.

It is important to note that rail was the birth of the country in many respects and is still important daily to our constituents. Companies need to be held accountable and changes have to take place.

We are going to see the macroeconomics of the importance of rail in the future with the opening of the Panama Canal. A lot of goods will be coming in through the Port of Montreal and Halifax. It is anticipated that a lot of these goods will be shipped on the rail system as we transfer them into the midwestern United States. That country does not have deep enough ports, and the ports are not as attractive as what we have on the east coast.

The safer railways act review is really important. I was a former transport critic, and we held many hearings at committee and looked at everything on this issue from safety management systems to the necessary infrastructure requirements. We have the romantic notion of rail being part of our past, but it is really going to be much more for our future.

It is important to note high-speed rail as well. The Railway Safety Act would modernize some of the issues with respect to high-speed rail, and that would be very important.

We all heard about how the recent tragic VIA incident took place. I wish to send my condolences to the families and to those who were injured.

The rest of the world is moving forward with investments in high-speed rail. Many G8 countries are doing that. Canada is the only G8 country that does not have high-speed rail. We are the only ones who have been left out of the equation. Modernizing the act is important, but at the same time we need funding allocation.

I have been working on the Quebec City to Chicago run. Last year I went to Michigan and met with officials of a department there. I wrote a letter to Kirk Steudle of the Michigan Department of Transportation inquiring about what is happening on the American side, because tens of millions of people live along the Quebec City-Chicago corridor. This would provide us with an opportunity for great urban planning as well as for improving the environment and bettering our economy.

I asked Mr. Steudle what his department is doing. He replied that improvements are being made that would eliminate a series of choke points, thereby relieving congestion and resulting in an increase in speed to a maximum of 110 miles per hour. The long-term vision also includes doubling the number of daily round trips in the Detroit-Chicago corridor.

There are rail tunnels that connect Canada and the United States. There are two in Windsor. We did have passenger rail between the United States and Canada through this corridor in the past. However, it stopped in the 1930s. We still have that infrastructure today available to us. It is exciting that the tunnel for passenger rail service is available again.

Improvements include: the Kalamazoo - Dearborn Service Development, for $200 million; the Ann Arbor Station Project; and the Midwest Corridor Regional Equipment Pool, where another $268.2 million was awarded to purchase 48 more passenger rail cars.

I want to quote Kirk Steudle, who was appointed director of the Department of Transportation for the state of Michigan. He states:

It is our understanding that the investments being made in high speed rail service in Michigan will prompt similar projects and studies in Canada, which would allow expansion of the high speed corridor from Chicago-Montreal. Improved and expanded service along this corridor will enhance our economic competitiveness,promote energy and environmental efficiency, and support interconnected communities by providing a more reliable passenger rail service.

MDOT looks forward to working closely with you to bring new investment to our region.

Sadly, I have seen the department of transportation on this side cut $200 million from VIA Rail. The United States is going in exactly the opposite direction. It sees the merit of this project. It is open to it and wants to connect to this corridor. It sees the bigger vision. Imagine, we could have Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, and maybe eventually extend the improvements to Ottawa. We could have good passenger rail service around this corridor. This would be an economic investment that is critical at this point in time.

I proposed what I think is a modest strategy similar to the Detroit corridor. The Minister of Transport could convene a special working group. It has been done before with the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council. I think it is important to lay out the strategy behind this. The CAPC model not only brought in the auto manufacturers, it also brought in the union, the dealers, the parts people, the tool and die/mould makers, the entire automotive chain. The CAPC laid out a business plan and a measurement system for how to deal with our auto sector.

Sadly, the government has not convened a major meeting of this kind in two or three or four years. It has only had some executive meetings. It is sad because that is a model that I could envision. I was hoping the minister would take that up and would bring in the cities.

I have had a chance to meet with Mayor Fontana of London. He is interested. The mayor of Quebec City is interested. The mayor of Windsor has been supportive. A number of municipalities would provide opportunity and guidance with regard to this project. Then, on top of that, we would have the railways, CP Rail, CN Rail and VIA Rail, and other groups that could look at the overall business plan with regard to passenger rail and rail issues. They could look at the things that are preventing some of the improvements from taking place, and get them out of the way.

The goal is, and this is what they are doing in Michigan, to improve the overall line. It is really critical to eliminate some of those things, whether they be separation grades or improvements to the lines so they can go faster. Michigan is buying some lines, and those municipalities will know the problems and weak spots. It would be very important for us to get them together and look at the costs and how we make the improvements. That would be a positive way to approach things.

Once I conclude, I really hope that the government and the minister rethink their decision and take advantage of this opportunity for economic development and environmental development along the corridor with Michigan. That would be a real benefit to all of us. It would be an economic issue championed by municipalities, the province and the federal government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the member for Timmins—James Bay, I would like to remind all hon. members that the matter before the House is Bill S-4, which deals with certain matters. I would encourage all hon. members to make their comments relevant to that, and the questions as well.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I am pleased to rise in the House to share my support, along with so many of my colleagues in the NDP, for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

This bill seeks to amend the Railway Safety Act in order to improve the Department of Transport's oversight capacity by requiring that railway companies obtain a safety–based railway operating certificate indicating compliance with regulatory requirements.

The bill strengthens the department's enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines.

The bill also enhances the role of safety management systems by providing for the identification of an executive who is legally responsible for safety and for protecting railway company employees who voice serious safety concerns against reprisals.

The bill also clarifies the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Transport with respect to railway matters, expands regulation-making powers, and clarifies the process for rule making by railway companies.

As my NDP colleagues have said, it is clearly a positive and long-awaited bill. I know that in the last Parliament, my NDP colleagues, the critics and those who are very familiar with the railway industry file fought hard not only to improve safety, but to urge the government to act in order to develop a safer rail transportation system for all Canadians.

As I noted, we in the NDP support the bill, but we also wish these changes had been implemented before and that there was a real understanding of the sense of urgency to ensure rail safety in our country.

In discussing the well-being of rail transport, the safety aspect is critical and we must act on it, but that is only one side of the coin. While we have seen the government hesitate and delay when it comes to making these critical implementations, it has actually acted in a way that serves to weaken our rail system.

VIA Rail funding is being cut by almost $200 million, as indicated in the last budget, something that I and my colleagues in the NDP believe is a crying shame. We all know how critical rail transport is to our country, to ensure our urban areas and our rural communities stay connected. We know how critical the maintenance of the rail line is when it comes to not just transporting people but also goods across our country. As we see VIA Rail, an institution that belong to Canadians, an institution we are proud of, receive such major cuts in funding, the only thing we can conclude is there will be a reduction in both services and quality of services.

This is not the first time this has happened. Unfortunately, in recent decades federal governments, the Liberal government previously, and now the Conservative government, have turned a blind eye to rail service in Canada. I know this well from the region of the country that I come from, having been born and raised in Thompson, Manitoba. Many people notice that on VIA Rail map the only line that goes straight north in the west is the one that reaches up to Churchill, and it goes through my hometown of Thompson.

We know that years ago, when the Liberals privatized the line, it had already needed repair for some time. Of course, we were hoping the government would do the right thing and invest our own taxpayers' money to fix such a critical link between our communities. In fact, it chose to privatize it, sell it out to an American company, a company that has taken far too long to make the kinds of commitments to maintenance required on the track.

There have been some signs of hope with respect to the work of this company. Federal and provincial partnerships have supported the work along the way. At the end of the day, the fact that the government privatized this line leaves it out of our hands. What that essentially means is a reduction in the quality and dependability of service for people in a part of the country who do not have more choices than to use the rail service.

I am honoured to represent people who live and work on the bay line in communities like Ilford, Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, War Lake First Nation, which are between Thompson and Gillam, and on to Churchill, and actually have no all-weather roads. People in these four communities I just mentioned depend entirely on the rail service for getting back and forth to medical appointments, making sure they have foods coming into their communities and making sure they can bring in materials to build homes and infrastructure in their communities.

This is no small issue. This is the only link for these communities. It is deeply disturbing to see the way in which the government has turned its attention away from communities, not just in my riding but in rural Canada in general, when it comes to rail service.

I would like to note there are a number of other communities I represent in northern Manitoba that are also isolated. I have heard from many people, whether they are in Oxford House, Garden Hill or Berens River. I have heard from elders who know what it was like for communities that were isolated to receive the rail line. These communities that are still isolated are asking what some of the options are, so they can have year-round sustainable transportation, something like a rail service.

I have to say that in many cases they have lost hope, given the government's reluctance to come to a solution with respect to the needs they have for transportation. Fortunately, we have a provincial government that has stepped in and made a real commitment in partnering, especially with the southern first nations for the time being, in building an all-weather road. However, the same cannot be said for the federal government in building sustainable transportation. Fundamentally, as the federal Conservative government pulls away from rail transportation in rural Canada, it is pulling away from the quality of life rural Canadians ought to have.

When we speak of something like VIA, community owned railways or producer cars that communities may own as well, these are things that belong to all of us. What we are saying is the federal government should be there to work with communities, our urban centres and everybody around the table to ensure we have a dependable rail service, quality rail service and safe rail service.

I would like to point out that whether it is on its actions on the Wheat Board or its continued effort to cut away from the basic services rural Canadians need, the government is turning its back on rural Canadians, many Canadians who see rail as the way to the future.

I would say in closing that I am proud of the work our party does to stand up for not just rail safety but rail service in general. I hope we can send the message loud and clear that when it comes to representing rural Canada and Canadians who believe in rail service, we in the NDP are the ones doing it.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a break from these rather technical discussions to talk a little about philosophy. I would submit that we sometimes have to look to philosophy to light our way and our common future.

We are considering a bill that deals with railway safety. The railways are inextricably connected with the building of this country. They are the key factor in the marriage of diverse regions that we call Canada.

Canadians and members of this chamber will know that any marriage that is successful is based on trust. It is the essential element of any good relationship. When one loses that element of trust, that foundation, no matter what we build on top of it, the relationship will crumble.

Many will say that we are past the days of railways and have moved on to other more flashy, more attractive means of transportation. We must not forget that railways are still a foundation of our nation and of our economy. Canadians need to trust that rail will always be there.

This bill is an important part of building Canadians' trust in our railways. I want to turn to the issue of trust in terms of the presence of rail rather than the security.

Too often, in the past, railway service has been a favourite spot for making cuts. In 1981, Prime Minister Trudeau made cuts to popular VIA Rail lines. His government reduced the operations of VIA Rail, a crown corporation, by 40%. When the Mulroney government came to power it restored the services that had been cut. However, heavy rail traffic resulted in one of the most tragic accidents in Canadian history: the collision of a VIA Rail train with a CN train in Hinton, Alberta. Twenty-three people died. That is one of the reasons behind the bill we are considering today.

Cuts were made to VIA Rail in 1989, 1994 and 2003.

Canadians love the train, but they think service is not as reliable as it should be. To restore confidence, there have to be investments and improvements in terms of administration.

I return here to the analogy of a marriage in the specifics of the bill before us. In any marriage, people make vows, usually with the intention of creating a bond that will last a lifetime. In the day to day, people make negotiations and compromises. Now the vows, negotiations and compromises do not mean very much if one of the parties does not intend on enforcing or following the rules.

That is why those provisions in Bill S-4, which touch upon enforcement, are important. Time will tell if the judicial penalties are effective. I believe it is important to pass this bill as soon as possible but I must admit to a bit of skepticism that it will solve all railway safety problems.

I believe the government's work in this area is not over and we will see in the years to come what other measures will be necessary. There are many tools in building trust so that Canadians feel safe about their railways. Mandatory voice recorders in locomotives, for instance, would be a beginning.

Another thing that would be helpful is separating out elements of budget bills so that proper debate and discussion could take place about security. Instead, the government goes on with its infantile method of putting everything into a omnibus bill and then claiming that we vote against particular provisions.

I will return once again to the marriage analogy. It is like the government is a cheating spouse and we, the opposition, who want to make this work, just want to search through the credit card records to find the hotel where our partner made a dalliance. Instead, we get flooded with all the household bills and office papers and are told that we are never supportive. It is bad faith.

The government should accept criticism where criticism is due instead of using this infantile “You voted against it” line. Canadians are intelligent. They see through this kind of politics.

As well, we have heard rumours that VIA Rail is going to be privatized. We often hear this government, and in particular the minister, proclaim that they do not interfere in the affairs of a private company. We can therefore expect this legislation to be meaningless, since it is coupled with that ideology of non-intervention in regulation of the private sector.

I am still skeptical about the effectiveness of enforcing a law like this. The government has already shown that it is powerless against the private sector. We hope it will change its mind in the case of railway safety. I would remind the minister that it is the job of government to provide services to the public, for the public welfare, and that this must be done responsibly. Sometimes the government does not believe in its own laws, as was the case with the 1988 Public Participation Act.

The minister has said before:

Railways are the backbone of our economy. As such, they are an important part of our history and our future. It is our shared responsibility to ensure they remain safe.

We in the NDP certainly agree.

I would like to conclude by talking about something important to many people in my home town of Saint-Lazare. It touches regulation directly.

Presently we do not have a mechanism which would get municipalities and rail companies to sit together and discuss issues such as vibrations caused by the speed of trains as well as a panoply of other issues. I have spoken with citizens and with rail company officials. They both tell me that they would like to see a mechanism through which dialogue could take place and that the federal government could play a role in this process. Bill S-4 does not have this provision.

These issues, the relationships between the municipalities and rail companies, directly affect the ridings of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. The head of operations at VIA Rail, Mr. Marginson, indicated that there are 98 level crossings between Coteau and Ottawa.

Currently, companies are forced to contact private landowners if they wish to close a level crossing. The government must play a role to avoid the kind of conflicts and economic repercussions that are often the result of these disputes.

We all have the tools we need, but what is lacking is the political will to use them, because of this government's ideology and its belief that the state should not intervene.

I quote Mr. Cliff Mackay from the Railway Association of Canada, who said this about Bill C-33, the earlier bill:

Increased proximity between rail operations and everyday life in our communities across Canada is a risk factor that must be addressed to improve rail safety. We believe that Bill C-33 can be strengthened in this area. At the centre of these concerns involving proximity between railway lands and municipal development is the wide variation that exists across Canada with respect to land use planning regulations....Bill C-33 is silent on this issue at this time.

Unfortunately Bill S-4 remains silent on this issue as well.

We will support the bill but, as I said before, there are places where it could be improved.

Recommendation 34 that was made would require a process of consultation, which would have been an effective tool in reducing use conflicts and in turn increasing safety. Education campaigns are fine, but they rarely do the whole job.

Cliff Mackay also said:

We believe that one of the most efficient ways of improving railway safety in this area is to give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations respecting notices that should be given to railways regarding the establishment of a local plan of subdivision, or zoning by-law, or proposed amendments thereto, where the subject land is within 300 metres of a railway line or railway yard. We believe the 300 metres is a distance that makes sense from a safety point of view.

In terms of jurisdictional questions of this quote, they do it already in the air, not exact, for air infrastructure. Why not for rail? I admit maybe 300 metres is excessive. It could be less, but it was not really even discussed in a serious way, either as Bill C-33 or in its present incarnation, as Bill S-4.

For Pete's sake, all the companies were asking was that municipalities send a notice of when they were going to make changes that would fall within the area of this rail corridor. They were not even asking for any sort of decision on these questions. Those companies are forced to go to 10 provinces and 3 territories to negotiate an agreement with each one. It could be so much more simple and effective. That is what good governance means. It means the federal government takes its role seriously in bringing the country together.

In the future I hope the government will move from merely being a force for awareness of these issues to being a responsible public administrator that ensures that marriage between Canadians and their railway lines remains healthy for generations to come.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fabulous member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill S-4. I would like to congratulate a couple of my colleagues. The first is my colleague from Western Arctic. He prefers to be called the member from the Northwest Territories rather than Western Arctic, but indeed his riding is in the western Arctic. I would also like to congratulate the member for Trinity—Spadina, who has been working on this transport file for quite some time, along with the member from the Northwest Territories. In the last Parliament she was very adroit in making sure that many of the suggestions that ended up in the bill were amendments to previous legislation to make sure we actually came forward with a transport bill that addressed the safety concerns of the passengers on VIA and the workers who have to travel on those trains. They are the locomotive engineers, the brakemen, et cetera, who deserve, especially today on International Workers' Day, the safest place to work we can make for them. It is an obligation that I think we all share.

We are pleased to see that the bill contains slightly over 80% of the things we would have like to have seen, although obviously there are a few other things that we would like to see in it.

It strikes me as ironic as I look through the history of where things were at over a number of years. A report that was called the advisory panel's final report was published. The actual title of the report was “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”. I thought it was quite striking to use that title of “Stronger Ties”. I was a train spotter growing up in Glasgow, and we knew more about trains than we knew about anything else. The ties lying on the railbed keep the rails firm and make sure that those rails do not come apart. It is the ties, as they call them, that hold the rails at an exact space apart and prevent the rails from being flimsy and coming apart, or the spikes from leaving and so forth. I thought this report in 2007, “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety” was rather ironic in that it took almost five years to get us to where we needed to be in 2007.

We are looking at what has been requested from workers and from passengers, which is a safe railway system. The railway system in our country is indeed a safe system; however, as in every system, there are always things we can do to make it safer. That is what New Democrats have been pushing for, not only in this Parliament but in past Parliaments. They have been pushing to ensure that those who travel by rail have safe passage and that those who work on the rail will go to work and come home safely. As we know, there have been episodes when that did not happen.

The train that leaves my municipality in Niagara and takes itself through the Niagara Peninsula to Toronto, as was pointed out by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, derailed just outside of Burlington. It was an absolutely tragic accident, but as my colleague pointed out, one that was preventable. If the 2007 report, “Stronger Ties”, had been implemented with the suggestions that my colleagues from Western Arctic and Trinity—Spadina had suggested, that accident might indeed never have happened. Three men might not have lost their lives and three families might not be suffering the loss of fathers, husbands, sons, uncles and brothers. They might have still been with us. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

Therefore, in memory of those three men who lost their lives in that derailment in Burlington, we need to do everything within our capacity to ensure that it does not happen again.

The trains are perhaps being operated a little faster than they should be, so when they come to a switch and change tracks, it is a dangerous moment. Switching to a different track is hazardous, and speed is a very critical aspect.

However, there are mechanisms. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. When it comes to health and safety, we can have mechanisms that, if the train is approaching the switch too quickly, it can be automatically slowed down to ensure it makes the switch appropriately and does not come off the rail, as we saw in Burlington.

It is unfortunate that is not part of the bill but it should not stop the bill. In my view, it would not be something that would be an impediment to voting for this but it needs to be thought about in the future. We need to do this in a more comprehensive way. We may never find out what happened in that derailment because those three gentlemen are no longer with us to tell us what happened. The passengers are not sure what happened either, as they were in the carriages behind, not in the locomotive, and no one in the locomotive can tell us exactly what happened.

This is a transport system that carries large numbers of people and, in some cases, carries more people than an airplane might. However, in an airplane we have voice recorders in the cockpit to tell us what the pilot and co-pilot are saying at all times during a flight. In the case of a crash, heaven forbid but there have been some over time, we now have a voice recorder and a data recorder that can actually help us to understand what happened and, just as important, help us understand how to avoid it. That is the crux of it. If we had had a voice recorder in that locomotive in Burlington and in others that have crashed, especially when we saw loss of life and have no independent witnesses who were in control of the locomotive, we could have then pieced together exactly what happened. We would have known what they were saying at that moment or the moments leading up to it? What could they have told us to ensure that the same thing would not happen again?

That is a critically important piece of information that is missing in the safety bill, which is unfortunate. I would look to the government, hopefully, to ensure that gets done in the very near future but we do want to ensure this safety legislation gets passed. Ultimately, it is about taking people on the rail lines. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who travel by rail across this country.

I had the great privilege, when I was younger, of spending some time in the lovely city of Edmonton while at the University of Alberta. I travelled there by train. However, unbeknownst to me, being a young person who had not travelled the breadth of this country, it took 54 hours to get there, which is a remarkably long time. It is two days-plus, but that is the breadth of the country. I must admit that, although I was a student at the time and did not have one of those luxurious cabins people may have today on the train, it was a pleasurable journey travelling across this country by rail, not only because of what I saw of the country but because of the service that was committed to us as passengers on that particular rail passage.

For those of us who enjoy trains, which many of us do, when it comes to travelling by rail we have many lessons to learn from places around the world and in this country where we see light rapid rail systems, whether it is in Vancouver or in downtown Toronto.

In fact, if we look back to Niagara, where I live, in the riding of Welland, it was a number of years ago, before I was born, when people could travel by rail from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. We cannot do that today. One hundred years later and we cannot get from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario by rail. I know members will find this hard to believe but up until about six months ago people could not do it by bus either. I congratulate the Niagara region for implementing a regional bus service but we can just think if it had kept those railbeds. We could actually have taken a train from Port Colborne in my riding all the way to the riding of the hon. member for St. Catharines in the north and get from one lakehead to the other. Would it not be an amazing thing to think that we could do it, not for the first time, but again? We did it over 100 years ago.

Folks went by train to see their families if they were living in the north or the south end of the peninsula, never mind the places that my colleague from Sudbury was talking about. When one is in the north and is isolated, then rail it is. When we think about communities in the north where rail is their mode of transportation, their of getting materials and supplies in and how they move people, we need to continue to support rail, not only from a safety perspective. My friends in the Ontario legislature need to keep the Ontario Northland open because that is a crucial link to the northern part of this province. Therefore, I would send the message to Mr. McGuinty that he should keep the ONR open.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to continue my discourse on Bill S-4.

As I suggested earlier, the new Bill S-4 contains some amendments to the environmental protection portion of the bill which would give more power to the minister to enforce environmental protection. As I started to say earlier, one of the things that gives residents in urban areas, and in particular in Toronto, significant worry is the exhaust from diesel trains.

New York City is 104 years ahead of Canada because it banned fossil fuel-burning trains from Manhattan Island in 1908. Since that time, only electric vehicles have been permitted to operate in Manhattan, to the point where engines actually have to be changed on the way in. That has resulted in a much cleaner and more manageable environment in the city of Manhattan.

The citizens of Toronto would like the same courtesy. As such, they are pushing GO Transit in particular but ultimately all the other train operators, CN, CP and VIA, to use electric vehicles wherever possible.

I note that environmental regulations are currently stronger in the United States than they are here and I hope the minister will make Canadian railroads adopt tier 4 standards for all their engines in 2015, as is the case in the United States.

The other piece of safety worry for residents in the city of Toronto is derailments. One only has to witness the kind of destruction that takes place in adjacent areas when there are derailments.

In the city of Toronto rail corridors traverse significant residential populations. The rail industry requested that this bill be amended to allow it to have some say over how close houses can be built to the rail corridor.

In Toronto the rail corridor is being moved closer to homes by the rail company itself. It beggars belief that it would actually do this, but that is happening. In one case, CP Rail expropriated the backyards of several homes in order to move its rails 20 feet closer to the homes. If a derailment occurs in that piece of my riding, the devastation will be unimaginable.

Therefore, what does the rail company do? It is now building a crash barrier for protection, but it will not protect the homes. The crash barrier will be between two sets of rail corridors so if a crash happens, CP freights will not damage CN and VIA rails, but nothing has been built to protect the homes. The bill should provide the minister with the power to look into this. Why are we protecting against a crash if the crash happens toward the rail corridor rather than toward the homes?

A school is right on that rail corridor. The play yard is literally five feet from the rails. When that was criticized, the rail company said that people should not build schools so close to a rail corridor. The trouble was the school was there first and the rail company just did not know that.

One cannot talk about rail safety without saying something about the deteriorating infrastructure of our railway system. My colleagues in the NDP from coast to coast see rail service being closed for safety reasons as a result of deteriorating tracks and a lack of adequate maintenance. Clearly, track maintenance is an issue in rail safety. Significant investment needs to be made in rail infrastructure across Canada, not only to improve rail safety but to continue to provide, and hopefully expand, rail service both in terms of passenger service as well as freight service.

Passenger and freight services were closed recently in the Gaspé and on Vancouver Island as a result of deteriorating rail infrastructure. These services were handed to the local authorities by the big rail companies in what was almost an unfit state. The local authorities do not have the funds to keep them up the way the rail companies did. Therefore, we need federal action to create rail safety on these and other such rail corridors.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to again speak to Bill S-4, the Railway Safety Act, at third reading and report stage today.

This bill, as others have mentioned, originates from a previous Parliament, and the good member for Trinity—Spadina had a lot to do with putting forward the bill in the first place. I want to congratulate her and others who have worked on this bill, and congratulate those in the industry, in the unions and in the safety agencies who have contributed to what will be a great improvement to the bill.

Unfortunately, it has taken us six years from the commencement of the study on whether or not the bill needed to be improved until today, when we hope the bill will pass the House. That was way too long. When we are talking about safety, six years is way too long for something as critical to Canadians as the safety of the railroads, as has been mentioned by several members here.

These railroads travel through dense urban areas. In order to ensure the safety of not just the railway workers and not just the patrons of the railway but also of the people who live around these railroads, there needs to be a regimen in Canada that provides for the safe operation of these railroads, which the bill goes a long way to providing. It does not go all the way, and I will get into that in a few minutes.

Every school child knows that railways built this country and that railways play an important role in transporting goods and people from coast to coast. We believe that railways should actually provide a much greater role in transporting people in this country, and perhaps in transporting goods.

Railways are a more efficient way of transporting people than cars. Railways are a more efficient way of transporting goods than trucks. It would take some of the pressure off our highways and cities if we were to move more goods safely by using rail. However, I emphasize the word “safely”, and that is what the bill would, in part, do.

There are 73,000 kilometres of track, and as the member for Trinity—Spadina noted, track has been removed. We have lost 10,000 kilometres of track as the railroads have moved out of transporting. The most recent loss of a railroad was the CP secondary line between Ottawa, the nation's capital, and North Bay. One of the reasons for removing that track was that CP wanted the steel; it was not because it was an uneconomical piece of railroad but because it needed the steel for replacing rails in other places.

It is a shame that the railbed could not be used for public transit or could not continue to be used for the transportation of goods, because generally speaking, the rail line from here to North Bay goes through no cities. It does not go past any homes or businesses that would be endangered by a railway spill.

Last year, railways moved some 72 million passengers and carried 66% of all the surface freight in Canada, so railways are a very important part of the infrastructure of this country.

However, there are some places where we are actually still building railroads. We are building railroads in my riding in large numbers. We are expanding the capacity of a rail corridor that runs through my riding from 40 trains a day to 464 trains a day. That is one of the reasons I am anxious for the bill to pass, because I want to ensure that the government has some power to make sure that railroad is operated in a safe manner.

Some of that railroad may in fact be exempt from this legislation, becausegovernment will decide, for whatever reason, that some of that railroad is not a federally regulated railway. I want to ensure that all of the railroad systems in Canada, whether they are passenger rail or heavy freight rail—and we are talking heavy rail, not the little light rail streetcar systems in some cities—are all run in a safe and efficient manner.

According to the Transportation Safety Board, in 2009 there were 1,081 rail accidents, including 68 main track derailments. If rail traffic continues to grow as anticipated—and the rail companies tell us that it will grow at roughly the same rate as inflation, meaning 3% a year—in 10 years there will be 40% more rail traffic than there is today, and the potential for accidents will increase.

The rail industry believes that the way to prevent accidents at rail crossings in particular is to remove the rail crossings. The idea is to just close the road. That is the easiest way to prevent rail crossings. There will not be any cars crossing the tracks, and the tracks will reign supreme.

That does not work in many urban centres in this country. There is some money, a very small amount of money—about $12 million a year, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister—that is set aside by the government to remove rail crossings in this country. I assume that means putting in grade-separated rail crossings so that either the roads go under or above the rail corridor or the rail corridor is dipped below or above the road.

The trouble is that $12 million might pay for half of one of those, and there are hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands—I do not have the number in front of me—of railroad crossings in this country, each of which has the potential for a fatal accident. In fact, there was a fatal accident on the railroads in Toronto just two weeks ago. A pedestrian was killed on a railbed in Toronto. We do not need any more of those.

Keeping people and trains apart should be an important part of what the transport minister strives to do in the implementation of this act.

One of the new key points in the legislation is the requirement for railways to obtain a certificate for operation. The certificate must include a safety management system acceptable to Transport Canada. It is a key element of this legislation that the safety management system be acceptable to Transport Canada so that Transport Canada actually understands and accepts that the railroad applying for a certificate for operation has in place measures that will prevent accidents, that will prevent overwork of their employees—which is why the unions are in support—and that will prevent trains from colliding with one another.

We recently had such a collision involving a passenger train in Burlington, Ontario. No one is really certain yet of all the causes, but speed was definitely a factor. This train went way too fast through a switch. The switch was rated for 15 kilometres an hour, and the train went through at about 60 kilometres an hour and derailed. There was loss of life and there were injuries.

What will prevent, in large measure, many of these kinds of accidents is something called positive train control. In this system the speed of the train is not controlled just by a person watching lights, which is how it works today and which is the same way it worked 160 years ago. A person runs a train by watching lights in order to know when they should go slower and when they can go faster.

Positive train control is widespread in all of the world except North America. It is already in place in some parts of the United States, but it is not present in Canada. It is a system whereby the train's speed is controlled externally. If a switch is closed and the train should slow down, the train's speed is controlled automatically if the train operator does not do it himself or herself.

It makes all kinds of sense, but it is not a system that the government is prepared to impose on the railroads yet. Why?

We would immediately start preventing accidents. It is true that it would be an expense to the railroads, but it is part of the cost of doing business. Railroads that operate in the United States will already have to comply with the positive train control system in the U.S. They already have to build their infrastructure to deal with positive train control. CN and CP and VIA Rail trains that travel across our border will have to do this, yet for some reason the government is not prepared to impose it in Canada.

I wonder why we always wait for the accident or the problem to occur before we act. Most people can see that this would be a good addition to the rail safety system in this country.

A number of problems were identified with rail safety that did not have to do directly with this bill but instead had to do with the oversight that Transport Canada applies to rail safety in this country. In a 2011 report, the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development identified serious deficiencies in the transport of dangerous products.

It is up to the minister to ensure that his officials at Transport Canada are actually enforcing the laws that it already has regarding safety. If it is not, something is wrong with the system.

The commissioner stated that 53% of the files he examined had instances of non-compliance and, of those files, an astonishing 73%, nearly three-quarters, little or no corrective action was taken. We have a law that tells us how to transport dangerous goods. We have a system in which Transport Canada is to actually monitor and enforce that law. We have a commissioner who looked at it and said that Transport Canada was not enforcing it and we have silence from the government. We do not seem to know how to enforce the laws we already have.

Bill S-4 contains a lot of very generous provisions toward the minister who will make decisions about how this law will be implemented. The minister needs to take the most protective and precautionary stance possible with his officials in Transport Canada and with the safety of Canadians because to do otherwise he would be derelict in his duties.

What we are saying about the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which is already in force, is that if it is not being enforced by the officials who need to enforce it, the minister and his staff, then could S-4 face the same thing? We cannot sit here and pass laws that nobody enforces. The Conservatives believe that laws are to be enforced and enforced to the letter of the law. We heard yesterday from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that, no matter where Canadian companies operate, they are to abide by the laws. The same should be true in Canada but it is up to the government to enforce those laws.

Bill S-4 has quite serious penalties for failing to comply with the legislation. Those penalties are now administrative penalties where the minister would not need to take a company to court. The minister could impose a penalty without actually having to file suit against an individual or company for failing to comply.

We would hope that Transport Canada would actually impose those sanctions when it finds violations. It is no good to have a bunch of sanctions in a law if we do not apply them when there are violations. We hope that corrective action is only necessary very rarely, but we want that corrective action to be taken when it is necessary. We do not want a situation in which the government, as it apparently has done with the transportation of dangerous goods, ignores the law or the enforcement of the law.

The other portion of this law deals with the emissions of pollutants into the air. This is of great interest to the residents in Toronto who would be faced with a rail corridor that will have 464 trains per day or a train every 90 seconds going past. These are diesel engines of 4,000 to 5,000 horsepower emitting huge clouds of black smoke. People want to know that something will be done to limit that pollution.

The bill provides mechanisms whereby the minister can demand that these emissions be reduced, curtailed, regulated or monitored. It will be up to the minister to actually impose those regulations and enforce them.

The people of the city of Toronto are watching this with some great interest because one of the issues that has raised a huge storm is the issue of the amount of pollution that comes from train engines. When people looked at it, because they did not look at it until someone said that we would have 460 of them, they discovered that there were carcinogens, nitrous oxide and particulate matter in that exhaust that can cause grave harm to individuals. To increase it by tenfold, without also putting in some kind of limits, has people in my riding and in other ridings in the city of Toronto demanding that trains be made electric.

In 1908, in the city of New York, the use of fossil fuel burning trains was banned. As my time as run out, I will continue that thought when I come back.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Bourassa, for splitting his time with me. I do know that, as our Liberal Party critic, the member for Bourassa has done an outstanding job in terms of ensuring there is this sense of urgency to see this particular bill pass through the system.

It is great to see. It is not that long ago that we had it before us in second reading, and we have it again today in third reading. I suspect we would love to see it pass here today and, ultimately, continue on going through the system.

It is important to note that this particular bill was in a different form prior to the last election, better known as Bill C-33, which had its origin here in the House. I know there was some concern as to why this would have started off in the Senate.

However, I do think there is a sense that this particular bill does need to be fast-tracked, primarily because we recognize just how critically important it is to the railway industry as a whole to ensure we do what we can to improve rail line services throughout the country.

It has been a long time since there was an actual significant change to the Railway Safety Act. My understanding is we would have to go back to the 1990s, I think it was 1999, under the Chrétien government, where there were other amendments of significance that were made. A lot has happened over that period of time. That is one of the reasons we have the bill here today in recognition of the changes and the number of things that have been brought to the government's attention by a wide variety of stakeholders.

I think it is worthy of note that the stakeholders come from a fairly wide spectrum of individuals and groups who have actually been able to contribute to what we have here today.

It is interesting. When I had the opportunity to read through the bill and some of the notes that my colleague from Bourassa had provided on this issue, one of the things that really came to mind is the whole whistleblower content and how important it is to recognize that people working somewhere within the industry or with the train company have the ability to say they are concerned about the safety of X, whatever that X might be, and not be in fear of losing their job. To me, that is something that is good to see in legislation.

I can recall when we supported similar legislation with regard to whistleblower legislation in the province of Manitoba and how well that was received.

I would suggest that the same principle applies here. This way reasonable issues would be brought up because individuals working within the industry would now feel comfortable knowing that, if they have a concern that is related to safety, they could actually bring it up and would not have to be in fear of ultimately being fired because of raising an issue that is related to safety.

That is just one aspect of the bill we have before us that makes it so important that the bill ultimately passes. At the end of the day, I believe all members here in the House recognize that the bill would in fact improve the overall safety of our rail lines. We have seen that demonstrated through comments with regard to this bill, whether in committee stage, in second reading or, now, in third reading. So, I see that as a positive thing.

It is also important to recognize, and I have already made quick reference to it, that there are advisory committees out there, there are members from within our unions and there are others who have had the opportunity to provide input. I know we, as the Liberal Party, have had that opportunity and appreciate that the government, on this particular piece of legislation, seems to have listened and responded in kind.

It is somewhat noteworthy, and I put it tongue-in-cheek, that the government does not require time allocation in order to pass this particular bill, which tells me it is another good reason to believe we are seeing more of an all-party approach to recognizing this as a good idea.

Well we should, because the consequences of rail accidents, whether in our rural communities or urban centres, are quite significant. On the macro scale, a derailment can cause a complete and total evacuation of communities. On the micro scale, people may be hit by a train, causing fatalities. Both of those happen far too often. At the end of the day, this is what we are hoping to deal with by passing Bill S-4 today.

I want to emphasize the importance of rail safety. It is not just up to the federal government to pass this legislation. There is a need to have co-operation among different stakeholders. Some of the stakeholders I am referring to are municipal governments. I would suggest municipal governments of our rural communities all have a role to play. They are in essence the groups that ultimately decide, in many communities, where there will be flashing railway signs or railway arms that are lifted to accommodate the flow of traffic versus train traffic.

Provincial governments also need to step up to the plate. A lot of the monitoring of our highways is done through our provincial governments. They too need to step up to the plate and deal with what they can of their responsibilities.

Obviously, it goes without saying that our rail lines, companies like CN, CP, VIA Rail and other rail lines that are operating on our tracks, have the most significant role to play in ensuring the quality of the line or the quality of the vehicles they are using to transport goods is of a high standard, so we can minimize any sort of damage to the individual or the community as a whole.

I have spoken in the past about how the rail industry has played a critical role in the development of the city of Winnipeg and many communities. I want to focus some attention on the city of Winnipeg. I have had a history with the rail line in one form or another, primarily indirectly, with the impact of the railway industry on my ancestry. I can talk about my grandfather's time and today, in terms of how it divides communities in geographical regions.

The last time I had the opportunity to speak, I talked about Main Street, Salter Street, McPhillips, Arlington in between those other two, and Keewatin and Route 90. All of those have either underpasses or overpasses that cross the CP tracks. There are tens of thousands of people who live around the CP yards. One can rest assured that the constituents I represent have a vested interest in this legislation and how important it is that it passes. It is all about rail safety.

I see my time has expired. I posed a question about the expansion of rapid transit and where rail lines could play an active role in it. It is something I may be able to talk about in the future.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these are ongoing issues. There are two questions. First, it may be about alternative technology to address the noise. Second, with Bill S-4, I believe it is also a matter of prevention.

I think railways are secure. Of course, we have derailments and sad accidents. We always have to ensure they are dealt with in an open and transparent manner to understand what truly happened. However through that tool, Bill S-4, we can better prevent than cure.

We do have to address situations. However, through the prevention tool and the certification process and the fact that we would have whistleblowers and people able to bring back the intelligence we need in order to understand what is going on in a particular company or the situation of the rail, I believe it will be a real good thing to do and it may prevent incidents. We have to be focused and vigilant.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if members want to support it now, then let us do it. I have fast-tracked it already in committee.

To speak to the question, I believe that, truly, Bill S-4 is a matter of culture, and if we push these kinds of processes forward together, we can achieve it. We are all focusing on the same thing: we want to have a better quality of life.

I believe in the chemin de fer. This country has been built on the railway. It is the link between regions. We will be able to push forward those kinds of policies and change of culture in every region.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everybody is happy about this debate because it is probably the only bill that everyone agrees on. I thank the member for Beauce, who was initially against the bill, but then supported it later on. Apparently, even he sometimes sees the light. We thank him.

One thing is certain: I was proud to suggest at the last committee meeting that the bill be fast-tracked and reported without amendment, so that it can return to the House. This is a subject that everybody agrees on, because health and safety are not partisan issues. Everyone has made an effort and worked hard on this issue.

The issue should have been considered as part of Bill C–33, which unfortunately died on the order paper. We know that the subject was then dealt with in the other chamber, in the form of Bill S–4.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Senator Mercer, who did an admirable job. What is important and interesting about this bill is that we had proposed a series of amendments as part of Bill C–33. These amendments were adopted virtually unanimously thanks particularly to the tireless work of my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, who did a very good job.

We could talk about what more could be done. There is obviously a lot more to be done. Health and safety are ongoing issues. This had to be done to be in sync with the other forms of transport. It was therefore crucial that it be done. As far as air and marine transport are concerned, we know that measures had already been proposed. It is important that the same thing be done for the railways.

I would also like to thank the members on both sides of this House, especially the minister who answered my questions. Someone said earlier that he was quiet. It is true that he is sometimes quiet on a number of issues, but at least he answered the question in this case. I am quite happy about this.

As a former minister, I have always been in favour, whether from a curative or preventive standpoint, of having some power to protect people's quality of life. I believe that this is the very core of this bill: enabling the minister to intervene. This of course is a power that can be delegated. Often, such an intervention can prevent things from getting bogged down in administrative or bureaucratic details. In a democracy, it is crucial for the people's representative, the minister, to have this ability and this power to intervene. Very often, this kind of prevention can save lives. Providing it is essential.

In short, it is clear that this bill will improve Transport Canada's oversight capacity. It will increase the department’s powers to enforce the act. There will be punitive fines. This is important. It is not always enough, but it is important.

I also believe that it is necessary to have someone who is accountable where safety is concerned. In my view, the other essential element is that whistleblowers be able to intervene without becoming victims of intimidation. As we know, very often, knowledge is power. Once people realize, whether in the private or public sector, that they can have this "political” power to intervene and prevent problems, it becomes not only the right thing to do, but the essential thing to do.

Needless to say, there has to be a process that leads to a form of certification. I believe that such certification is vital. It is a step in the right direction. It is even several steps in the right direction. After the two reports were prepared, we were able to demonstrate that we were listening carefully. It was essential and important to be able to intervene.

I do have one concern, however, because this is not the end of the story, and it is not a panacea. All our amendments were accepted, but a further step is still required, because things are different in rural communities and urban communities. I asked the minister some questions. There is of course this whole concept of accountability of individuals, parents and everyone who has a supervisory role to play. You can put up 12-foot-high fences. You can build all kinds of infrastructure to prevent people from getting through, but people will get through anyway.

Given the existing urban reality and even, in some cases, the existing rural reality, it is important that all stakeholders make a pact so that, after this bill is passed, they can move on to the next step and come to an agreement about safety.

Earlier, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina spoke about certain elements that could be added to improve safety and protection, both for passengers and workers.

Today is May 1, International Workers' Day. We must therefore also think about the railway workers whose do quite an admirable job.

This is not just a legal battle. We cannot say that this is not our responsibility because it involves the private sector or it falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. We also cannot say that we are not going to get involved because this falls under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and they are creatures of the provinces.

With regard to security and protection, it will be essential to come to an agreement with all the stakeholders, whether it be the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or the major cities. In areas where there are railway crossings, it will be key to have additional tools to protect our youth and others who too often recklessly decide to cross the railway tracks.

In addition, certification is not a solution in and of itself but, rather, a means to an end. It is an additional tool that will aid in prevention.

Yes, the train is one of the safest forms of transportation. The other day, we spoke about the train that derailed in Burlington. We were very distressed about that situation. Could this type of accident have been avoided?

In order to prevent those kinds of incidents, it is important to provide individuals with all the tools they need to ensure their security. I proposed a fast track at committee because we have been talking from both sides, not only this time but even before the last session. It has been a long process since 2006 but it is not the first time that we have talked about security and prevention. This is why the Liberal Party of Canada will take responsibility and support the bill.

I believe it is very important to mention that if everybody wants to work together, majority government or not, it would be a great thing for democracy because we would be sending a true message that we are all equal as representatives and that we have a role to play. The fact that we can put forward some amendments that, from the two chambers, we can talk together and work for the sake of our communities, is the good news today. It is a lesson learned that we should take note of that process. It is like the movie Field of Dreams, if we build it they will come.

It is a wonderful process. I am very pleased with the answers that Transport Canada and the minister provided to us on that issue. The minister and I do not agree on everything but I do recognize that in that process he delivered. We are looking forward to providing some new alternatives afterward because there are some other issues regarding alternatives for security.

What is important is that it is a living paper. We will need to see what happens in the future but we have a framework here that addresses some of the issues that we wanted to address and the fact that the stakeholders, such as the unions, are on the same page. Nothing is perfect but I believe we are better having an imperfection realized than a perfection en attente, as we say.

We will support Bill S-4.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having a safe and reliable rail network is essential to Canada's mobility and economy. Seventy percent of all service goods are shipped by train. Passenger and commuter trains transport more than 70 million people a year. Our railways also have an environmental edge over road bound traffic as they only contributes 3% of Canada's transportation related greenhouse gas emissions.

By choosing rail, passengers and shippers also choose one of the safest modes of transport in Canada. However, although modest gains have been made in reducing accidents over the past few years, we are not where we want to be in terms of rail safety. The tragic VIA Rail collisions in Burlington in February of this year and the recent derailment in Alberta show that more needs to be done. Bill S-4, the safer railways act, is a step in the right direction.

Members know that the bill has been in front of the House of Commons several times. In fact, the history of it is quite extensive. It started in February 2007 with the department telling the minister of transport that there should be a full review of the operation and efficiency of the Railway Safety Act.

An advisory panel was established and came out with a final report entitled: “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”, which was published in November 2007. That was five years ago. It included 56 recommendations for improvement of rail safety, some of which are included in the legislative changes in front of us today.

Throughout the past five years, the bill came before the House in many forms. In May 2008 the standing committee tabled 14 recommendations after it studied the Rail Safety Act. In June 2010 Bill C-33 was introduced by the government in the House of Commons, but unfortunately it did not pass. We now have Bill S-4 in front of us.

However, Bill S-4 is only a step, not a leap. Depending on whom one talks to, it is more of a baby step. It is long overdue, but it is certainly not universal in addressing ongoing rail safety challenges.

Rail accidents have decreased over the last five years, but only in a very limited way. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, an independent government agency responsible for advancing transportation safety through investigations and recommendations, has some insightful statistics, some of which I will list.

The number of railway accidents went down by a meagre 5% from 2010 to 2011. We still have more than 1,000 train accidents a year. That is almost three a day. Slightly more than 100 train collisions and derailments happen on the main tracks and not tucked away in some slow-moving marshalling yard.

Off the main tracks, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada reported 573 collisions and derailments. There were 33 accidents in which the culprit was not due to human error or rolling stock, but because the rails themselves were unsafe.

Every other week, somewhere in our country, there is a rail accident that involves fire or an explosion. VIA Rail unfortunately does not own its own rails but leases them from CN/CP. This makes it hard for VIA Rail to have much control over the rails.

Needless to say, a rail accident's harmful potential is compounded when dangerous goods are involved.

In 2011 there were 118 accidents involving toxic cargo, most of them were derailments. In three of those accidents harmful contents were spilled, damaging the environment and threatening the health of residents and workers.

Even without collisions, once a week there is an incident somewhere in Canada in which dangerous goods are leaked.

The Transportation Safety Board reported 51 incidents in which harmful and toxic substances were inadvertently released into the environment, and things do not look much better this year. From January to March, there were 16 dangerous goods leakages. During the same time frame last year, there were 11. We actually had five more incidents of dangerous goods that leaked into the environment than last year.

While the number of overall accidents has slightly decreased, 5%, the number of serious accidents, those that have to be reported to the Transportation Safety Board, has increased by a dramatic 27% from 2010 to 2011. The number of mandatory reported rail incidents rose from 160 to 204. That means we are on par with the numbers again in 2005, 2,004 rail incidents. That is a big number. It makes one wonder about significant and sustainable safety gains that were supposedly to be achieved under the Conservative government.

In 2011 there were 68 accidents involving passenger trains. Just to keep the record straight, travelling by rail is still several times safer than taking a car, but 68 accidents involved passenger trains last year.

In addition to the potential damage to passengers and working crews, passenger train accidents have a corrosive effect on public perception. Right after the Burlington accident, VIA Rail suffered a slump in passenger numbers. The solution is not to talk about it, but to really tackle our rail safety deficit head on. It is timely that this bill is in front of us at third reading. Hopefully it will be law in a few days.

There was a train accident on February 26 of this year in Burlington and one in Montreal a few years ago. Rail accidents not only impact workers and passengers who are hurt or fatally injured, but the damage and the grief goes beyond those immediately affected such as local communities and residents and businesses. Whenever these accidents happen, emergency personnel and local residents show valour and compassion beyond the ordinary. The five heroes who were honoured by Burlington city council yesterday are prime examples of just that.

Tragic accidents also leave deep scars in local communities. Almost two years after the fatal accident in Montreal, the parents of three teenagers who were killed are still looking for answers as to why their children were run over in the dark by a train with dimmed headlights.

The Transportation Safety Board has investigated more than 170 rail accidents in recent years. Based on the insights from its investigation, the Transportation Safety Board has made a whole host of demands for improving rail safety. For the particularly urgent and important ones, it files a formal recommendation with Transport Canada and tracks the ministry's response and action.

Since 2005, the Transportation Safety Board has issued more than 50 of those formal recommendations. Unfortunately, under the Conservative leadership, Transport Canada has not been very proactive or eager to follow those recommendations. Less than 60%, that is 6 out of 10, of the Transportation Safety Board's file demands have been completely addressed in the eyes of the independent agency. Why have not 100% of the recommendations from the safety board been addressed and implemented?

Fifteen per cent of the expert's recommendations were partially addressed. One-quarter of the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations were essentially left unaddressed, with no meaningful action taken. I will take some time later on to go through them.

The TSB, in its very charming wording, said that it was “satisfactory intent”. There is intent, but no action has been taken. In some of these cases, the ministry has been sitting on its hands for seven years, so it is very subtle to call that intent.

The first of the recommendations is the voice recorders. We will recall, in all of these accidents, whether the one in Quebec or the one still under investigation from Burlington, that the investigators have not been able to get to the bottom of the accidents because there are no voice recorders in the locomotive cabs. Therefore, unlike planes, we do not know precisely what happens in the locomotive cab.

Even before 2007, close to 10 years, the safety board has said that Transport Canada must mandate these voice recorders to be installed in the locomotive cabs. For six years nothing happened. Recently we heard from the minister that some discussion had taken place, that there was some negotiation with the unions. The unions have said that they are not opposed to them, so there is absolutely no reason why it is not mandated. Apparently there are more discussions. There is a lot of talk, but at the end of the day there are still no voice recorders in locomotive cabs. That is just not acceptable.

The second area the Transportation Safety Board has talked about is the need for an alternative mechanism to slow down the trains if the trains go too fast. In these times of modern technologies, certainly the switches and tracks can be connected with the braking system. Such technology exists. It is called a positive train control system. It is a system that is being installed across the states. Amtrak, for example, has them now. As of 2005, it is mandatory that every train in the U.S. has such a control system. Therefore, as in the case of Burlington, the train would have automatically slowed down to the appropriate speed and not jumped the track because it was going too fast.

Another area we need to look at occasionally is driver fatigue. What happens is a driver might report to work at 8 a.m. If the train is late, or for some reason there is a breakdown or mechanical problems, the driver waits and waits, then starts work. In this case, by the time drivers start their work, they have waited for many hours and some of them are in fact very tired.

We need to look at the whole area of rail crossing in the future. We did not make any amendments to that, because rail crossing is fairly complex. A lot of developments have built condominiums and shopping malls around railway tracks. Some of the railway companies say that if municipalities want to go ahead and build such developments in areas served by trains, then at least the railway companies should be advised.

Local municipalities, local government is a provincial matter. In many ways it does not necessarily come under federal jurisdiction. However, this is an area we need to look at. We do not want a developer building a series of high-rises, an entire neighbourhood on one side of the track, and then a school or a shopping mall being built on the other side of the track. People are then tempted to cross the track, even though there might be barriers. They might take shortcuts and put themselves in danger. Urban planning needs to recognize rail safety as a very important issue.

In European countries and in Asia, railway crossings are increasingly separated by grade. The train either goes into a tunnel or it goes up on a bridge so that the pedestrian can walk across directly. It is not a shortcut. In some cases, pedestrians go across a bridge to cross railway tracks. It costs a bit more money, but it is infinitely safer than asking people to go around railway tracks and not take a shortcut.

Railway associations are quite concerned about those areas, but given how long Bill S-4, the safer railways act, has been before the House, the committee and other members of Parliament and the NDP did not want to slow down the bill. It was fast-tracked through the committee, which is why I did not move any amendments on voice recorders, positive train control, rail crossing or driver fatigue. Those issues, important as they are, need to be investigated and considered in a future study, maybe in future recommendations.

I was assured by the minister that voice recorders are coming soon. After all these years of waiting, they will come and we do not need to mandate them. I will not quite believe this until I see it, but let us see what happens.

I want to turn the rest of the few minutes I have to talk quickly about the rest of the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations. They were left unaddressed by Transport Canada. Let me list some of them.

The department of transport, in conjunction with the railway industry and other North American regulators, should establish a protocol for reporting and analyzing tank car stub sill failures, so that unsafe cars are repaired or removed from service.

Another recommendation where no action has been taken is that Transport Canada work with the provincial government to expedite the implementation of a national standard for low ground clearance advance warning signs at railway crossings. Railway crossings are very important, and we need advance warning signs.

CN should take effective action to identify and mitigate risk to safety as required by its safety management system. We should require CN to do so, not just ask politely. We should implement Transport Canada standards to improve the visibility of emergency contact signage at railways crossings, again, it is about railways crossings, and then conduct assessments of level crossings on the high-speed passenger rail Quebec-Windsor corridor and ensure that defences are adequate to mitigate the risk of truck-train collisions.

There are many more recommendations that I want to go into, but I am running out of time. I know that when we work together we can get the job done and make train service in Canada even safer than it is today.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is upset that the bill is called Bill S-4 and not Bill C-4. He is upset that the bill originated in the Senate and not in the House. The reality is that this is a bill that has consensus across both chambers and all parties. At times, government introduces bills at the Senate level because that chamber might be undercapacity while this one is overcapacity and, in order to get that legislation passed quickly, we start it there and we end it here. Either way, it must go to both places. I conclude by saying that Bill S-4 or Bill C-4, what the heck is he fighting for?”

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what might be a case study or even a lesson for some of us on how to be a parliamentary secretary. He spent a full five minutes in the opening remarks of his speech complimenting his minister. He would more or less have people believe we should be erecting a statue to the Minister of Transport, never mind supporting this particular bill. It would be under the category of infrastructure, surely.

I would like my colleague's opinion and view on one glaring thing that jumps off the page to me as we begin the debate on this bill. It is the fact that it is called Bill S-4, not Bill C-4. In other words, it has its origins in the unelected, undemocratic Senate. The last time I checked, members of Parliament do not work for senators. I was elected by my constituents to represent them. By the Constitution, it is this body that comes together to amend legislation or create new laws, et cetera.

It surely offends the sensibilities of anyone who calls himself or herself a democrat, and in our case New Democrats, to tie up the time of the House of Commons with a bill that finds its origins in the other place. I do not understand it. It seems to be a trend. It seems to be a burgeoning pattern. It is almost becoming one of the hallmarks of the government that it uses and abuses parliamentary procedure.

No one elected senators to make legislation. They were appointed by the Prime Minister, usually because of their membership in a certain political party in their back pockets. They were either failed candidates, and failed is the operative word, and we were successful candidates. It is we—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on the third reading of Bill S-4, the safer railways act.

Before I begin, allow me to congratulate my colleagues across the entire chamber for the successful manner in which this bill has been discussed, debated, analyzed and moved to this point.

I thank the hon. member for his applause and I want him to feel free to interrupt my comments with his applause at any time.

I hope he will join me in applauding our Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who has proven himself to be a quiet, diligent builder in the true Canadian sense. We see the success he has had in moving forward with a plan to build a new bridge, a replacement of the Champlain Bridge over the St. Lawrence. That bridge is going to be at a minimal cost to taxpayers and at a higher quality for the residents of Montreal and the many people who pass through that corridor from right across Canada.

The minister is succeeding in building linkages with our friends south of the border in the hopes that we will have a Detroit-Windsor bridge. He has moved this bill on railway safety quietly but quickly through the House of Commons, and he has also worked with municipal partners toward the eventual development of a replacement for the building Canada fund, which will expire in just a few years. We all have a lot to celebrate when we look at the record of this Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The bill in front of us deals with one of the few legitimate roles of government, and that is to protect the safety and security of the person. Canada has one of the strongest rail safety regimes in the entire world. Last year we saw reductions in accidents on the railroad by 23%, and derailments dropped by 26%. Obviously there is a lot more work to do. Until such time as there are no accidents whatsoever, we must continue to work with industry and in partnership with government to have the strongest and best laws to ensure safety.

It gives me great pleasure to say that committee members have thoroughly re-examined this bill and have given their unanimous approval for the second time, exactly as it was received, with no further changes. It has been a long journey, but our final destination is in view. This important piece of legislation reflects our desire to ensure that our national railway system remains one of the safest in the world for the long-term benefit of our economy, our communities and our environment. The safety and prosperity of Canadians is always a priority for our government.

Before going further, I would like to remind members about the origin and the intent of this bill. In late 2006, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities appointed an independent panel to review the Railway Safety Act and make recommendations for improving both the act and railway safety in general.

Through 2007, this panel travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific gathering input from a very broad spectrum of stakeholders, including the railway companies, their associations, the railway unions, shippers, suppliers, municipalities, other national organizations, levels of government and the public.

The end result of these extensive national consultations was a final report with more than 50 recommendations for improving safety in the rail industry. While the rail safety review was in progress, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a complementary study of railway safety in Canada. After hearing extensive comments from municipalities, industry and labour, the committee accepted 56 recommendations of the Railway Safety Act panel and tabled its own report with 14 recommendations, many of which were built on those in the Railway Safety Act review.

Some of those amendments proposed in the bill before the House today are a direct result of the standing committee's extensive work in this regard. I heartily thank its members for their dedicated efforts.

In short, Bill S-4 is our Conservative government's detailed response to those two national reviews. The amendments it proposes would significantly modernize the current act to reflect changes in the industry and ultimately to increase the level of safety for the benefit of our generation and those to come.

First and foremost, Bill S-4 would provide stronger oversight and enforcement capacity to Transport Canada through the introduction of railway operating certificates and monetary fines for safety violations as well as an increase in existing judicial penalties to reflect the levels found in other modes of transportation.

Throughout all our stakeholder consultation and committee examinations of these amendments, we heard strong support for the implementation of the safety-based operating certificates for all railways that run on federal tracks. These certificates, which would significantly strengthen Transport Canada's oversight capacity, would ensure that companies must have an effective safety management system in place before beginning operations.

Companies that are already in operation would be granted a two-year grace period to meet the requirements of the certificate. This includes all federally regulated railways as well as several of our largest national transit systems that use hundreds of miles of federal track and carry millions of Canadians to and from work daily. Increased safety for these travellers would be a significant benefit for businesses, communities and families.

Many stakeholders also expressed strong support for the introduction of monetary penalties and an increase in the judicial fines for serious contraventions of safety regulations. Monetary penalties already exist in other modes of transportation. They serve as a complementary enforcement tool and provide additional leverage on companies that continue to persist in safety violations.

This is consistent with the principles of minimizing regulatory burden for Canadians while at the same time promoting compliance. In that sense, we want to streamline and focus our rules so they cause a minimal encumbrance to the passenger and the business while punishing violations with serious monetary fines to discourage non-compliance.

In the interest of fairness for all, the proposed penalty scheme would allow for a review of the regulator's penalty decisions by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. It would also include provisions related to the minister's decision to impose a penalty, the due process to be followed, the review of decisions by the appeal tribunal and the level of fines to be paid for non-compliance and infractions.

The maximum levels of these penalties would be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation, which is consistent with similar schemes for other modes of transportation. The proposed increase in judicial fines, which were originally established 20 years ago, would also strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement options and bring those fines to a level currently found in the other modes of transportation, as I mentioned earlier.

Maximum judicial fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would increase from $200,000 to $1 million for corporations and from $10,000 to $50,000 for individuals. Maximum fines on summary conviction for contravention of the act would increase from $100,000 to $500,000 for a business and from $5,000 to $25,000 for an individual.

These amounts are consistent with those established for federal air and marine transportation and transportation of dangerous goods. Those modes of transportation are comparable enough to ensure that they would work in this mode of rail transportation. They are large enough to effectively deter contraventions.

The bill also provides for a significantly stronger focus on the importance of railway accountability and safety management systems, which both industry and labour applaud and support.

With these amendments in place, railway companies would be required to appoint a designated executive responsible for all safety matters. They would also be required to provide whistleblower protection for employees who raise safety concerns. Besides increasing our level of protection from accidents and oversights, these amendments would ensure the growth of a strong and lasting culture of safety in the railway industry.

On the administrative side, the bill would effectively close the gaps in the existing act by clarifying the minister's authority on matters of railway safety. It would expand regulation-making authorities, which would enable Transport Canada to require annual environmental management plans from the railways as well as a requirement for railways to provide emissions labelling on equipment and emissions data for review.

The safer railways bill is all about better oversight, improved enforcement tools, enhanced safety management systems and better environmental protection. These are the things we need. These are the things we applaud. I think my hon. colleagues would agree that these are the things we can all support.

In sum, these proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act would improve rail safety in Canada for the long term. They are the culmination of two important studies and extensive consultations. They would provide increased safety for Canadians and Canadian communities, economic benefits to the industry by decreasing the likelihood of costly accidents and delays, and a variety of benefits to external stakeholders, including provinces, municipalities, shippers and the travelling public.

Last but not least, these amendments would provide additional support for a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment for all Canadians.

With the House's support of these amendments, the government's ability would be enhanced to effectively regulate companies in an environment of continued growth, free enterprise competition and increased complexity. We would have the ability to ensure the safety of not only the passenger but the motorist and the pedestrian and the communities through which these trains travel. Improvements to Transport Canada's regulatory oversight and enforcement programs would be limited. The pursuit of new safety initiatives with respect to the management systems and environmental management would be badly constrained without these changes.

Without the support of the House, the legislative framework for railways would also remain inconsistent with other transportation modes, which have a broader range of enforcement tools. Regulation-making authorities could not be expanded to allow for the creation of safety-based operating certificates.

Without the support of the House, we would ultimately be looking at greater long-term costs to Canadians due to continuing fatalities, serious injuries and damage to valuable property and the environment.

Happily, it appears we do have the support of the House. All members of the House would agree that because of this cross-party consensus and the passage of the bill into law imminently, the Canadian public would be safer and the industry and its workers would be stronger.

Canada has one of the most dispersed populations in the world and it is the second biggest country on earth. Our railways have 73,000 km of track stretching from coast to coast and more than 3,000 locomotives handle more than 4 million carloads yearly. They operate more than 700 trains per day, moving nearly 70 million passengers and 75% of all service freight in this country. Railways have been the backbone of our economy since the days of John A. Macdonald and Confederation. They were the foundation of our national growth in the past and they remain integral to our prosperity in the future.

It is timely and forward-looking legislative amendments such as these that will ensure our rail industry remains a safe, secure and dependable component of our national infrastructure and global economy for many years to come.

In 2009, our Conservative government affirmed its commitment to safe, reliable transportation systems by investing in rail safety systems and putting the right kinds of rules into place. These amendments to the Railway Safety Act that we have before us today are the fruit of that commitment.

Since the launch of the Railway Safety Act review in 2006, our government has worked continuously with stakeholders, through the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, joint technical working groups and individual consultations across the country, to ensure that this bill meets the needs of all the parties engaged in this industry.

The net result is a strong, forward-looking bill that updates existing regulatory authorities, brings railway legislation in line with other modes and significantly improves the safety of our railway system for the benefit of all.

I will mention some of the leaders who played a role in the early stages of this process. I think of then minister Chuck Strahl, or Lawrence Cannon, two members who have now moved on to other career pursuits but who served as ministers of transport. I think of the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean, now our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who also served in the capacity of transport minister. I think of our current minister who, as I highlighted earlier, has achieved a record of quiet, diligent results in this and in many other areas.

The bill demonstrates the ability of our majority Conservative government to get things done. To continue to preserve our free enterprise economy while protecting the security of the person is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. Together, as we focus on the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, which is a plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, and as we build upon the free market foundations that made this country what it is today, I encourage all members to support these common sense changes to improve rail safety and keep commerce moving across our tracks for the future and for all of us.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Rail Safety Week

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the few legitimate roles of government is the protection of the individual and the preservation of safety and security. That is why it is important for us to celebrate Rail Safety Week.

Since 2007, our government has increased rail safety inspectors, has increased investments in new security technology, provided a partnership with our industry partners, made 2,000 presentations to raise awareness about safety and security around the tracks. The results are clear: a 23% reduction in accidents and a 26% reduction in derailments since 2007.

Furthermore, the House, in the spirit of unanimity, has come together to pass Bill S-4, which would amend and improve the Railway Safety Act.

I congratulate all members, and in particular the Minister of Transportation, for moving forward with these strong improvements to continue to preserve the safety and security of our people around the tracks.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by welcoming the new House leader for the official opposition. I look forward to working with him. I anticipate a positive and constructive approach.

In terms of his question relating to the issue of the motion of the House dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer and concerns about whether the statute in place was appropriate for him to do his job, I believe that motion had an expectation of about half a year before the government was to respond. I anticipate we will fulfill that.

On his question about the budget, the government introduced Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. The bill implements key measures from economic action plan 2012. Our plan is working, as we have already created nearly 700,000 net new jobs since the recession. Most of these are full-time jobs.

Canadians want to see a productive, hard-working and orderly Parliament, focusing on their priority, the economy. Thus we hope to have the bill come to a vote on May 14. That target will allow members to study the bill, which implements important measures from the budget that Parliament has already approved.

As hon. members are aware, May 2 will mark the one-year anniversary of Canadians electing a strong, stable, national, Conservative majority government. And it is only fitting that, on this one-year anniversary, after members and caucuses have had close to a week to study the bill, we will debate our government's plan to continue creating jobs and economic growth in Canada. We will continue debate on Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, on Thursday, May 3, and Friday, May 4.

During the budget bill study week, before that debate starts, we will cover other business.

This afternoon we will complete debate on the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will start debate on Bill C-36, protecting Canada's seniors act, which addresses the great concern of elder abuse. This bill is part of our government's efforts to stand up for victims. This is the end of what has been an important national victims of crime awareness week, where we saw the Prime Minister make an announcement of increased support for families of missing children. We also saw the introduction of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which follows through on our campaign commitment to double the victim surcharge that convicted criminals pay.

Monday, April 30, will be the second allotted day. In this case, I understand we will debate a Liberal motion. I would invite the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie to share with all members—and, indeed, with Canadians—what we will be debating that day, so that hon. members can prepare.

On Tuesday, we will finish third reading debate on Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act. Based on my discussions with the new opposition House leader, I am confident that we will complete that debate early in the morning.

Then we will move on to Bill S-4, the safer railways act, which was reported back from committee yesterday. Given the importance of improving the safety of our railways, I hope this bill is able to pass swiftly.

Since I anticipate a productive day on Tuesday, I will then call Bill C-36, but only in the event that we do not finish earlier, that is tomorrow, followed by Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act, a piece of legislation that has now been around for three Parliaments and should get to committee where it can again be studied.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities regarding Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, we have the completion of Bill S-4. Congratulations.

Mr. Watson.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a suggestion. Since we have already worked on this bill and since I do not think—I imagine that it will be the same for the NDP—that we will have any amendments, I don't see why we would hold another meeting to do the clause-by-clause study of this bill. I suggest that we support this bill immediately and that it be sent back to the House immediately; that way, we can move on to other bills. If it is the wish of my colleagues, I think that we should immediately support Bill S-4 and send it back to the House in order to move on immediately to our other business.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to continue on the issue of ministerial authority. It means that the minister can, as he wishes, address a situation thanks to his discretion under Bill S-4. The bill gives additional powers to the minister.

[Luc Bourdon]

Bill S-4 does not make research and development mandatory. However some legislation like the Railway Safety Act, some sections of which are included in Bill S-4, do encourage the introduction and use of new technologies under existing rules. For example, under existing rules, we can test new technologies in just about 35 days. If all goes well, in less than four months approximately, we can allow a blanket exemption for a rule or regulation in order to encourage the introduction of new technologies.

For example, we are testing a new technology with Canadian Pacific to eliminate the use of brake tests. We are testing heat detectors that will detect brake malfunction from the heat of the wheels. Almost all companies in North America are examining this revolutionary new technology.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Does Bill S-4 compel the transportation department to research new technologies? Is there any way to put this money aside to shelter it from future budget cuts?

[Luc Bourdon]

I believe that rail transportation is just as safe as air transportation. Our data show a constant improvement in safety. Under Bill S-4, safety will be enhanced even further. For example, railway undertakings have to apply for a safety certificate. The fact that all railway companies must show that they have implemented all measures to guarantee safety before they can even start up operations is a good thing. The same goes for existing railroads. And we will add monetary sanctions which will motivate companies to comply with regulations.

As for the environment, there is a section stating that railway companies will have to file an environmental protection plan with our department. This bill covers a lot of ground, including legal penalties.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for their warm welcome this morning. I greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Bourdon, thank you for sharing your expertise with us.

You have before you probably the most junior member of the committee this morning. But I still have some questions. Perhaps you can give me the big picture.

Air and rail disasters are always the most spectacular. Despite the catastrophic nature of air accidents, we believe that air travel is still the safest mode of transportation. With this new bill, S-4, could we say that rail transportation will edge closer to air transportation in terms of safety?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Let's move over to the requirement for a railway operating certificate, which is part of Bill S-4. Can you tell me the requirements to obtain one? Will public transit agencies, such as GO Transit, Metrolinx, the new Air Rail Link, TransLink, and other urban transit agencies, need to acquire one of these? And what will they have to do to get one?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

No, that's not what I said.

I said that we were talking about Bill S-4 today, but you are speaking about another piece of legislation. It is completely different from what we are talking about today. I will say it in French because it is easier for me in that language. I said this was not the topic that we were discussing today. You want us to debate another aspect of the legislation. I never said that safety was not important.

Everything we are doing today, and everything that Transport Canada is doing, seeks to increase the safety of all modes of transportation in Canada. We have been talking about Bill S-4 since 2006, to improve the situation in relation to railway safety.

We are asking people to focus on passing Bill S-4 and to send this bill forward so that it is adopted as quickly as possible, so that we can increase railway safety in Canada. That is what we are doing today.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

We are here to talk about the passing of S-4 , sir.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It's not about safety but about the transport of dangerous goods, as you said. Bill S-4 will cover a lot of things.

With regard to the environmental issues, as Mr. Bourdon said, we'll have better tools. For dangerous goods, we will follow what the Auditor General said about that. We will continue to have better results, and we'll continue to fix that.

Mr. Bourdon, do you have some words about that?

[Luc Bourdon]

There are actually two things in tab 37 of your binder. One deals with the reporting of unsafe acts directly to Transport Canada without fear of reprisal. So that's going to be in place.

Second, previous safety management system regulations required that a company involve employees in implementing day-to-day management of the SMS. Bill S-4 proposes that a bargaining agent now be involved so that a union representative will be directly involved in selecting the appropriate individual to participate. So that's a great improvement as well.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It's very important to continue that way. As we said, the tools we will have with Bill S-4 will permit the unions, the workers, to be part of our solution. We have already done a good job, because since 2007 we haven't cut investments in rail safety; we've invested more. Since 2007, train accidents have decreased by 23% and train derailments by 26%. But we want to continue. We want to have better scores.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Once Bill S-4 is passed, we will have implemented 83% of the recommendations.

Luc, where are we now?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our minister and the Transport Canada officials for being here today.

Obviously, rail safety in Canada is a very important issue. Bill S-4 has had previous iterations before previous Parliaments, itself arising from two reviews that themselves were the result, if we're going back far enough, of a series of major high-profile train derailments in Canada that incurred both loss of life and significant environmental costs. Transport Canada, for its part, appointed an expert panel, which led a comprehensive review and produced a major report—I believe it's about 240 pages and 56 recommendations.

At the same time, I was part of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which was part of a concurrent study here into rail safety as well. We produced a report with 14 additional recommendations, 70 in total. If I remember some of the substance of the expert report, the ratings on safety performance of rail companies on a scale of one to five, five meaning the highest integration of safety within the company's culture...VIA Rail ranked four out of five, CP about three out of five, and CN two out of five.

Looking at ways of improving rail safety, or the culture of rail safety, in our companies—those 70 recommendations in total—can we have an indication now, four years later, of the progress in implementing both the expert review panel recommendations and the standing committee on transport's recommendations? Where are we on that?

[Luc Bourdon]

I just wanted to add that Bill S-4 increases accountability for railways. In fact, with this bill, provincial jurisdiction railway cars that use federal railways will be covered by the act, which is not the case actually.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

There are a lot of rumours. We will see what happens, sir. For now, there is nothing in the works in the short term. Of course, we hear ideas. We have information and we also have advice that allows us to see where the industry can go. However, this does not change a thing with regard to the safety aspect of Bill S-4. It seeks to strengthen our system's safety.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We now hear that VIA Rail wants to privatize some routes. What is the link between Bill S-4 and some privatization, or private companies? Will you still be able to apply this?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

As you know, we have done significant work on railway crossing security, and we will continue that. Bill S-4 shows our determination to go forward to make companies even more accountable. Before, we made sure companies were insurable and that they worked in the railway industry. Now, to get their certificate, they will have to conform to our new safety standards. We will analyze every step of their security measures before issuing the certificate.

Obviously, sir, it is very difficult to control access in an urban setting. Unfortunately—and my condolences to the families—we have lost young lives even recently. These were young people walking on the tracks with headphones on their ears in the evening or at night. This is particularly dangerous. We have seen young people in Montreal cross two highways and jump over fences to go to a place where, unfortunately, a tragedy happened during the night. There were safety barriers, but, since then, an event happened in Montreal around the Turcot interchange. The company added safety fences.

With Bill S-4, our intention is to make sure that things will be even safer. However, we cannot hold everyone's hand. We already do a lot of education in the schools. We do more than 2,000 presentations per year in the schools and municipalities across the country to raise awareness about the danger of railway transportation for people on railways. Unfortunately, even now, lives are lost. It is always deplorable, but some people still jump over barbed wire fences that are 12-feet high.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you for giving me the floor.

Minister, I too think that Bill S-4 should be adopted as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chair, I want to salute my Senate colleagues who have done a remarkable job. Since all our amendments were adopted, this time the bill will not die on the Order Paper; it must pass. Therefore, we will not be introducing any other amendments. As my colleague from Markham said, we agree that this bill must be adopted.

Minister, we will test you to some extent this morning by asking you a few questions, for the benefit of the thousands of people watching you on TV. It is our duty to ask concrete questions regarding the consequences this bill will have on safety. Are there enough inspectors to ensure enforcement?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That's very important, but we have to pass Bill S-4. I'm the fourth transport minister working on this bill. Minister Cannon deposited it. We had Minister Baird and Minister Strahl. I'm the fourth one. I don't want to have more delays on Bill S-4.

It's not for me, but for the Canadian population and for the security of our transport system, we must have Bill S-4 passed as soon as we can. I hope everybody will agree to that.

About voice recorders, we are on the way. I'm sure you will follow the issue. It was important in 2006 and 2009. It's still important today. In the U.S.A., it's not mandatory. We will continue to see what's best for our country's interests. We will continue to follow that. For the moment, I will wait for the report of the advisory council.

Go ahead, Mr. Bourdon.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Which were the reasons in 2009, when they said no. It's the same. It's not the time for it. The time for it is to let the advisory council on rail safety do its job. It is re-examining the possibility of mandatory voice recorders at the moment. It will give us a report. I expect it very soon, as soon as possible. After that, we'll take the decision with unions and all our partners that we have already involved in the Bill S-4 process.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Bourdon, and members.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss these proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act. This committee already has a high level of familiarity and engagement with these amendments and your continued support to improve the safety of our railway system is appreciated.

As you know, these proposed amendments were previously reviewed by this committee when they were presented to the House as Bill C-33 last spring. At that time, after several weeks of comprehensive discussion and analysis, all parties agreed unanimously to support the amendments, with one minor change related to safety reporting. Although that approved version of the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called, the same amendments, with this committee's approved changes, were tabled in the Senate as Bill S-4, where they were again approved virtually unchanged and resubmitted to the House.

During second reading on March 13, we again heard many supportive comments from honourable members on the other side of the House. In brief, all parties once again expressed their strong support for the bill.

I believe the New Democratic Party member from Vancouver—Kingsway summed up the general feeling of the House when he referred to Bill S-4 as “...an excellent piece of legislation...that has gained the buy-in of industry, labour and government. ... It is a solid piece of legislation.”

The list of members who expressed their strong support for Bill S-4 goes on. Every member who spoke in the chamber agreed that this bill enhances rail safety, has the support of many stakeholders, has been widely debated and analyzed, and must be passed in a timely manner.

I must say, as the Minister of Transport, I deeply appreciate this enthusiastic support from all corners of the political spectrum. Everybody agrees on the importance of a safer rail industry for our economy and our communities. We all recognize that the industry is rapidly changing and that the Railway Safety Act needs to be updated accordingly. We all agree that the amendments, which have already been consulted on, debated, and unanimously approved by committee—not once, but twice—are the appropriate means to help ensure Canadians can reap the full benefits of a safe railway system. Better safety is clearly the objective that we all support.

The bill, as noted in the House, is a strong one. It is timely, it is thorough, and it is firmly focused on important and achievable improvements to our rail safety regime. I think much of the strength of this bill comes from the high level of stakeholder consultation that both preceded and followed its introduction to the House.

The initial Railway Safety Act review, which was launched in 2007, included input from the entire spectrum of railway interests, including the railways themselves, their shippers, their suppliers and their unions, as well as federal, provincial and municipal governments, national associations, independent researchers and the public. Essentially, all of the groups in our country were consulted.

Everybody had something to say, and we listened closely to their concerns. This bill is our comprehensive response. We identified the issues, we consulted on alternatives with the key players, and we subsequently took action with Bill C-33, and now with Bill S-4, to ensure that the safety concerns of Canadians are being properly addressed. We all seem to agree that they are. The member from Chambly—Borduas said during second reading that the NDP unabashedly supports the bill. Similarly, the member from Markham—Unionville said that “...the Liberal Party will certainly be supporting the bill”.

Speaking personally, I must say that I'm proud of this legislation. I am proud of it because it contains an effective blueprint for better safety in the rail industry. I am also proud of it because it shows how effective our parliamentary system can be when we decide to work together for the national interest. The net result is solid, seamless, and practical legislation like Bill S-4. I would like to remind you of some of the most important amendments in this bill.

First and foremost, Bill S-4 will improve railway safety in Canada by increasing the regulator's authority for stronger oversight and enforcement.

For one thing, these new authorities will allow the introduction of safety-based railway operating certificates for all railways. This means that every federally regulated railway in the country will have to demonstrate how they meet the safety standards set by the operating certificate before they begin operations.

This bill also provides the regulator with the authority to issue administrative monetary penalties when non-compliance with railway regulations is found. These monetary penalties have a very positive impact on safety and have already proven themselves effective in other modes of transport such as marine and aviation.

In addition, your approval of Bill S-4 will allow us to raise existing judicial penalty levels which were established 20 years ago and are now badly out of date. Raising these levels will make them equivalent to other modes and provide an important additional tool for our safety compliance and enforcement toolbox.

One other key component of these amendments is the significantly stronger focus they place on railway accountability and the need for effective railway safety management systems. With these amendments in place, railways will be required to appoint a senior executive to be responsible for safety issues. They will also be required to establish non-punitive reporting systems so that employees can raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal. In addition, railway companies will need to demonstrate how they continuously monitor and assess the level of safety of their operations.

These are critical steps for the development of an effective safety culture, and both the railway companies and the unions have expressed their strong support for these measures.

In addition to these key improvements, S-4 will also clarify the minister's authority related to national railway matters and expand regulation-making authorities, which will enable us to implement requirements for environmental management plans and emission data collection.

In sum, the proposed amendments before you today will significantly reinforce and modernize the Railway Safety Act to reflect the needs of this generation and those to follow. Railways are the backbone of our economy. As such, they are an important part of our history and our future. It is our shared responsibility to ensure they remain safe.

As we all know from the recent tragedy in Burlington, even one accident is one too many. We cannot afford to hesitate. The time to move forward is now.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank all parties for their ongoing support. I would also like to thank this committee again for the opportunity to be here. I deeply appreciate your high level of engagement on this bill and all transport and infrastructure issues.

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities' meeting number 32.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 5, 2012, the orders of the day are the consideration of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Joining us today, making almost a regular appearance before this committee, is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, the Honourable Denis Lebel. Joining us from the department is Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety.

Thank you for appearing. I think you know the routine here. We will have some presentation comments and then we'll go to questions from the committee.

Mr. Minister.

Safer Railways Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I know work will definitely be done on this in committee. Now, as for the specific nature of this work, I will leave that up to my colleagues who know more about this than I do.

Before I continue, I would like to once again express my condolences regarding what happened in Burlington. As I said, even one tragedy is one too many, despite our excellent reputation when it comes to railway safety.

At the same time, there is definitely always room for improvement. In particular, I would like to point out that Bill S-4 does not address all of the recommendations made by the advisory panel.

That being said, even though there is always some flexibility when it comes to improvements that can be made, this does not prevent us from supporting the bill. In addition, as my colleague mentioned, the bill will then go to committee. At that time, my colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities can continue their excellent work and further develop our position on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert, which whom I in fact share the railway, even though we are not immediate neighbours.

We are talking about safety, and one of the reasons why Bill S-4 and the earlier bill that was introduced in this House before the election were introduced is precisely because an advisory committee wanted to update safety measures. In fact, we have to remember that technology changes over the years, as our railway systems and trains are modernized.

To come back to the economic aspect raised by my colleague, it is very important to understand that when we talk about safety, we are talking about modernization. We must make sure at all times that our safety regulations are up to date, to reflect the new technological reality of the measures available to us and to ensure the safety of passengers and people living in the vicinity of a railway.

That said, if we want to move forward and improve the system with more eco-friendly, faster systems, as our constituents want and as our party advocates, we have to make sure that we are capable of putting safety measures in place that will in fact both facilitate that process and ensure good economic development in the future.

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

To Saint-Jean as well and perhaps Lachute. Many municipalities are affected by this issue.

Quite simply, in order to improve and increase service, we must first ensure that safety provisions are adequate. More regions cannot be served until we are satisfied that safety regulations are optimal. For that reason, it is very important to support this bill.

The NDP believes that these measures should have been implemented a long time ago. Unfortunately, with elections and other such things, they were not. However, we would like to see this bill pass as quickly as possible.

We must also deal with modernization, where economic considerations are of the utmost importance. Rail service must be affordable for passengers. If we want more people to travel by train, we have to deal with safety even before we deal with cost. Passengers must feel at ease with train travel, an important means of transportation all across the country, and especially in Quebec. There is a very important rail line running through the middle of my riding.

By ensuring the safety of rail service, we are reassuring passengers that there are no risks in travelling by train. I take the train myself almost every time I come to Ottawa, and it is very quick and comfortable. However, we have to ensure that it is safe.

Canada has earned a good reputation for safety. We are certainly not saying otherwise. There have been accidents, but they are the exception rather than the rule. But just one accident is one too many. Thus, we must take this opportunity to update and enhance current laws, and to give more power to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This is one of the objectives that this bill could achieve.

By improving safety, we will ensure that people will continue to use the service and we will encourage them to use it more often. In this way we can spark public interest in modernizing rail service. Improving service gives us the opportunity to modernize and to bring our railways up to European standards, for example.

I have received some comments from my constituents and my riding's elected officials, especially at the municipal level. I had the pleasure of talking to them at a meeting in January, just before coming back to the House. We talked about the modernization of rail service, in order tone reduce travel time and make this an even greener means of transportation. We know that train travel is already a green choice, according to VIA Rail. I do not want to adopt their slogan, but we can move in the right direction.

Co-operation from the various stakeholders will improve rail service but, I cannot say it enough, safety remains the key issue. We have to implement adequate safety measures. We have to ensure that tragedies like the one in Burlington do not happen again, and that people are not afraid to take the train.

Earlier, I mentioned vibrations, which are not necessarily addressed here. There are other safety measures we might consider. I am raising these questions because this issue relates to the safety not just of passengers, but also of the areas around the railways. When we talk about trains and railways, we have to address the question of safety, which concerns both the people who use the service and the people who live nearby in residential neighbourhoods. That was the case in Burlington. I am not an expert on what happened in Burlington, but I think a residential neighbourhood was involved.

There is also the pollution caused by trains. We want to keep these things under control. We want the Department of Transport to provide sound management, and that will improve services. This is something that is very important to our constituents, particularly in Chambly—Borduas.

This issue need not be negative. If we solve the safety issue immediately, we can move forward with a vision of sustainable technological development of rail service.

This is what we in the NDP advocate, and that is why we support Bill S-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill S-4, a Senate bill.

There is a railway that cuts almost completely across my riding, and so this is a very important issue, given the urban sprawl taking place on the south shore. In the south of my riding in particular, we are seeing more and more residential neighbourhoods growing up around the railway. The issue of safety is therefore very important.

Before continuing, I would first like to thank two of my colleagues for their work on this issue: the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina and the former critic, the hon. member for Western Arctic, who did a great deal of work on this issue. This bill originated in this House, but unfortunately it died on the order paper with the last election.

Since we are talking a lot about safety, particularly because of the tragedy that happened in Burlington, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the people there and to my colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, who considers this situation to be very serious.

As well, in the budget that has just been tabled by this government, we can see that there are cuts to Via Rail’s budget.

If we want to update and improve our train services, not just for environmental reasons but for economic reasons as well, then I think reducing the budget of the company that provides the most rail services is a mistake.

I can unabashedly say that the NDP supports the bill. We would like to see additional safety measures within Transport Canada.

With regard to what is happening in my riding of Chambly—Borduas in particular, I would like to say a few words about urban sprawl.

Since I was elected, we have had a number of public consultations on the matter of the vibrations that affect the municipalities of Saint-Basile-le-Grand, McMasterville, Beloeil and Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Most of the comments made by members of the public, mayors and elected municipal officials during our meetings had to do with the vibrations. This issue has been overlooked in Bill S-4.

The vibration issue indicates to what extent trains go through residential areas. That is why railway safety is very important to the people in my riding, especially with plans to increase service to the South Shore and neighbouring regions including the Sherbrooke and Drummondville regions, where people want better service between the major centres. I am thinking about the train that connects Montreal and Ottawa. People might want to go from Ottawa to Montreal, but they might also want to get to the South Shore, Saint Lambert, Saint Basile, or as far as Sherbrooke or Drummondville. I am sure some of my colleagues agree.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place today and speak to this important bill on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport in Toronto.

The bill addresses many important issues, one of them being rail safety, which I will get to a bit later. It also puts some focus on the importance of rail infrastructure, which a number of my colleagues have spoken to this morning. They have spoken of the need for a heightened focus on our rail infrastructure for a number of different reasons.

Of course, Bill S-4 is pertinent and weighs heavy on our minds and hearts right now because of the tragic accident that happened in Burlington in February.

We in our party have long called for heightened rail safety measures and so we are very supportive of seeing Bill S-4 get through the House.

This bill seeks to do a number of different things. When we look at the way our rail infrastructure has been developed and how our cities and towns have developed around it, it is increasingly important to ensure that issues of rail safety are really top of mind when we are talking about urban development, safe cities and environmental issues.

As for my riding of Davenport, I know that everyone in the House likes to study maps of Toronto and if we looked at one we would see that my riding is the only landlocked riding in the downtown core of the city and is criss-crossed with rail lines, some coming right up against backyard fences in many of the neighbourhoods. Rail lines run right up along parks and playgrounds. Fences are very much a part of the streetscape of my riding. Rail safety becomes a very real issue in a riding like mine with many level crossings, and so we take the issue of rail safety and rail infrastructure seriously.

A number of my colleagues today have talked about the importance of investing more fully in this infrastructure. The GTA loses $5 billion to $6 billion a year in lost productivity due to gridlock. It is going to be hard to build more roads to accommodate this gridlock because, as we know, if we build another road it will soon fill up.

We need to start thinking much more seriously about how we can incorporate more passenger rail service, speedier passenger rail service, more affordable passenger rail service. When we start talking about intensifying rail infrastructure, we necessarily have to talk about how to deal with greater safety measures and better technology as well.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.

The speeches this morning have been interesting. I say that because on this side of the House we talk a lot about environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and local environmental issues. An increase in public transit, in mass transit, is one of the most obvious ways to deal with both greenhouse gas emissions and gridlock, and the way we can build and develop more intensification in our urban areas.

We need to do this. Countries around the world are investing in clean rail technology. Just as an example of how backward we are in doing things here, we have a link from Pearson airport to Union Station being built right now to run diesel trains. Toronto is the only major city in the world right now that is building rail infrastructure from its downtown core to its international airport using diesel. Not a single country in the world is doing this but us.

For a long time we have been calling on our federal government to engage in this very serious issue. So far it has been willing to sit on its hands and has been doing that for years. I would add that the Liberals before it had a similarly poor record on this file. The Liberal government, when it was here on the other side of the aisle in 2001 and 2003, ignored calls from the Transportation Safety Board for additional rail safety measures. We have been calling not just for increased rail safety but also a heightened focus in the House on the need for municipalities to develop green transportation infrastructure.

I recall the days of the Mulroney era, and I know the folks on the other side do not necessarily like us to use the former prime minister's name, but we do. They were cutting passenger rail transit back then. I was on one of the last trains across the prairies to Toronto, then they were cut. As some of my colleagues this morning have underlined, one cannot get from A to B in many places in the country by train. One can get from Toronto to Ottawa by train, but at virtually the same speed as driving a car, and so there are a lot of missed opportunities there. There is no doubt that Canadians would love to have more access to passenger rail transit.

One of the reasons we need to see greater safety measures, accountability and transparency and a better order of things, a better chain of command, is that we really need to focus our attention on this mode of transportation, because this is the future of mass transit. As a matter of fact, in my city of Toronto, we have a rail corridor that runs along the west end of my city. It is a perfect place to run greater mass transit. We need to be looking at all opportunities to do that.

However, if we are going to do it, we have to look at greater measures for rail safety. That is why this is an important bill and why we on our side are going to support it. I am happy to be standing here in this place today on behalf of the great citizens of Davenport in Toronto speaking on this issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also am happy to support Bill S-4 and the importance of rail infrastructure in this country.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North spoke of the nostalgic element of rail. That reflects the fact that we have not invested in rail for so long that we almost have an antique system for passengers. We also have not invested sufficiently in safety for freight. We need to upgrade. We need to expand sidings, so that in the competition for rail use between passenger and freight, passengers are not needlessly delayed.

We need investment. There still is currently pending the $7.5 million that is needed for the former E&N corridor rail on Vancouver Island. We need it, it makes sense and it has wide community support.

In the same way that the hon. member spoke of the fact we can no longer travel by rail from Regina to Winnipeg, people cannot travel from Edmonton to Calgary or from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Sydney, Nova Scotia. Many commercially valuable rail lines have been abandoned by governments that have not been looking to the future.

Does the member agree that on top of Bill S-4 we need to see substantial investment in safety and modernization and, yes, high-speed rail, particularly in areas like Edmonton to Calgary?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I am able to add a few words today on Bill S-4, which has come from the Senate. I have always wondered why some bills come from the Senate versus the House of Commons, but I will leave that particular discussion for another time. I believe that the bill has the support of both opposition parties to go to committee.

The railway industry has had a profound impact on our nation, even prior to Confederation. From an historical perspective, in good part, the railway has made Canada the nation it is today. I would suggest that it is only relatively recently, in the 1980s, that we started to look at issues of safety and security and our environment, and the impact of the railways on our communities.

The last real change to the act would have been in 1999, under the Chrétien administration. Even then, we within the Liberal Party acknowledged the degree in advancement of technology and the impact of technology on our railways. We need to be constantly looking at ways to improve the circumstances and the environment for railways across Canada. It is good to see the government has seen the wisdom to reassess the issue and bring forward other aspects that would help us modernize the legislation. One could argue that we have been waiting for that for a while. We welcome that.

I want to share some personal opinions about the city of Winnipeg. In Winnipeg, in the area that I represent, there is a great divide and in that divide we have CP Rail. It has been a distinguishing characteristic of the city: those who live on the north side of the track versus those on the south side of the track. However, Winnipeg is not unique in that. We would find jurisdictions all over Canada that have developed around our railway tracks.

If we take a look at how Winnipeg North is able to connect to the city, there are three underpasses, King Edward Street, Keewatin Street and McPhillips Street, and two bridges, the Salter Bridge and the truly unique Arlington Bridge. Many people will walk over the Arlington Bridge just to see the heart of the CP tracks. They get a better appreciation of just how much traffic goes through Winnipeg, in terms of CP's perspective.

Years ago, the CP expanded into the CP trucking terminal. There are many ways in which the railway industry has led and fed other industries; in particular, in Winnipeg, the trucking industry. At one time Winnipeg was the hub of eight of the ten major trucking industries. CP or CN fed into the development of that industry.

Anyone standing on the Arlington Bridge would get an appreciation of the type of train traffic occurring there. We need to be aware of that and why bills such as this are so important.

If we stopped at a track and watched what kind of cargo is on our trains, we would find that it varies from lumber from British Columbia to chemicals from Alberta, to wheat from the Prairies, whether Saskatchewan or Manitoba. There are many commercial goods from provinces like Ontario and Quebec and commodities from our Atlantic provinces. Many of those commodities are absolutely safe. If there were an accident, other commodities are not safe. One of the reasons we have a system in place is to ensure that we know what is on the trains.

I will go back to the example of the Arlington Bridge. It is important to go over legislation of this nature and look at ways to improve upon it. Suggestions have been made for amendments. Stakeholders have made presentations to the government dealing with issues of safety, security and the environment. When we go to committee, it is nice to have experts share what we could be doing to enhance the legislation. By enhancing the legislation, we would ultimately make our railway system that much more healthy.

There are other issues that I think the House needs to give more attention to when we talk about our rail lines. One is in regard to rail line abandonment. A former speaker was talking about the importance of looking at other opportunities for rail lines or expanding rail lines. If the government had an interest in looking at those two issues, I think the industry would be doing that much better as a whole.

From Manitoba's perspective, many people are concerned about the community of Churchill. Now that the Canadian Wheat Board has been brought to its knees by the government, there is a real threat. We will have to agree to disagree on that particular point. Many individuals in Manitoba and well beyond are concerned about the port of Churchill, which is very much dependent on rail line services. With the threat of wheat no longer going through that particular port, because we need certain quantities in order to make it economical, that is now in question. As a result, there is a great deal of concern about the rail line and what the future may hold for it, and the profound impact that would have on the community. If we do not have an active rail line, it could ultimately lead to the closing of that port. Therefore, we look to the government. It is great that we have this particular bill before us today, but we need to think in terms of the potential that is there, the economics of our rail lines and how they have such a profound impact on our communities.

Over the last number of years, rail lines have been abandoned. In some situations a rail line will disappear and a walking or ATV track will be put in to replace it. It causes a great deal of concern for many individuals who have relied on the tracks in the past. There is a great deal of merit for having some sort of overall rail line strategy. It would be great to have a debate in the House as to what direction the government would like to take Canada into the next number of years with regard to rail lines. The future could be wonderful within that industry. The potential demand for railway services is increasing. If we fed on that increasing demand, it would increase job opportunities and would be better for our environment. There are many positives to ensure growth within the rail line industry.

I made reference to the CP tracks, the north-south divide in Winnipeg. CN also has a huge history in the city of Winnipeg: Symington Yard and Transcona shops. In fact, my grandfather and other family members used to work in the Transcona shops. The Transcona shops, in part, are what built the Transcona community. In some of the older homes, a good portion of the lumber that was used to build those homes came from the CN railway. People will see the odd stamp on the lumber. There was a great dependency on CN as that community developed. When we look at the expansion of Symington Yard, we again see the real potential.

There is also VIA Rail, which has had a lot of changes over the years. In some areas, people get pretty good service. There is a nostalgic value that is tangible for many individuals out west who, on a per capita percentage basis, do not take the train as often as perhaps people in the Montreal-Toronto-Ottawa corridor. Yet the desire for train travel still exists. I know that individuals would welcome the opportunity to travel from Winnipeg to Regina, for example, by train. My understanding today is that people have to go through Saskatoon. At one time, they could go straight to Regina. Hopefully something will happen in the future that will allow train traffic to ultimately go through Regina.

People recognize how important the railway industry is in Manitoba, whether it is the city of Winnipeg, rural communities, Churchill or Carman. Many of the communities are very dependent on our railways. Having said all of that, we need to be aware of the fact that there are a great deal of safety-related issues.

A number of years ago, we had an organized, planned train crash in which we had a train run into a vehicle crossing a street. I was able to be at that demonstration and it was quite interesting to watch the locomotive coming down the track in Inkster industrial park. They had a vehicle parked on the road and they had a locomotive coming at about 15 to 20 kilometres an hour. The impact did not seem to affect the train whatsoever, but what it did to the vehicle was truly amazing, even at that speed. The train does not stop right away. It took a while before the train came to a stop and we could go down and see the type of damage that was caused.

One very important aspect of our railways is the issue of safety and the interaction with our highways and streets with regard to train traffic. That is one of the reasons we see this push for bridges or underpasses in our larger centres. It is to try to prevent those types of things from occurring in the real world.

Unfortunately, every year we see collisions between trains and vehicles, and it saddens all of us. That is one of the reasons it is important that we look at ways to improve upon the system. We have many different forms of crossings and we need to look at how we might improve them, whether it be the flashing lights in some of our rural communities, the control arms that go down, or where they are warranted, underpasses and bridges, which are so very important. This needs to be considered when we talk about safety.

I alluded to another issue when I referred to the Arlington Bridge and the amount of traffic and the type of cargo that is on these trains. If today we have a derailment of any sort, whether it be in the city of Winnipeg, in small communities or anywhere in Canada, one of the first questions we have to ask is: What is on that train and are there chemicals that could endanger the immediate neighbourhood or communities in which the derailment occurred?

That is why we need to have regulations in place to ensure we have a fairly quick assessment of what cargo is on a train as it is travelling through our communities, because we have seen a buildup of communities. Over the last couple of years, we have witnessed train derailments where communities in and around the area have been asked to disperse while an assessment was done.

There are issues that cause these train derailments. This legislation attempts to deal with part of that; for example, when we talk about human fatigue and the role it plays. Expanding and providing definitions of what human fatigue means and what it can result in, I think, is a positive thing. That is the reason we have the legislation before us now. We recognize it is important.

However, that is not all. We see more and more trains and the potential of traffic increasing in the years ahead. If we had a progressive government that saw the value of providing commodities across the country for world trade, it would see that the train is the way to go. I see it as one of those cornerstones, and our trucking industry supports it in many different ways. I suspect as time goes by, we will need to periodically modernize the safety regulations and our laws to make sure we are keeping our communities healthy and our citizens safe from what is travelling on our tracks.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his excellent question and his excellent work. I have the distinct pleasure of working with my colleague on various files, including public transit.

We have to look to the future. Bill S-4 on rail safety is a step in the right direction, but we have to look further down the line. My hon. colleague was right when he said that we need a national public transit policy. We need a comprehensive approach that takes environmental issues into account.

As I mentioned, rail transport associations and organizations say that this is one way to fight climate change. We know that the Conservatives are not doing much to fight climate change at the moment. Investing in rail-based public transit would be another step in the right direction.

The government must also invest in infrastructure. That is another Conservative shortcoming: failure to invest enough money in infrastructure. We need rail transportation infrastructure. We cannot leave everything up to the private sector. Unfortunately, the private sector only considers the short term; it has no long-term vision. The government must get more involved in infrastructure, as my colleague rightly pointed out.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to continue my speech on Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

As I mentioned before, the railway passes through Drummondville and the riding of Drummond. It is not just freight that is transported by train in the riding of Drummond. There is also a stop where people can take the VIA Rail passenger train. We are very happy and proud to have this service.

VIA Rail needs to further improve service in our riding in terms of train schedules and frequency of service. We need the train to pass through more often. It is a very popular area. The services that VIA Rail provides are well used by people in the riding, and we are very proud to have these services.

Nevertheless, not enough money is being invested in the railway in Drummondville. Freight and passenger trains pass through the downtown core, and each time they do, three streets are blocked. The entire downtown is blocked since there is no bypass, overpass or bridge over the railway track. We have to think about this. Investments must be made in the railway to improve safety.

This Senate bill has already been introduced in the House of Commons. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the House of Commons examined this bill and reported it back to the House with amendments, but unfortunately, the bill died on the order paper on March 26, 2011.

We are very pleased that this important bill on railway safety is back before the House, particularly given the fatal train accident several months ago, which hit close to home for everyone. We definitely do not want anything like that to happen again.

However, railway transportation in Canada is the safest means of transportation. It is very safe and we should encourage people to use it. It is truly important.

In the backgrounder accompanying its press release on Bill S-4, Transport Canada points out that the Canadian rail industry has changed significantly since 1999. Rail operations have become increasingly complex, and rail traffic is growing rapidly.

The department notes that, in February 2007, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tasked an independent advisory panel with a full review of the operation and efficiency of the Railway Safety Act. According to the department, the findings indicated that the legislative framework is fundamentally sound and that efforts have been made to improve rail safety, but much more needs to be done.

The final report of the panel, entitled Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety, was released in November 2007 and included 56 recommendations for improving rail safety, some of which require legislative changes to the Railway Safety Act.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities also studied rail safety and issued its own report in 2008. The report included 14 additional recommendations, many building on the recommendations from the review of the act.

The department's backgrounder noted:

The Government of Canada agrees with the findings of both reports, and is implementing the recommendations and amending the Railway Safety Act to further improve rail safety in Canada.

Efforts have been made to improve safety. It is truly important to continue working very hard in order to improve this legislation, which has been in place for many years but has not changed much. The number of trips per train is increasing, and it is important to continue in this direction.

The NDP has proposed a national public transit strategy. I hope that one day the Conservatives will realize how very important it is to develop a national public transit strategy that includes the railway as a key element. We should have a comprehensive vision, a much more progressive and proactive vision in this area. I am disappointed that the Conservative government has not invested more in increasing the number of tracks. The number of tracks has not increased in years.

A report by the Railway Association of Canada states that train tracks are green. The report reads:

Railways can play a big role in enabling Canada to meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without sacrificing economic growth.

I am sure that is music to the Conservatives' ears. They will be pleased to learn that they can invest in railways and fight climate change without hurting our economy. In fact, this will help the economy.

I hope that the Conservatives will support this very important bill and move toward a national public transit policy in order to fight climate change and improve our economy.

I urge the Conservatives to look further than this bill to make railways safer, to go further than Bill C-4 and lead us toward a national public transit policy.

The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in a little more than 40 minutes, the Minister of Finance will table this year's budget and I am sure all members are looking forward to that event.

Economic action plan 2012 will be a very strong, low tax, low debt plan that will include measures to create and secure jobs, economic growth and, most important, long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

In recognition of how important this budget will be, we have decided that we will schedule debate to follow immediately on the four following days: Friday and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

There may not be the same level of suspense around this vote as in previous years, but on Wednesday, all members will have the opportunity to vote for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and support our budget. Once the opposition has seen the budget, I am confident that their constituents will expect them to do just that.

On Thursday, we will continue debate on Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act. If we have time, we will resume debate on Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

The opposition House leader had a long list of bills on which he inquired about their status. Insofar as our legislation to improve Canada's immigration and refugee system, that has been debated now some five days in this House and we look forward to it being debated further. It is a very important bill, not just for the strength of our immigration system but also for our economy. We will continue to take steps to ensure our immigration system meets the security, safety and economic needs of Canada.

In terms of Bill C-30, I think he is well familiar that it is our intention to have that debated and sent to committee before second reading and, in so doing, being able to allow a broad ambit for the committee to consider amendments of all types. I think that responds to the particular concerns that he raised on that.

In the case of Bill C-30, Bill C-4 and the immigration bill, we can see from the program I have read that there will not be an opportunity, barring some dramatic progress on other legislation on the final day, to deal with those bills before the Easter break, so we will have to wait until after that.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to meet with the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to provide an update on the transport, infrastructure and communities portfolio, and to address our main estimates.

I am joined today by my colleague, the Honourable Steven Fletcher. We are very proud and happy to have him back. He will speak to you about the crown corporations under the transport, infrastructure, and communities portfolio.

I am also accompanied by Ms. Yaprak Baltacioglu, the deputy minister, and by Ms. Anita Biguzs, Mr. André Morency, Mr. Taki Sarantakis and Ms. Su Dazé. My thanks to them for being here.

I also want to thank the committee for its many contributions to various transportation issues. I look forward to continuing to work with you to build a transportation system that will serve Canada's current needs and help drive tomorrow's prosperity.

The funding that Transport Canada is seeking through these main estimates will help to achieve these goals.

Transportation has always been identified with opportunity in Canada: it connect workers with jobs, travellers with destinations, and products with markets.

However, the current global economic environment is volatile and uncertain, as you know.

Canada's future prosperity will depend to a significant degree on how effectively we're able to anticipate and respond to global pressures. Our government has long recognized this fact. We continue to modernize our systems and policies to support the transportation sector, a process that has benefited from the input from this committee.

A prime example of building Canada's transportation sector is the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor initiative. Linking trade and transportation, the gateway approach has brought together public and private stakeholders to address issues of efficiency, reliability, performance, skills and system bottlenecks.

The Gateway and Corridor initiative is revolutionizing the way Canada trades with the Asia-Pacific region. It has opened up opportunities for trade, not only in western Canada but right across the country. We are applying the lessons learned with the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor to other key gateway and corridor regions in Canada—particularly the importance of aligning systems and maximizing efficiencies.

One vital trade corridor we remain focused on is Windsor-Detroit. It's North America's largest border crossing and our busiest port of entry. We remain fully committed to developing the new Detroit River international crossing. We continue to work with the governments of Michigan and the United States to jointly develop a model for delivering this crossing. It is our intention to pursue a public-private partnership to design, build, finance, and operate the new bridge crossing. Governor Snyder of Michigan assured me that this project remains a top priority for his administration.

He too wants a seamless crossing to improve the connection between one of the premier manufacturing and consumer corridors in the world: the mid-west states, Ontario and Quebec.

I have received the same assurance from Secretary LaHood, the United States Secretary of Transportation, and from Ambassador Jacobson.

In keeping with this theme of gateways and corridors, I also want to talk about the new bridge for the St. Lawrence—another key trade artery and the most heavily travelled bridge in Canada.

Last fall I announced that our government will proceed with this bridge in Montreal. Work is progressing well on this major project. We have launched the federal environmental assessment and have issued two requests for proposals to hire environmental experts, financial advisers, traffic forecasters, and design engineers. Discussions with partners to determine the most efficient way to move this project forward are ongoing and will continue throughout the duration of the project.

In the meantime, the Champlain Bridge remains an important commuter route and trade corridor for the regional economy, handling nearly 60 million vehicles per year.

With an estimated $20 billion in international trade crossing the bridge annually, it is critical to our national economy.

The safety and security of the people crossing the existing bridge each day remain a top priority for our government. That's why, since 2009, our government has announced significant investments totalling $380 million to keep this important bridge safe for all who use it.

Another area where we have made significant strides is railway safety. As you know, I have introduced Bill S-4 to amend the Railway Safety Act of 2001. It is the latest in a series of actions we have taken to strengthen the performance of the rail sector.

My predecessor launched a full review of the Railway Safety Act in 2007 following several high-profile accidents during the two previous years. That was followed by an investment of $72 million over five years, announced in budget 2009, to ensure that Canadians can count on a safe and reliable rail transportation system.

Bill S-4 is the next important step in advancing this goal. The legislation has been in development for more than three years and incorporates input from government, industry and labour. In fact, the legislation has been dissected clause-by-clause by standing committees on two separate occasions. It was approved by all parties both times.

The proposed amendments to the act reflect recommendations from the Railway Safety Act review, as well as the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities' study.

This bill is about better oversight tools to ensure safety; enhanced safety management systems to build a stronger rail safety culture; and additional authority to help protect our environment. Recently, second reading for Bill S-4 commenced, and members from all parties again expressed their strong support for this important piece of legislation. After several years of analysis, consultation, and debate, I look forward to the timely passage of Bill S-4.

Freight transportation is another railway sector in which we have been active. We kept our promise by launching the facilitation process for the rail service review and by appointing Mr. Jim Dinning to head it. I am pleased that he has agreed to take on the challenge of holding the consultations that will lead to improvements in the quality of service provided by the rail companies.

This review of rail freight services was launched in order to ensure that Canada has the rail network it needs to support a robust economy. As always, our Conservative government will honour its commitments.

Mr. Chair, I would now like to turn my attention to Infrastructure Canada and the important work it does.

As a former municipal politician, I know how essential federal infrastructure investment is to municipalities, provinces and territories.

It means a stronger economy on both the local and the national level. It means more secure jobs for Canadians. It means that people have reliable public transit. It means cleaner water and air. It means more parks, trails, community centres, and other important things that make communities better places to live and work.

I'm proud of our government's unprecedented actions to make federal infrastructure investments a priority. We started with budget 2007 and the seven-year Building Canada plan, and we invested $33 billion, the single largest federal infrastructure commitment in Canada's history.

Under this plan, we are funding thousands of infrastructure projects across Canada—projects that will have lasting economic and social benefits in communities for years to come.

Our government continued building on this foundation in budget 2009 with the economic action plan. Among many other measures, it introduced an additional $5.5 billion in targeted and timely federal infrastructure funding for provinces, territories, and municipalities.

In October 2011, I had the pleasure of celebrating the successful completion of about 4,000 projects under the infrastructure stimulus fund. These are important projects that got the economy moving and created jobs.

Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, 610,000 more Canadians are working today, resulting in the strongest recent employment growth by far among G7 countries.

In an uncertain global economy, our government will stick with our low-tax plan for jobs and growth—a plan that is working and which serves Canadians well.

Our balanced approach will boost our efforts to achieve a sustainable and prosperous recovery and preserve our economic advantage now and in the future. Key to achieving this progress is our ongoing commitment to public infrastructure, which last year's budget made clear.

We continue to make great progress in implementing two important commitments for the Government of Canada.

The first is a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund. I am so pleased that we have passed this commitment into law, and now municipalities can count on stable, predictable funding for their local infrastructure projects, year after year after year.

Second, our government is working with our key partners—provinces, territories, and groups such as the Fédération canadienne des municipalités—on the development of long-term plans for public infrastructure to extend beyond the expiry of the Building Canada plan.

Your committee recently tabled a report on transit in Canada. The result of this work will help inform our long-term planning. Even though provinces and municipalities are responsible for transit, the information gathered through the committee's study will be valuable.

In November I announced with the Fédération canadienne des municipalités' board of directors how this engagement process would unfold. As a first step, we are currently taking stock of all that we have accomplished together with our partners and what the tangible benefits of our funding has been.

In phase two, we are continuing to work with our partners along with academics, technical experts, and practitioners to do some of the important analysis. Our goal here is to build the knowledge needed to make informed decisions.

This will set the stage for the final phase. Similar to when we launched the Building Canada plan, we will engage our partners on the broad principles and directions in a future infrastructure plan. The end result will be a long-term plan that meets the needs of Canadians.

As all of this is going on, our government will continue to deliver on its previous commitments, including managing the effective close-out of our programs under the economic action plan, and seeing our Building Canada plan commitments through to successful completion.

I'm proud to be part of a government that continues to lead the way in investing in public infrastructure and in building a better national transportation network that benefits all Canadians.

That concludes my remarks. I will now ask Minister Fletcher to speak to you. I would be happy to answer any questions that members of the committee have.

Thank you.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. It has been suggested in the past when we have had budgets on Thursdays that we were doing that so we could go out and talk to Canadians about it for several days. Clearly, our interest is to tell Canadians about our economic action plan 2012 which is focused on keeping taxes down and creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians. We hope we will be able to speak about it a lot to Canadians. We are confident that they will see that we share their priorities strongly. I thank the opposition House leader for giving me the opportunity to explain that.

We will conclude this hard-working, productive and orderly week in Parliament by continuing debate on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act this afternoon and tomorrow. We will also debate that bill on Monday, March 26.

Next week is a constituency week where we will all be hard at work in our ridings.

The highlight of the week we return to Ottawa will be when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to present Canada's economic action plan 2012. That will be on Thursday, March 29 at 4 p.m. Canadians can look forward to our economic action plan which will include, as I indicated earlier, important measures focused on jobs and economic growth.

I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to a responsible work plan for its study of the financial system review act, Bill S-5 so that this House can pass the bill before Canada's banking laws expire in mid-April. Canada has the world's soundest banking system. It is important that we keep it this way. That is why I trust we will see a responsible approach to this bill in the House, similar to what we saw at committee. In anticipation of the bill being reported back to the House tomorrow afternoon, I will be giving priority to report stage and third reading of Bill S-5 on Tuesday, March 27 and Wednesday, March 28.

If we have additional time on those days, I hope we can finish second reading debate of Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, and then deal with Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday, March 29, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, before question period. After question period, the House will turn to Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Friday, March 30, shall be the first full day of debate on the budget.

Safer Railways Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

I would like to begin by saying that we have been looking forward to this bill for years. We have been waiting for a rail safety overhaul for a long time, and this bill is a major step forward. We have all been looking forward to this measure, and we are happy to support this bill.

I would like to mention that the railway system is very important in my riding of Drummond. This is not something that should be neglected; rather, it should be protected. VIA Rail passenger trains pass directly through Drummondville and stop to pick up and drop off many passengers who are happy to have this service. We would like VIA Rail to provide our city with even more services and we would like the government to invest even more in this magnificent mode of transportation. Freight trains also pass through our city. Residents are greatly appreciative of this fact because rail transport is one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transportation. However, it is important that investments be made in infrastructure. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges spoke about this earlier. In Drummondville, for example, when a train passes through, three downtown streets are blocked for 5, 10, 15 or sometimes even 20 minutes, which means that people are stuck in traffic.

This bill to improve rail safety is very important because it will enhance safety, not only for train crews and passengers, but also for the people near the trains, such as drivers and pedestrians. As I mentioned, trains pass right through the middle of downtown Drummondville. Thus, it is very important to us that rail safety be improved.

I would like to add that not only does the NDP support Bill S-4 but it has also proposed some amendments. I will list a few of them. I see that I do not have much time left. For example, we know that the Conservative government has ignored repeated calls—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand in support of the legislation, but as will become clear in my presentation to this House, I have some reservations on the commitment of the government to actually deliver on the legislation.

As the parliamentary secretary said in his comments on Bill S-4, the government should do what only governments can do and he noted that one of those things was to ensure public safety. However, he then added that it was important to move toward greater privatization and less government control, including over the rail industry.

I would suggest these are rather contradictory statements. It is that very contradictory approach to governance, frankly, by the current government that has caused increasing risks to public health and safety.

Nonetheless, the government can be commended for including many of the recommendations made over the many years of review of the legislation to improve it, including the introduction of administrative penalties and the stricter or higher penalties for serious infractions.

The introduction of administrative penalties is long overdue. I in fact participated in an initiative by Treasury Board and the Department of Justice in 1989. I was then chief of enforcement for Environment Canada and one of the few officials in the government who was actually supportive of this measure. We had a very productive measure. We travelled in the United States and examined some European jurisdictions for more innovative approaches to ensuring compliance with federal statutes. One of those measures was administrative penalties, which have only recently been put into environmental laws. It is encouraging to see them put into this law.

However, what causes me great concern is another comment by the parliamentary secretary. He may have misspoken. He may not understand fully what is included in enforcement of compliance policy and the criteria that are normally put in place in determining what kind of penalty should be exercised.The parliamentary secretary suggested that the value of administrative penalties was in a case of persistent non-compliance. I would like to assure the House that certainly in the case of environmental statutes, a case of persistent non-compliance is generally a trigger for a serious investigation and, in all likelihood, a prosecution.

The very purpose of legislation and the very purpose of an enforcement compliance system is to show to the regulated industry that there is a threat of detection and, in turn, enforcement.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that I was splitting my time with the member for Drummond. If you could let me know when my time is up so I do not speak over it, I would appreciate that.

It is very important when tabling an important piece of legislation like this to make it clear within the agency that is going to be responsible for ensuring compliance that a very clear and consistent enforcement and compliance strategy has been put forward.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House, including to the government of the day, the fact that a predecessors of theirs, a former environment minister, Tom McMillan, of the Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney, actually took that measure and had a very commendable approach to regulating at the federal level. On the day he tabled his bill, the now Canadian Environmental Protection Act, he simultaneously tabled an enforcement and compliance policy. Why did he do that? He said that a law without effective enforcement was a hollow measure.

I think that would make sense to everyone in this House. In other words, we can have the strictest penalties in the world, we can showcase the law and say that it is the best one in the western world, as we often say about our Canadian environmental statutes, but it is of little value if there is not equal commitment to effectively enforce that law and to ensure compliance.

Hearing the responses today from the government members to questions asked in this area, I am not reassured. I look forward in the future, perhaps in further discussions of the bill, for that matter to be clarified.

Why am I raising this? One of the most serious problems with rail safety in this country, in some cases, has been the failure to regulate and the failure of successive governments actually to enact the necessary regulations to give credibility to the Railway Safety Act. We have had review after review, including by the rail safety board, identifying regulatory gaps. However, the most significant problem with rail safety that has been identified by independent review bodies has been the failure of the government to effectively enforce that legislation.

I will refer to a report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled in the House in December 2011, very recently. What did the commissioner find? He and his review found:

Transport Canada lacks a consistent approach to planning and implementing compliance activities [in transportation]. As a consequence, it cannot ensure that sites are inspected according to the highest risk.

He further stated:

Transport Canada has not ensured that corrective action has been taken on instances of non-compliance.

In addition, he stated:

Transport Canada has given only temporary, interim approval for nearly half of the emergency response assistance plans put in place by regulated organizations. As a consequence, many of the most dangerous products regulated under the Act have been shipped for years without the Department having completed a detailed verification of plans for an immediate emergency response.

I have personal knowledge of these deficiencies. I happen to own property on Lake Wabumun, where in 2005 there was largest freshwater spill in the history of North America. Three-quarters of the spilled bunker C oil still lies at the bottom of Lake Wabumun. There was somewhat of an attempt to clean it up. I have to say that the Government of Canada, regrettably, did not appear on the scene until a week after the spill. Why is that critical? It is because there is a first nation located on that lake, which was monumentally impacted by that spill. The end result of the spill was a special commission by the Government of Alberta to ensure there would better emergency response measures in the future. I am sad to say there was no parallel review conducted by the Government of Canada.

It is not only the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development who has identified problems with the regulations under the statute. By the way, the new statute does provide for additional regulations, but, regrettably, the government has not simultaneously tabled the listing of regulations and the timetable wherein these regulations will be put in place. The statute is fine insofar as it is an enabling legislative measure, but the substance of this act comes with the regulations. We do not have any knowledge of when the government plans to come forward with these regulations, what the timetable and consultation program will be. I would encourage the government to bring these forward because it would give a lot of assurance to the people in the communities who live and work along the rail lines.

I would also encourage the government to table an enforcement and compliance strategy. Why is that critical? It is because it has been determined in review after review by the rail safety board that the system that the present government and the government before it have put into place is simply to abandon enforcement. It has been turned over to a self-inspection and self-enforcement system by the rail lines. That would be fine if we were not dealing with an industry that is increasingly carrying heavier loads and more dangerous cargo.

By the way, this cargo runs along most of the waterways of this country. The rail lines were originally built along the waterways to cool the trains' coal-fired engines. A good deal of the Canadian environment is potentially at risk, hence, the reason for the amendments to ensure greater rail safety in Canada. However, that is all the more reason it is incumbent upon the government to ensure those provisions are actually effectively inspected and enforced.

I would bring to the attention of the House a report by Transport Canada following the Wabumun and Cheakamus spills. It stated:

The Railway Track Safety Rules do not provide any guidance on fatigue life, nor are there common industry standards for rail life based on accumulated tonnage and the properties of the steel.

...Neither the quality of steel nor the accumulated tonnage is factored into this decision.

It further stated:

Recognizing the limitations of existing inspection tools, there is a requirement for additional strategies to ensure that maintenance rails are not installed where they are likely to have a shorter fatigue life than the parent rail.

It made a number of recommendations on putting more specific binding criteria in place for the maintenance of rails. Again, as I mentioned at the outset, that is very critical because many Canadians live and work along these lines and we need to ensure the public safety of Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are very pleased to see Bill S-4 reflecting the spirit of co-operation of all parties who are concerned with rail safety in this country.

I would also like to ask whether we can see the kind of commitment that would extend rail safety by providing the additional kind of equipment, the automated brakes on speed and so on, that could avoid accidents. The member has spoken to this point, but I would really like to see the kind of solid commitment that goes along with this excellent legislation.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to address the House, particularly so when important issues such as the safety of Canadians, the protection of our environment and the efficiency of our economic infrastructure are on the table, as they are today.

As my hon. colleagues have recently emphasized, the government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians and Canadian communities and to a safe, dependable and modern transportation system to support the continuing well-being and prosperity of this country.

We cannot claim to have instant solutions for every new challenge that arises. Nobody can. However, as we have demonstrated time and time again, we are always willing to work openly and transparently in consultation with stakeholders and Canadians to ensure that the solutions and initiatives we develop are those this country needs to safely flourish and grow.

I believe the Safer Railways Act, brought forward today, is a fitting testimony to the success of our approach.

When the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities launched the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, Canada had recently suffered a series of devastating trail derailments that had caused the death of loved ones, the disruption of businesses, and a serious pollution of track-side lakes, rivers and communities.

During the course of extensive inspections and audits undertaken by Transport Canada following these accidents, the regulator identified numerous deficiencies that contributed to decreased safety levels, including non-compliance by the railway companies with various safety requirements.

There was a general concern with the level of the railways' compliance with regulations. Accordingly, the terms of reference for this Railway Safety Act review specifically directed the independent panel to examine the adequacy of Transport Canada's enforcement powers and to consider whether administrative monetary penalties should be added to the range of enforcement powers available to the department.

The minister appointed an independent advisory panel in January of 2007 to lead the review of the Railway Safety Act. This panel was given the clear mandate to uncover gaps in the Railway Safety Act and make recommendations that would make the regulatory regime more robust and adaptable to the railway industry and its operations.

The panel conducted extensive consultations across the country with railway companies, all levels of government, labour, shippers and suppliers. This approach ensured that subsequent recommendations would take into account the appropriate range of perspectives on rail safety issues. Consultations and careful consideration of these issues were carried out during the year-long course of the review and resulted in the advisory panel making a series of recommendations.

It is important to note that our government took immediate action to implement many of these recommendations. At present, Transport Canada has implemented eight internal recommendations, industry has implemented three, and the final 21 recommendations involve the legislative changes that we are discussing today.

Furthermore, an advisory council on railway safety was created, as well as a Transport Canada-industry-union steering committee and six technical working groups. These groups successfully bring together relevant stakeholders to address rail safety issues in a collaborative manner.

I specifically wish to discuss a key recommendation by the advisory panel upon its examination of the Railway Safety Act. The panel uncovered that Transport Canada's enforcement powers under the Railway Safety Act need to be strengthened to encourage better regulatory compliance, increase safety, and help prevent further incidents like those that originally triggered this review.

The independent panel's final recommendation on the issue, as detailed in its report of March 2008, plainly stated that “an administrative monetary penalty scheme should be included in the Railway Safety Act as an additional compliance tool” to enhance safety in the rail industry.

The government fully agrees with the panel's assessment, and the introduction of a scheme for administrative monetary penalties has been included as an important and integral part of this comprehensive package of safety amendments to the Railway Safety Act.

Administrative monetary penalties are certainly not new in the transportation sector. They were successfully introduced in the air industry in 1986 and were subsequently introduced in the marine industry in 1991.

Penalties of this nature have been introduced in the transportation industry because they work. In simplest terms, administrative monetary penalties are similar to traffic tickets for car drivers. When a company or individual breaks a rule or does not comply with a regulation, the department can impose a pre-established administrative monetary penalty or fine to help encourage compliance in the future.

Administrative monetary penalties have other safety benefits as well. With an administrative monetary penalty scheme in place, there is the perception of fairness because the operator knows in advance the cost of non-compliance and it is applied uniformly. Penalties can also be applied more uniformly as there is less discretion for giving warnings and therefore less opportunity for inconsistency.

Under the current Railway Safety Act, Transport Canada's options for enforcing non-compliance are limited. When a violation is found during the course of an inspection or audit, an inspector will normally issue a letter of non-compliance and follow up in a given time frame to verify that corrective action has been taken. If the situation has not been corrected, the regulator has only one option, prosecution, which is both costly and time consuming and therefore ineffective for a large number of violations. This is a significant weakness in the current enforcement scheme of the act.

We believe that administrative monetary penalties should be implemented as an additional enforcement tool under the act to provide an efficient, effective and less costly alternative to prosecution, particularly in the case of persistent non-compliance with safety requirements established under the act. This is consistent with the principles of minimizing the regulatory burden for Canadians while, at the same time, promoting regulatory compliance.

Of course, in interests of fairness for all parties, the proposed administrative penalty scheme would allow for a review of the regulator's penalty decisions by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. The scheme would also include provisions related to the minister's decision to impose a penalty, the due process to be followed, the review of decisions by the appeal tribunal and the level of fines to be paid for non-compliance infractions. Maximum levels for administrative monetary penalties would be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation, which is consistent with similar schemes in other modes of transport.

In addition to the implementation of an administrative monetary penalty scheme to improve railway compliance, we propose, through these amendments, to raise existing judicial penalty levels, which were established 20 years ago and are no longer consistent with those in other modes of transport. Maximum judicial fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would increase from $200,000 to $1 million for corporations and from $10,000 to $50,000 for individuals. Maximum fines on summary conviction for contravention of the act would increase from $100,000 to $500,000 for corporations and from $5,000 to $25,000 for an individual. These levels are consistent with other modes of transport, including air and marine, and the transport of dangerous goods in all modes under federal jurisdiction and reflect our view of what constitutes an effective deterrent to safety violations.

Implementing administrative monetary penalties as proposed in the safer railways act is clearly an important step in the development of an effective railway safety regime with sufficient scope and strength to ensure that our railways are safe and that they remain safe for the long term, as the railway industry continues to evolve and grow.

Administrative monetary penalties are not a stopgap measure. They were recommended by the Railway Safety Act review panel because they are a proven solution for improved compliance and safety requirements in the transport industry. Improved compliance means better safety for all Canadians and Canadian communities and a stronger foundation for our national transport system and economy for years to come.

The time is now to adopt this bill and move forward with further strengthening of the safety of our railway system. This bill has been consulted on and analyzed for several years and has received widespread approval and applause by all key industry stakeholders as well as members of both this House and the other place. I urge my colleagues to recognize that the time for debate has passed and, in the name of the safety and security of Canadians, the timely passage of this legislation is vital.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. My riding has an abundance of train tracks that are used by CP, CN and commuter trains. I think it is very important that we take the time to debate this bill, which is a very good bill, as my colleague said. I would like to talk about it a little more, so that the people of my riding really understand what it is all about.

The purpose of the bill is to improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport by, for example, requiring railway companies to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate indicating compliance with regulatory requirements; strengthen the Department of Transport’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines; enhance the role of safety management systems by including provisions for a railway executive who is accountable for safety and a non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies; clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters; and expand regulation-making powers, including in respect of environmental management, and clarify the process for rule making by railway companies.

Allow me to provide some context for what we are talking about today. In 1989, the Railway Safety Act was born. Seven years later, the Canada Transportation Act was passed. Consideration was subsequently given to re-examining the Railway Safety Act, but the idea was abandoned at the time. Then, in 2000, we started seeing many railway accidents. From 2000 to 2005, there was an increase in the number of incidents, deaths and damage caused by railway accidents. In 2006, the government decided to begin a review of the Railway Safety Act. In May 2008, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities made a number of recommendations after studying the issue. In 2010, Bill C-33, which was more or less the same as this one, unfortunately died on the order paper. Finally, there was a Senate bill, which reproduced roughly everything that was in Bill C-33.

All members of our party support this bill. The NDP has often promoted railway safety. We are talking about lives and injured people. We will definitely support a bill that will improve rail safety.

The NDP fully supports the fact that the bill would provide additional powers to more closely regulate the rail system in Canada. However, we find that the bill does not contain concrete measures to achieve that. We are putting pressure on the government to make voice recorders in locomotive cabs and positive train control systems mandatory.

I will explain how a positive train control system works. If a train is going too fast, this system makes it possible to slow down the train remotely. On February 26, there was a train accident in Burlington, Ontario, that killed three people and injured 42. This should never have happened. We know that speed was a factor, but unfortunately we do not know much more than that. We do not know why or who decided this train was travelling too fast. An automatic safety system would have made it possible to control this train and reduce its speed. This accident killed three Canadians—VIA Rail employees—and could have been prevented.

Voice recorders are mandatory for planes and ships, but for some unknown reason they are not mandatory for trains.

Basically, if there had been a voice recorder in the locomotive, we would know what really happened on February 26 and we might be in a position to prevent this type of accident in the future.

In my riding, the train tracks are very close to the houses of my constituents, within a few metres. There are laws about that, and the houses are built at the minimum distance required by law. That worries me.

The railway system in Canada is very safe. We live in a very safe country and we are careful, but improvements have to be made. There are still some shortcomings that allow accidents like the one on February 26 to happen. That was a passenger train. In my riding, many trains that carry hazardous materials also pass through. A speed control system and a voice recording system would enable us to go even further.

I am not really going to say more about it. On this side of the House, we are definitely in favour of the bill, and all the parties involved agree that our country's safety is very important.

Let me reiterate that I am in favour of this bill and pleased that it was introduced. That could have been done earlier. We have gone through a number of stages and we have taken some time before considering the matter. I am really pleased now that the Senate has proposed a bill that will improve our country's railway safety. I also hope that we will be able to go further by perhaps including the two solutions suggested by the NDP.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-4, the safer railways act. I would like to reiterate the comments I made this morning. Very often the opposition stands in the House and criticizes the government, as is our job to do and as is very often necessary in this place. However, it is also important to give credit where credit is due. I want to congratulate the government and the minister in particular on bringing forward a piece of legislation which is much needed, well crafted and will accomplish a great deal on railway safety in this country.

Our party's late leader, Jack Layton, used to talk about it being necessary to propose as often as oppose. The corollary to that is it is important to compliment and criticize when each is due.

The bill has been 20 years in the making. The reason the bill is in as good a shape as it is the approach that was used on this legislation. All Canadians would like to see more of that approach. The government sat down and consulted with industry, labour, and stakeholders of many different stripes. Government members sat in committee, listened to expert testimony and worked with the official opposition and all parties to make improvements to the legislation. Once again I want to thank the government and point out that its good work has resulted in a piece of legislation that is improved because of that approach. I might suggest that the government follow this procedure more often. I think it is something Canadians want to see.

The bill seeks to modify the Railway Safety Act to do a number of things. It improves the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport. It requires railway companies to obtain the safety-based railway operating certificate that indicates compliance with regulatory requirements.

The bill strengthens the department's enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing court-enforced penalties. It enhances the role of safety management systems by including a provision for the identification of a railway executive who would be legally responsible for safety, and a whistleblower protection system for employees of railway companies who raise safety concerns. I will talk about that very important aspect in a moment.

The bill clarifies the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters. It expands regulation-making authorities and clarifies the process for rule making by railway companies.

By way of background, Bill S-4 was introduced on October 6, 2011 in the Senate by the leader of the government there. Bill S-4 is virtually identical to former Bill C-33, which was introduced in the House of Commons during the third session of the 40th Parliament.

Bill C-33 was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and was reported back to the House of Commons with amendments in March 2011. Unfortunately, the bill died on the order paper when the general election was called later that month.

The text of Bill S-4 incorporates the amendments adopted by the standing committee and otherwise differs from Bill C-33 only by the addition of one new paragraph and some minor changes in wording.

The bill was reported back to the Senate by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with that one amendment in November 2011. The bill was sent back to this House where it received first reading in December of last year.

The Railway Safety Act was implemented in 1989. The act sets out a regulatory framework for railways under federal jurisdiction to address matters of safety, security and environmental impact. Transport Canada notes that the Canadian rail industry has changed significantly since the act was amended in 1999 and operations have become increasingly complex and traffic is growing rapidly. Therefore, this bill is timely.

I mentioned earlier that labour supports the bill. I want to mention a couple of things which I think labour was instrumental in achieving.

Labour made several key important points.

It wanted to see better fatigue management. That aspect is addressed in the bill.

It wanted to see greater whistleblower protection. In particular, it wanted to see a process of non-punitive reporting whereby railway employees could report their safety concerns directly to Transport Canada and not to a company manager. If workers identified any defects or safety problems, they could without fear go directly to Transport Canada. There had been a problem. Some railway workers feared being disciplined. Some had been disciplined by companies for nothing more than reporting their safety concerns. This is a positive legislative change.

Some railway workers say that they do not want to rely on good luck and gravity for railway safety. They want to rely on careful attention to detail, and swift and accurate reporting of problems so that accidents do not occur and problems can be identified before something happens.

Bill Brehl, the president of Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, maintenance of way employees division, did stand-up work in pushing for the amendments to this bill and for the overall concept of railway safety to be included in the legislation. Rex Beatty, president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, locomotive engineers, and Rob Smith, the national legislative director of that same body, also played pivotal roles in this piece of legislation.

This also shows how important it is to involve experts and Canadians from coast to coast, to bring to bear in this House their experience, knowledge and expertise. It helps make better legislation. This will make life safer not only for all Canadians, but for the thousands of women and men who work every day on the trains, tracks and rolling stock to keep them in shape.

There are some areas that need improvement. At-grade crossings are a problem in this country. Greater control of trespassing is still a problem which I do not think this bill fully addresses. The issue of track and metal fatigue is not fully addressed by the bill.

In terms of at-grade crossings, approximately 100 people per year are killed in railway accidents. Accidents happen frequently at the at-grade crossings. There are several ways to address this. We could raise the crossings, which is an expensive but effective way to go. We could bring in an automatic train stopping mechanism, as Sweden has done. There are automatic metal detectors and if a vehicle is on the tracks at an at-grade crossing, the train will automatically slow and stop in advance. That is something I would encourage the government to look at and implement as soon as possible.

With respect to trespassing, we need to fence off tracks especially in urban areas, which are places of death and injury. People trespass and get on the tracks, even though they should not.

Last, in terms of track maintenance and metal fatigue, there is no requirement to establish the fatigue life of rails. There are no common industry standards for rail life based on tonnage, defects or steel quality. For a country that relies so heavily on rail, we should be ensuring that we have state of the art world-class standards in this area. We can do more and better in this area.

In 2005 there was a derailment of a train near Wabamun Lake in Alberta. A report pointed out that the railway track safety rules do not provide any guidance on fatigue life, nor are there any common industry standards for rail life based on the state of the metal used on the tracks. A clear recommendation of the Transportation Safety Board was to establish those standards to ensure that the tracks upon which our trains roll are in the best shape possible.

I would like to conclude by thanking members of the committee on all sides of the House, and in particular the good work of our member for Western Arctic. He did such great work in pushing productively, proactively and in a non-partisan way for greater standards in the act.

I congratulate the government on bringing forward a piece of legislation that has the support of all parties of the House. It is a testament to a non-partisan, co-operative way of working together to get the job done which results in good legislation that every Canadian wants to see.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the safety of Canadians and indicated this was paramount to the government. I am sure he is aware that not a lot of changes were made in Bill S-4. A lot of work was done when it used to be Bill C-33, and the amendments were made by the NDP member for Western Arctic.

On that note, I would like to indicate that there are a lot of rail systems throughout northern Ontario. A number of those rail cars carry dangerous contents, so we see this as a very positive move. Could my colleague speak about the fact that there are still exemptions available to rail companies on this matter? If we talk about the safety of Canadians as a whole, we need to recognize that there should not be any exemptions at all when it comes to the well-being and safety and security of Canadians. Could he elaborate on the fact that there are exceptions from safety regulations that protect the public under the bill?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about our government's efforts to improve the safety of Canada's national railway system through the safer railways act. For my riding of Elmwood—Transcona, the name Transcona comes from “transcontinental“ which is one of the CN line's main facilities that was put into my riding many years ago. So the background of my riding is very much historically involved with the rail industry.

These amendments have been supported from the outset by all stakeholders. The government introduced a similar bill, an act to amend the railway safety act, on June 4, 2010. Also known as Bill C-33, it was studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It was approved unanimously by the committee, with minor changes, on March 10, 2011 and reported to the other House on March 11, 2011. However, the opposition prioritized politics over the safety of Canadians. This bill died on the order paper on March 25, 2011, with the call of an election.

During the second reading debate on Bill S-4, members in the other place shared personal stories concerning the economic and environmental damage and personal tragedies that had resulted from rail accidents in their own jurisdictions. Their reactions to the proposed amendments were very positive. I believe our shared support of this important safety legislation reflects a common desire to ensure our national railway system, which is one of the most important components of our economic infrastructure, remains one of the safest in the world for the long-term benefit of our economy, our communities and our environment. The safety and prosperity of Canadians is of paramount importance to us all.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, was introduced in the other place on November 1, 2011. This bill was studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and approved unanimously by the committee with one amendment. It was reported to the other place on November 24, 2011. By reintroducing proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act, the government is reiterating its commitment to a safe and secure national rail transportation system, not only to communities across the country but also to Canada's economic well-being and its vision to further improve rail safety and environmental protection.

Before going further, I would like to remind hon. members of the origins and purpose of this bill. For many years, the safety of Canada's federal railways was regulated under the Railway Act, originated at the turn of the century when Canada's railway system was rapidly expanding. The Railway Act was designed for an older era. At that time, much of the national rail system was under construction to open up new territory and to encourage settlement. In 1989, the Railway Act was replaced by the Railway Safety Act, which was designed to achieve the objectives of the national transportation policy relating to the safety of railway operations and to address the many changes that had taken place in the rail transportation industry in recent years. It was a time of privatization and restructuring, supported by a new federal policy that separated economic and safety legislation to provide the railway companies with the flexibility they needed to prosper.

The Railway Safety Act gave direct jurisdiction over safety matters to the Minister of Transport, to be administered by Transport Canada where responsibility for other federally regulated modes of transportation resides. Today, economic regulation of the rail industry is guided by the Canada Transportation Act, which provides an overall framework to ensure a national transportation system that is competitive, economic and efficient. That act, which came into effect in 1996, also established the Canadian Transportation Agency which is responsible for dispute resolution and economic regulation of all modes of transport under federal jurisdiction, including rail.

Rail safety regulation, on the other hand, is governed by the Railway Safety Act which was developed in the spirit of co-operation between industry and government. The Railway Safety Act moved away from a fully prescriptive regulatory approach to one that recognized the responsibility of railway companies for the safety of their own operations.

At the same time, the federal government, through Transport Canada, retained the responsibility and the power to protect people, property and the environment by ensuring that the railway companies operate safely within the national framework. Transport Canada undertakes its responsibility to maintain a safe national rail system through policy and regulatory development, outreach and education, and oversight and enforcement of the rules and regulations it implements under the authority of the Railway Safety Act.

Applied in tandem, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act have successfully guided the growth of Canada's rail sector since the 1990s. But there are issues. As it stands today, the interrelationship of the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act has created a notable gap in rail safety oversight that must be addressed if we are to ensure the continued safety of our national railway industry.

Following a review of the Railway Safety Act in 1994, the act was amended in 1999 to further improve the legislation and to make the railway systems even safer. Those amendments were designed to fully modernize the legislative and regulatory framework of Canada's rail transportation system. They were also designed to make railway companies more responsible for managing their operations safely. They gave the general public and interested parties a greater say on issues of rail safety.

The fundamental principles on which the regulation of railway safety in Canada is based are: to promote and provide for the safety of the public and personnel, and the protection of property and the environment in the operation of railways; to encourage the collaboration and participation of interested parties in improving railway safety; to recognize the responsibility of railway companies in ensuring the safety of their operations; and finally, to facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme that will ensure the continuing enhancement of our railway safety.

The 1999 amendments to the Railway Safety Act aimed to help achieve these objectives by providing for the safety of the public and personnel and the protection of property, and the environment in the operation of railways; and by providing the regulator with the authority to require railway companies to implement safety management systems.

In 2007 the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities launched a review of the Railway Safety Act following a series of devastating train derailments that had caused the death of loved ones, the disruption of businesses, and the serious pollution of trackside lakes, rivers and communities.

An independent panel conducted a review of the existing Railway Safety Act. This review was intended to identify possible gaps and make recommendations for improving railway safety. The panel of experts commissioned research and held extensive public consultations across the country.

Over the course of a year that panel travelled from coast to coast gathering input from a full spectrum of concerned stakeholders, including the railway companies and their association, the railway unions, shippers, suppliers, municipalities, other national organizations, other levels of government and the public. Interest in the consultations was high and all key stakeholders participated.

The panel's final report, “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”, was tabled in the House by the Minister of Transport in March 2008. In the report the panellists noted that although the Railway Safety Act and its principles were fundamentally sound, more work was needed. A number of legislative improvements were required. The report contained 56 recommendations to improve rail safety in Canada.

The standing committee, which also conducted extensive stakeholder consultations, accepted the panel's recommendations and tabled its own report in the House in May 2008 with 14 recommendations, many of which built on those of the Railway Safety Act review.

Both reports identified key areas for improvement and recommended increasing Transport Canada's resources to allow it to strengthen its oversight and enforcement capacity and to implement new safety initiatives.

Transport Canada agrees with the recommendations of these reports. It has taken steps to action them through a variety of government, industry and union initiatives, and through the proposed legislative amendments to the Railway Safety Act which are required to address key recommendations and enable many safety initiatives.

The proposed amendments would significantly modernize the current Railway Safety Act to reflect changes in the industry and provide for higher levels of oversight and enforcement. The key elements and advantages of the bill are clear and would include: a stronger oversight and enforcement capacity for Transport Canada through the introduction of safety-based railway operating certificates and monetary fines for safety violations, as well as an increase in existing judicial penalties to reflect the levels found in other modes of transport; a significantly stronger focus on the importance of railway accountability and safety management systems, which both industry and labour applaud; a clarification of the minister's authority on matters of railway safety to bridge existing gaps in the act; and, an expansion of regulation-making authorities which have particular importance and would enable Transport Canada to require annual environmental management plans from the railways as well as a requirement for railways to provide emissions labelling on equipment and emissions data for review.

In sum, these proposed amendments to the act would improve rail safety in Canada for the long term. They are the culmination of two important studies and extensive consultations. They provide increased safety for Canadians and Canadian communities; economic benefits to the industry by decreasing the likelihood of costly accidents and delays; a variety of benefits to external stakeholders, including provinces, municipalities, shippers and the travelling public; and last, but far from least, support for a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment for all Canadians.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the same committee that launched its own review of rail safety and made many of the recommendations reflected in this bill, has examined the contents of these proposed amendments thoroughly. It has given the bill its unanimous blessing with only a few minor adjustments.

During this examination, the committee heard strong support for this bill from a number of key stakeholders, including railways, the unions and municipalities. Clearly, this bill has been analyzed and consulted on exhaustively. It is our responsibility to move forward with the passing of this legislation.

This bill has already gained widespread support. Witnesses before the committee expressed strong support for the implementation of safety-based railway operating certificates for railways that run on federal track. These certificates would significantly strengthen Transport Canada's oversight capacity and ensure that all companies have an effective safety management system in place before beginning operations. Companies that are already in operation would be granted a two year grace period to meet the requirements for their certificate. This would include all federally regulated railways as well as several of our largest national transit systems that use hundreds of miles of federal track and carry millions of Canadians to and from work daily. Increased safety for these travellers would be a significant benefit for businesses, communities and families.

Witnesses before the committee also expressed their support for the introduction of monetary penalties and an increase in judicial fines for serious contraventions of safety regulations. Monetary penalties already exist in other modes of transport. They serve as a complementary enforcement tool to existing notices and orders and provide additional leverage on companies that persist in safety violations. The proposed increase in judicial fines, established 20 years ago, would also strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement options and bring those fines to a level currently found in other modes.

Witnesses before the committee also spoke of the significant improvements contained in the bill, particularly for the implementation of safety management systems. There was strong support for the introduction of a requirement for a designated executive legally responsible for safety issues.

There was also strong support for an introduction of whistleblower protection for railway employees who raised safety concerns. In fact, support for this was sufficiently strong that the committee approved an amendment to the bill that would provide additional safety reporting options for employees, including direct reporting to Transport Canada. Amendments such as these will help the growth of a strong safety culture in railway companies.

I would like to point out that the expansion of reporting options for safety violations was the only significant amendment made by the committee to the original version of the bill that was referred to it after second reading. There were seven other amendments made by the committee, all of which were minor technical adjustments and clarifications of definitions.

Personally, this is a very impressive achievement, as very few bills make it through committee with such overwhelming accord.

Finally, the committee heard strong support to move the bill forward as quickly as possible so we could begin implementing an enhanced railway safety regime that would clearly benefit industry, benefit labour, benefit communities and benefit the Canadian public.

Without these amendments, the government's ability to effectively regulate railway companies in an environment of continued growth and increasing complexity would be sorely diminished. Improvement to Transport Canada's regulatory oversight and enforcement programs would be limited. The pursuit of new safety initiatives, with respect to safety management systems and environmental management, would be badly constrained. The legislative framework for railways would remain inconsistent with other transportation modes, which have a broader range of enforcement tools. Regulation-making authorities could not be expanded to allow for the creation of safety-based operating certificates and increased environmental protection.

Members' support for the bill will result in fewer long-term costs for the government and Canadians, due to reduced fatalities, serious injuries and damage to both property and the environment. There is no controversy over the intent or the content of the bill. We all want better railway safety in our country. This bill is the blueprint to ensure that we can achieve that.

The legislation would strengthen the national rail system that is so vital to our economy. By reducing the risk of accidents, we would enhance the competitiveness of our railways, increase the public safety of Canadians and add an additional layer or protection for our natural environment.

These amendments are a priority for the government. Canada's railways are vitally important to the national economy and are the most fuel-efficient form of transport for the movement of goods in our interdependent transportation system. Our railways have 73,000 kilometres of track stretching from coast to coast, more than 3,000 locomotives and handle more than 4 million carloads of freight. They operate more than 700 trains per day, moving nearly 70 million passengers and 75% of all surplus freight in the country. The railways were the foundation of our national growth in the past. They remain integral to our prosperity in the future.

Since the launch of the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, Transport Canada has worked continuously with stakeholders, through an advisory council on railway safety, joint technical working groups and individual consultations across the country to ensure the bill will meet the needs of all parties engaged in the rail industry.

We believe these proposed amendments are essential in timely. They respond directly to the recommendations of two important studies on rail safety that involved the high level of participation from all key stakeholders in the rail sector.

The bill has been exhaustively debated and analyzed for several years. It has received widespread support from all interested parties. It is now time to move forward with the passing of this important legislation for the safety of all Canadians.

We are modernizing the Railway Safety Act to reflect the requirements of a growing and increasingly complex rail industry, and these are changes all Canadians can agree upon.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we are having on this very important bill.

The original version of the bill left many recommendations for an in-depth inquiry into railway accidents unaddressed. I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for having tabled amendments to former Bill C-33. I congratulate the other place in tabling Bill S-4 with those NDP amendments.

The bill is about safety. The Conservative government ignored repeated calls by the Transportation Safety Board for safety measures such as voice recorders and positive train control. In 2001 and 2003, the Liberal government ignored calls from the Transportation Safety Board for additional rail safety measures. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on the need not only to pass this legislation quickly but also to implement it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is best to start our remarks in the House of Commons on this or any subject by addressing first principles.

I believe the first principle is the government should only do what only government can do. Public safety is one of those areas that the citizen or the enterprise cannot simply manage all by themselves. As a result, protecting the security and the safety of the individual is a primary responsibility of government. Thus, we have Bill S-4, which deals in particular with railway safety and the statute assigned to that goal.

I will go into the history of this statute and the framework of legislation that has existed and continues to do so. Before I do that though, I will state my full support for the bill. It is a bill to amend the Railway Safety Act. It furthers our government's agenda to ensure a safe, reliable and economically viable freight and passenger railway system.

The amendments proposed in the bill will increase the public safety of Canadians, enhance the safety of our communities, and contribute to a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment.

The Railway Safety Act came into force in 1989 during a period of significant transformation in the Canadian rail industry. It was a time of privatization and restructuring, supported by a new federal policy that separated economic and safety legislation to provide the railway companies with flexibility so that they could grow and prosper.

I should mention in passing that Conservative and Liberal governments in the last two and a half decades have moved toward greater privatization and less government control in all areas of transportation, including ports, railways, airports, airlines and a whole series of other specific areas within the country's transportation system. That decision by both Liberals and Conservatives to move toward privatization has been a resounding and unmitigated success for Canada and for Canadians.

Today, economic regulation of the rail industry is guided by the Canada Transportation Act, which provides an overall framework to ensure a national transportation system that is competitive, economic and efficient. The act, which came into effect in 1996, also established the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is responsible for dispute resolution and economic regulation of all modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction, including rail.

Rail safety regulation on the other hand is governed by the Railway Safety Act, which was developed in the spirit of co-operation between industry and government. This act moved away from a fully prescriptive regulatory approach to one that recognized the responsibility of railway companies for the safety of their own operations.

At the same time, the federal government through Transport Canada retained the responsibility and the power to protect people, property and the environment by ensuring that the railway companies operate safely within that national framework. Once again, we liberated the market to find the best ways to achieve safety, but we created a legal framework to ensure that people and property and the environment are protected as the industry does its work.

Transport Canada undertakes its responsibility to maintain a safe national rail system through a policy and regulatory development, through outreach and education, through oversight and enforcement of the rules and regulations it implements under the Railway Safety Act.

Applied in tandem, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act have successfully guided the growth of Canada's rail sector since the 1990s, but there are issues and challenges. As it stands today, the interrelationship of these two acts has created a notable gap in railway safety oversight that must be addressed if we are to ensure the continuing safety of our national railway system.

Currently under the Canada Transportation Act a new railway company is allowed to begin operations immediately upon receiving a certificate of fitness from the Canadian Transportation Agency. This certificate indicates that the railway is under federal jurisdiction, has sufficient financial capacity to operate, and has obtained appropriate third party liability insurance coverage. This is in keeping with the economic mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is not, however, fully in keeping with the national safety mandate of the Railway Safety Act.

In accordance with the Railway Safety Act, a new railway must comply with all safety regulations in force at the time it begins operations. It is important to recognize that there are no regulated requirements in the Canada Transportation Act to verify the safety capacity of the company before a certificate of fitness is issued and the company's operations begin.

As the Railway Safety Act does not currently specify minimum baseline safety requirements for a new railway company either, a gap in oversight is created and a new railway could theoretically operate for a year or more before the effectiveness of its safety systems was formally verified. This is an important safety issue which the government is striving to correct through these amendments.

The introduction of a railway operating certificate is a key component of this bill, and will continue to resolve this long-standing safety issue in our railway system. The amendment represents an important step in the right direction to strengthen the safety of our vital rail industry. Anyone who likes to eat food, consume retail goods, drive a car, basically perform any function as part of a modern society requires the use of goods that are brought by rail. We cannot underestimate the importance of this industry to the operation of the Canadian economy.

When the Minister of Transport appointed the independent advisory panel to lead the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, he provided them with a clear mandate to identify steps in the Railway Safety Act and make recommendations to strengthen the regulatory regime to ensure the changing nature of the railway industry and its operations were protected.

Following extensive consultation with stakeholders and careful consideration of these consultations during the year-long course of review, the advisory panel specifically recommended in its final report in 2008:

A railway should be required to obtain a Rail Operating Certificate (ROC ) as a precondition to obtaining a Certificate of Fitness (from the Canadian Transportation Agency) and to commencing or continuing operations.

The intent of this recommendation is clear. This government emphatically agrees that the implementation of railway operating certificates is an optimal solution to improve regulatory oversight and ensure that new railways have met clearly defined baseline safety requirements before they begin operations anywhere in the country.

Bill S-4, the safer railways act which we are discussing today, will give the Governor in Council, that is the cabinet, the authority to require railway companies to apply for and receive a railway operating certificate. Bill S-4 will also give Transport Canada the power to establish the baseline safety requirements for the certificate by regulation. Establishing these requirements by regulation will provide Transport Canada with the authority to undertake a comprehensive safety review for every new railway to determine whether it complies with the regulatory framework proposed.

Once the regulator is satisfied that all baseline safety requirements have been met, an operating certificate will be issued. It is important to note that this requirement for railway operating certificates will apply to all railways under federal jurisdiction, including those already in operation, such as CN, CP, VIA Rail and numerous other short lines. It is obviously impractical and economically unviable for these companies to cease operations until a certificate can be issued. As such, existing railways will have a grace period of two years from the coming into force of the new regulations to meet the requirement for the certificate.

Should there be instances where the railway operating certificate is refused, suspended or cancelled, the applicant will have the right to appeal by requesting a review by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. That being said, it is critical to add that this government is committed to ensuring that the introduction of railway operating certificates will be developed and implemented in the same spirit of co-operation between government and all stakeholders which guided the creation of the Railway Safety Act nearly two decades ago. Once this bill is passed, Transport Canada will consult stakeholders on the development of regulations that relate to this important new initiative to improve railway safety in this country.

In summary, I will say that the safety benefits of this proposal for the introduction of a railway operating certificate are clearly evident. An important regulatory gap will be effectively and efficiently addressed. Transport Canada's railway safety oversight powers will be enhanced to meet the changing nature of the industry over the long term. Canadians from coast to coast will reap the personal and economic advantages of a safer and more secure Canadian rail system.

When the Minister of Transport launched the Railway Safety Act review, Canada had recently suffered a series of devastating train derailments. These derailments caused the death of loved ones, the disruption of businesses and the serious pollution of trackside lakes, rivers and communities. During the course of extensive inspections and audits undertaken by Transport Canada following these incidents, the regulator identified numerous deficiencies that contributed to the decreased safety levels, including non-compliance by the railway companies with various safety requirements.

There was a general concern with the level of the railways' compliance with the regulations. Accordingly, the terms of reference for the Railway Safety Act review specifically directed the independent panel to examine the adequacy of Transport Canada's enforcement powers and to consider whether administrative monetary penalties should be added to the range of enforcement powers available to the department. Upon examination, it became clear that Transport Canada's enforcement powers under the Railway Safety Act needed to be strengthened to encourage better regulatory compliance, increased safety and help to prevent further incidents like those that originally triggered the review.

The independent panel's final recommendation on the issue, as detailed in its report of March 2008, plainly stated that an administrative monetary penalty scheme should be included in the Railway Safety Act as an additional compliance tool to enhance safety in the rail industry. This government fully agrees with the panel's assessment, and the introduction of a scheme for administrative penalties has been included as an important and integral part of this plan.

Administrative monetary penalties are certainly not new in the transportation sector. They were successfully introduced in the air industry back in 1986 and were subsequently introduced in the marine sector in 1991.

Penalties of this nature have been introduced in the transportation industry because they work. In the simplest terms, administrative monetary penalties are similar to traffic tickets for car drivers. When a company or individuals break the rules or do not comply with the regulations, the department can impose a pre-established administrative monetary penalty or fine to help encourage compliance in the future.

Administrative monetary penalties have other safety benefits as well. With these penalties in place, there is a perception of fairness because the operator knows in advance the cost of non-compliance and it is applied uniformly. Penalties can also be applied more uniformly as there is less discretion for giving warnings and therefore less opportunity for inconsistency.

Under the current Railway Safety Act, Transport Canada's options for enforcing non-compliance are very limited. When a violation is found during the course of an inspection or audit, an inspector will normally issue a letter of non-compliance and follow-up in a given time frame to confirm that corrective action has been taken. If the situation has not been corrected, the regulator has only one option, prosecution, which is both costly and time consuming. Therefore, it is ineffective for a large number of violations. This is a significant weakness in the current enforcement scheme of the act.

We believe administrative penalties should be implemented as an additional enforcement tool under the act to provide an efficient, effective and less costly alternative to prosecution, particularly in the cases of persistent non-compliance with the act and its safety requirements. This is consistent with the principle of minimizing the regulatory burden for Canadians, while at the same time promoting regulatory certainty and compliance.

In the interest of fairness for all parties, the proposed administrative penalty scheme will allow for a review of the regulator's penalty decisions by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. This scheme will also include provisions related to the minister's decision to impose a penalty, the due process to be followed, the review of the decisions by the appeal tribunal and the level of fines to be paid for non-compliance and infractions. Maximum levels for administrative monetary penalties will be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation.

In addition to the implementation of an administrative penalty to improve railway safety, we propose, through these amendments, to raise existing judicial penalty levels, which were established 20 years ago and are no longer consistent with other modes of transportation. Maximum judicial fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would increase from $200,000 to $1 million for corporations and $10,000 to $50,000 for individuals. Maximum fines on summary conviction for a contravention will increase from $100,000 to $250,000 for corporations and $5,000 to $25,000 for an individual.

Implementing these penalties, as proposed in the bill, is clearly an important step in the development of an effective railway safety regime with sufficient scope and strength to ensure that our railways are safe and that they remain safe for the long term as the rail industry continues to evolve and to grow.

I began today with basic principles: that government should only do what only government can do. Public safety is an example of one of the things that only government can enforce. That is why we are creating a legislative framework in which free enterprise can operate in a manner that is safe, efficient and fair for the Canadian people.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Bourassa and on behalf of my party, I would like to start by commending the work that was done in the other chamber. Obviously, we all remember that this bill is a revival of former Bill C-33 and that a good job was done with the amendments. People did a great job.

At the time, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville was on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the work done there was quite outstanding. Since the work was well done and everyone decided to work together to ensure everyone's safety, the bill deserves our support today. We most definitely have to send it to committee as soon as possible in order to look into certain aspects and see if we have to make some improvements.

In the other chamber, Senator Mercer, together with the other hon. senators—from both the government side and our side—have already done a thorough job. All players had a chance to speak their minds. We realize that there is already a lot of support and a series of amendments has been moved as a result of the work accomplished on the former bill.

It is only fair to say that we must support this bill and find the proper way to do so. Obviously, pulling on a flower does not make it grow faster. However, we certainly want to make sure that things will be done as quickly as possible. The bill has to be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities so that we can do a proper job and quickly address the issue to determine whether adjustments have to be made. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario will agree with me in saying that Bill S-4 is a good bill and that, as a result, we should support it, given the significant work that was done in the other chamber.

I want to explain to the thousands of television viewers watching us today what Bill S-4 is all about. It is intended, of course, to amend the Railway Safety Act, specifically to improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport, to strengthen that department’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines, to enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive who is accountable for safety—and the word accountable is important here—and to implement a confidential non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies. It also seeks to clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with respect to railway matters.

It is important that, as the representative of the people, the minister have those powers and, clearly, the regulation-making powers must be expanded, including those dealing with environmental management. The process for rule making by railway companies must also be clarified.

What I find interesting about this approach is that, for the most part, all partners support this bill. The unions, as well as the Railway Association of Canada, are generally in favour of this legislation. Naturally, the RAC is not in a position to say at this time if the industry will support the bill without reservation because, after appearing twice before the parliamentary committee that studied Bill S-4 and Bill S-33—the predecessor to the bill we are studying today—the RAC had proposed seven amendments to improve safety, all of which were rejected.

It is fair to say that our system is quite safe, but we need to make the necessary changes to make it safer. Naturally, I acknowledge my colleague from Burlington, who had that tragic accident in his riding. We will let the investigation take its course, but we must ensure that we develop the necessary tools to guarantee safety.

I truly believe in rail transportation. We all know that this country has been built on that vision. It is a great way to bridge rural and urban Canada. However, I think we need to provide better tools to make sure that citizens from coast to coast to coast feel that they are first-class citizens with that mode of transportation. Bill S-4 would provide that and some problems would be prevented.

Let us take a look at infrastructure. Certain areas may have some situations, such as the one my colleague for Trinity—Spadina spoke about in eastern Quebec. Of course, we would promote specific programs on infrastructure to make sure that we have the capacity for the track to be accurate. We must make sure we are providing the service which, in certain areas, is an essential service. It is important that we take a look at that.

We would not play with security. At times it might be used in partisan ways, such as on Bill C-10, but for the railway I think it is a non-partisan issue. I think that all sides believe in security.

However, this bill needs to be quickly sent to committee. I think that we need to look further at the bill. My colleague suggested that the Canadian Urban Transit Association, in approaching the committee, was concerned about how the provisions of the bill would affect the operation of light rail transit that operates on federally regulated rail lines. There are only a few examples of this in the country. For example, the Lakeshore line of GO Transit moves an incredibly large number of people each day. Therefore, the committee concerns must be twofold.

First, overly large increases to the administrative burden on authorities like GO Transit would negatively impact ridership and fares. However, considering the volume of riders and the number of level crossings on the Lakeshore line, it is also important that the Government of Canada ensure that these trains operate with the highest level of safety possible.

Second, the Railway Association of Canada made a request that the bill be amended by adding to subclause 24(1) the following:

Respecting notices to be given to railways regarding any proposed local plan of subdivision or zoning by-law or proposed amendment thereof in respect of land that is located within 300 meters of a line of railway or railway yard.

This amendment would require municipalities to notify and consult the railway if they made any zoning amendments on land within 300 metres of a railway or railway yard. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was understandably concerned about this measure. At the heart of its concern was this requirement for communities to inform railways of changes from adjacent land to proximate land. As it was explained to the committee, municipalities across Canada already inform railways when their zoning plans affect land adjacent to the railway's right of way.

The FCM's objection to this change was twofold. Primarily there is a concern that the 300 metre limit is overly burdensome on municipalities that already inform railways of land use changes on property adjacent to the rail line. There is also a concern about the federal government mandating a provision that directly interferes with how provinces legislate municipal power and zoning laws. As these laws and powers vary drastically across the provinces, it would be inappropriate for the federal government to simply override them all. It could also create needless red tape for the local transit association.

These are just some of the issues that the transport committee could consider taking up at its hearings. However, I think everyone has done a great job in the other chamber.

I believe it is a good idea to pass this bill very quickly in order to provide the minister and the department with the necessary authority to enact regulations, and to ensure better safety and greater consistency of the regulations. Partners must be heard quickly one last time by the Standing Committee on Transport to ensure, as we all wish, better safety for all Canadians.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. She has been a strong and relentless voice for building safety and infrastructure in the rail industry. I also congratulate the Minister of Transport on Bill S-4. It is a good effort. It is good to see parties working together to build this good legislation.

Previous Conservative and Liberal governments have allowed or even caused the decline and degradation of Canadian freight and passenger rail. For example, in my riding we have lost passenger rail on the north shore of Lake Superior through Thunder Bay.

I have a provocative question for the member for Trinity—Spadina. How can we work effectively with the Conservatives to build rail infrastructure across Canada, or will we have to wait until we form government in four years?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, railways can be competitive and highly successful commercially. CN, for example, made billions of dollars last year. It takes the right government mindset and political will.

Countries in Europe and Asia, and lately even the United States, are showing us how efficient, fast and profitable railway passenger services can be. Instead of high-speed trains that run on their tracks, Canadians are stuck with slow diesel trains that roll on bumpy tracks that are owned by the monopolized CN and CP Rail. It is their tracks, their train-controlled centres and their trains that take precedence over any passenger train, a situation unheard of in countries like France or China.

Via Rail is forced to lease essentially all its tracks, as it owns close to none of them. By allowing the big private rail companies to abandon Canadian rail lines, both the passenger and freight customers, they are freer than ever to expand elsewhere, which means the lucrative U.S. market. CN has gobbled up various railway companies with its network stretching all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. CPR has made similar moves, purchasing thousands of kilometres of tracks in the United States to the tune of several billion dollars. No wonder Canadians are left behind.

The lack of attention from both large rail companies results in underserved rural areas with farmers who cannot ship their agricultural products, logging and mining companies that become uncompetitive as they cannot ship on time and car manufacturers whose sophisticated supply systems are upended by dismal rail services.

I have met many of the farm lobbying groups, whether it is Pulse Canada, Canadian Soybean or the wheat farmers. They have all said that they are losing millions of dollars because of unreliable rail service. Unfortunately the Conservative government has only made token efforts so far to address these issues.

To make the situation worse, passengers in Canada are left out in the cold as well. The government is slashing funding to VIA Rail by $200 million this year, according to its estimates. Crucial investment in overhauling aging cars and engines, as well as safety upgrades, cannot be made. The combined neglect of railway companies and the federal government has reached an unprecedented level of under-investment across the country.

A crucial link from Vancouver Island, and my colleagues know this very well, was recently shut down as it had become unsafe after years of pent-up maintenance. Likewise, the rail connection between Montreal and the Gaspé has been severed, leaving passengers stranded and a whole region cut off after 150 years of rail history.

The overall service levels have decreased so much that various train connections in 2012 are slower than they were in the early 1990s. The connecting Winnipeg-Churchill train has seen its schedule lengthened by about five hours since 2008. The Halifax-Montreal train is now almost three hours slower than it was in 1993. Not surprisingly, ridership has gone down from 279,000 in 1996 to 127,000 in 2010, which is more than half.

Even the service on the connection between Canada's two largest cities, Montreal and Toronto, is slower than it was in 1992. Back then the train ride was just below four hours. Now it takes close to five hours.

The current state of Canada's railways is made even harder because of government policies that favour air and road travel over trail. For the financial year of 2009-10, all levels of government, taken together, spent $1.2 billion on subsidizing air travel. This number is more than twice the amount that was spent in 2001-02. Likewise, government support for marine transportation increased by 90% over the same time span, now reaching $1.8 billion.

What about roads? They are our government's pet projects. All levels of government spend close to $30 billion a year on highways and roads. Again, this amount has more than doubled since 2001.

Judging by the public discourse, transit is the ugly duckling when it comes to government support, but not quite. With almost $6 billion in government support, that is still light years away from passenger rail services. The rail service is treated as an afterthought. This is evidenced by the dismal amount of $430 million in government spending in 2009 and 2010. That is only a small increase of 12% over the 2001 levels, barely enough to keep up with inflation.

The new federal budget will put an X through that number, making it even lower, and more than a third of VIA Rail support is expected to be chopped, along with cuts to overall rail safety programs. Without a doubt, rail transport needs to be put on the national agenda again, not just for economic reasons but also to improve the safety and give Canadians the confidence they need when they make their travel arrangements.

As the transport critic, I welcome Bill S-4 and the step forward that it represents for Canada's rail safety. I am joined in my appreciation of the safer railways act by my New Democrat colleagues. However, it can be argued that it has taken far too long to get this bill to the current stage. By the time the bill receives royal assent, it will be over five years since an independent panel made 56 recommendations to Transport Canada on how to make our railways safer. It is in the interest of all Canadians to make the bill a reality as soon as possible.

The tragic VIA Rail collision in Burlington last month shows that we need to do more to prevent future derailments, fatalities and injuries. It is time for the Conservative government to take action and satisfy long-standing demands from the independent experts on the Transportation Safety Board. The agency has been calling for voice recorders on locomotives since 2003 and they are still not in place. More talk is not what we need; it is action that we want. Likewise, the Transportation Safety Board has been calling for automatic safety back-up measures, in the case of equipment failure or human error, to prevent tragic accidents.

In 2008 the United States acted after a horrendous crash in California. By making positive train control mandatory, the U.S. is ensuring that an automatic safety system is in place, just like the one the Transportation Safety Board has been requesting for more than 10 years. Seeing the life-saving value of this technology, the experts on the board have refined the cause and have specifically demanded the introduction of mandatory positive train control in Canada since 2010.

The New Democrats urge the Conservative government to heed the Transportation Safety Board's request to make our railways safer for passengers and rail workers alike. To enable VIA Rail to make its operations safer and to improve service levels, we also call on the federal government to reverse its funding cuts. Only by giving VIA Rail the financial resources that it needs, can we increase safety levels and restore confidence of Canadian confidence in rail travel.

Our demands are clear. We need Bill S-4 to pass. We want to ensure the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation for voice recorders and positive train controls are implemented as soon as possible. We have to make passenger rail services safe and reliable again by restoring VIA Rail's funding. The time to act is now. By taking those measures, we continue to build on the legacy that was accomplished by our predecessors. Without the vision of this honourable House, that famous last spike would not have been driven into the transcontinental railway in 1885. Let us have similar foresight in making railways a national priority again.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and for the improvements in railway safety represented in Bill S-4.

I would like to ask him if we could take it further. I certainly agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, about how tragic it is when rail lines are not making their way to city centres the way they should and we are losing service across the country.

As a frequent VIA passenger myself, I have noticed that there are often rail delays, which then lead to the crews trying to make up with speed later on, and we know that can have tragic consequences.

A lot of this is due to the fact that the railway sidings are shorter now than the average length of a freight train, and since passenger rail must lease space and rely on freight for its signalling and safety, we have conflicts.

Is there anything the minister thinks can be done to invest in longer sidings and better transit connections so there is better sharing of the rails between passenger and freight in the interests of safety?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to you today for second reading Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

I believe this is the first time I have ever had the honour of presenting a bill that is as finely crafted, broadly applauded and widely supported as Bill S-4.

This legislation has been in development for more than three years, with constant consultation and input from all levels of government, industry and labour stakeholders. It has also been commented on by witnesses, dissected clause by clause by standing committees on two separate occasions, and approved unanimously by all parties both times.

Clearly, the debate is over. It is now time to pass this important bill as quickly as possible to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Bill S-4 is clearly a progressive and forward-looking bill, and the amendments it contains will mean better safety for Canadians and Canadian communities, better protection for our fragile environment, and a stronger Canadian rail industry in a stronger national economy.

All of these things are priorities for our government, and I believe that they are priorities for all members in the House.

There is nothing more important than the safety and prosperity of Canadians.

As many members may know, the bill has quite a bit of history. For many years, the safety of Canada's federal railways was regulated under the Railway Act, which originated at the turn of the century when Canada's railway system was rapidly expanding. The Railway Act was designed for an older era. At that time, much of the national rail system was under construction to open up new territories to encourage settlement.

In 1989, the Railway Act was replaced by the Railway Safety Act, which was designed to achieve the objectives of the national transportation policy relating to the safety of railway operations and to address the many changes that had taken place in the rail transportation industry in recent years. The Railway Safety Act gave direct jurisdiction over safety matters to the Minister of Transport, to be administered by Transport Canada where the responsibility for other federally regulated modes of transportation resides.

Following a review of the Railway Safety Act in 1994, the act was amended in 1999 to further improve the legislation and to make the railway system even safer. Those amendments were designed to fully modernize the legislative and regulatory framework of Canada's rail transportation system. They were also designed to make railway companies more responsible for managing their operations safely and to give the general public and interested parties a greater say on issues of railway safety.

These changes were commendable, but there was a problem. A number of high-profile train derailments in 2005 and 2006 across the country—in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and in other provinces—resulted in fatalities, serious injuries, significant environmental damage and negative economic impacts for railways and communities.

These tragic accidents caused concern for the public and the government and focused national attention on rail safety. They also provided the impetus, in part, for the Minister of Transport to launch a full review of the Railway Safety Act in 2007. The objective of the review was to identify possible gaps in the act and to make recommendations to further strengthen the regulatory regime.

The seriousness of those derailments also provided the incentive for the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to begin its own railway safety study. The Railway Safety Act review was led by an independent panel of experts who commissioned research and held extensive public consultations across the country. Interest in the consultations was high and all key stakeholders participated, including railway companies and associations, labour organizations, national associations, other levels of government, municipalities and the public.

The panel's final report, “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”, was tabled in the House by the Minister of Transport in March 2008. In the report, the panellists noted that although the Railway Safety Act and its principles are fundamentally sound, more work is needed and a number of legislative improvements are required. The report contained 56 recommendations to improve railway safety in Canada.

The standing committee, which also conducted extensive stakeholder consultations, accepted the panel's recommendations and tabled its own report in the House in May 2008. The committee's report also made 14 recommendations, many of which built on those that came from the Railway Safety Act review.

The authors of both reports identified the main areas that required improvement and recommended increasing Transport Canada's resources in order to increase its ability to monitor compliance and enforce the legislation and take new rail safety initiatives.

Transport Canada agrees with the recommendations made in both reports and has taken steps to implement them through a variety of government-industry-union initiatives and through these proposed legislative amendments to the Railway Safety Act, which are required to address key recommendations and enable many safety initiatives.

In fact, Transport Canada took action to address these concerns almost immediately after receiving them.

In March 2008, following the publication of the report on the review of the Railway Safety Act, we established the Advisory Council on Railway Safety in order to get the process of consultation started again and to consider future directions in railway safety, the development of rules, regulation, policies and other matters of concern. The advisory council is made up of representatives of the main stakeholder groups, including Transport Canada, railway companies such as CN, CP and VIA, short line and commuter rail companies, the Railway Association of Canada, shippers, suppliers, other levels of government, and unions. The council has met three or four times per year since it was established, in order to work collaboratively on the strategic matters of railway safety that were raised in the report.

Additionally, working with the railways and the major unions, Transport Canada has established a steering committee, made up of representatives of Transport Canada, the industry and the unions, to oversee the development of action plans for implementing the recommendations in the report on the Railway Safety Act review and the report on the study conducted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The committee has been supported by six technical working groups in addressing ways in which to implement the recommendations of concern not only to the regulatory body, but also to the industry and the unions, and in keeping the ACRS informed of their progress.

These joint technical working groups included teams devoted to the rule making process, safety management systems, information collection and analysis, proximity and operations, environment and new safety technologies. Together, those groups were assigned 24 recommendations by the steering committee. All of them have completed their work. Their recommendations have been, or are being, implemented. In addition to the work of these groups, Transport Canada implemented eight internal recommendations. Industry implemented three recommendations that pertained to the companies. The final 21 recommendations are related to legislative changes which we are discussing today. In short, these amendments to the Railway Safety Act are the final component of a well-orchestrated and well-funded drive to make our railways safer.

In budget 2009, the government affirmed its commitment to a safe, reliable transportation system by earmarking $72 million over five years to implement important rail safety measures and legislative initiatives. These amendments to the Railway Safety Act that we see before us today are the fruit of that commitment. This initiative also shows how important these amendments are to the government, and it reflects the government's commitment to seeing these amendments implemented as soon as possible so that Canada can reap the benefits from them immediately.

In March 2010, the government introduced Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act. It contained essentially the same range of changes as the bill before us today does. Bill C-33, which all the parties in the House supported, was considered in detail by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and then approved unanimously by all hon. members after some minor changes were made.

Unfortunately, Bill C-33 died on the order paper after many consultations, analyses and a very favourable reception, because the opposition chose an unnecessary election over the safety of Canadians. Knowing how important these essential amendments are with regard to safety, we reintroduced the same bill in the Senate, with the changes that everyone had agreed on.

Since then, a number of witnesses representing stakeholders have expressed their views and the bill has been reviewed and discussed at length in the standing committee of the other place. I am very pleased to say that the Senate committee, like ours, unanimously approved the bill with a slight change that was essentially administrative in nature.

There is clearly a lot of support for this bill from all parties. There have been thorough consultations over several years. The bill has been agreed upon in its various formats by all key industry stakeholders, as well as members of both the House and the other place. It is our responsibility to end this long debate and expedite the passage of this important legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. The safer railways act is acknowledged as the blueprint for the future of rail safety in this country. It would directly address the safety challenges that have been identified by two national reviews with innovative legislative solutions that would help make our railways and communities safer for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to highlight some of the key amendments included in Bill S-4. Each one is an important part of a comprehensive safety package.

In accordance with the recommendations arising from the Railway Safety Act review and the study by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the amendments under review will improve Transport Canada's oversight capacity by conferring on the Governor in Council the authority to require railway companies to obtain a railway operating certificate, attesting that they have met basic safety requirements, before commencing their activities.

The operating certificate, which will demonstrate that the company complies with baseline safety requirements, will apply to all railways under federal jurisdiction. Existing companies will have a two-year period from the coming into force of the amendments under review in which to meet the requirements for the certificate.

The amendments in Bill S-4 will also strengthen Transport Canada’s enforcement capacity in order to ensure better railway company compliance with safety rules and regulations. To that end, the department will apply monetary penalties to improve rail safety. The maximum amount of the penalties will be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation.

The new act will also strengthen Transport Canada’s enforcement powers by increasing fines to levels consistent with those for other modes of transportation. Maximum fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would be $1 million for a corporation and $50,000 for an individual. Maximum fines on summary conviction for contravention of the act would be $500,000 for a corporation and $25,000 for an individual.

One of the most important benefits of Bill S-4 is the increased focus on the importance of safety management systems. As members may know, a safety management system is a formal framework for integrating safety into day-to-day railway operations. During the Railway Safety Act review, stakeholders were supportive of the SMS approach to safety, but some felt that improvements were required before SMS could be considered fully implemented.

The amendments we are discussing today address those concerns. For example, under Bill S-4 all railway companies would be required to appoint an accountable executive responsible for all matters of safety. The legislation would also require all railway companies to implement whistleblower protection so that employees felt encouraged to report safety violations without fear of reprimand.

Railway companies would also be required, through the auditing process, to demonstrate that they continuously manage risks related to safety matters through the use of safety management systems. Changes like these would encourage the growth of a true culture of safety at both the corporate and operating levels of railway companies.

I noted earlier that the Senate committee had unanimously approved this bill with one minor change related to safety reporting. Although this bill originally called for the development of a new safety reporting process with the Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada, all parties agreed that a reporting system already exists—the Transportation Safety Board—so that clause was struck. The rest, as mentioned, was agreed on unchanged.

The Safer Railways Act is clearly a step forward in terms of oversight, enforcement and the implementation of a safety system in the industry. It also advances safety in the administrative area by clarifying the authority and responsibilities of the minister in respect of railway matters. For example, these amendments will clarify that the legislation applies to all companies operating on federal track and will ensure that those companies are subject to the same high safety standards.

Bill S-4 is about safety. It is also about protecting our environment. By expanding regulation-making authorities, this legislation will allow Transport Canada to request an environmental management plan from all railways for federal review.

It will also allow a requirement for increased environmental information collection and railway equipment labelling related to emissions. These amendments plus an additional amendment to provide regulatory authority to control and prevent fires on railway rights-of-way are critical to strengthening environmental protection in the industry.

And that is what the amendments to Bill S-4 are basically all about: better oversight tools to ensure safety; enhanced safety management systems to build a stronger rail safety culture; and additional authority to help protect our environment from unnecessary degradation.

It is hard to argue with the importance of these amendments. Railways are an integral part of our infrastructure now, and they will be so in the future. We need them to be strong. We need them to be dependable. And we need them to be safe. All Canadians can benefit from that.

We believe that these amendments to the Railway Safety Act are essential and timely. Bill S-4 modernizes the Railway Safety Act to reflect the requirements of a growing and increasingly complex rail industry, and I believe that we can all agree to the important safety amendments contained in this bill both quickly and unanimously.

The bill is a step forward for Canadians, for safety and for the rail industry. With the agreement of the members today, we can take these steps together today, for a safe, reliable and economically viable freight and passenger railway system in Canada. The bill has been extensively debated over several years and has received wide support. I recommend that it be submitted to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for further discussion.

I urge all hon. members to give this important bill their unanimous support.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with the encouragement and support of the opposition House leader, I will continue to try to engage all the House leaders and other parties in an effort to work on consensus approaches as to scheduling matters. I will make the observation that for a dance to work everyone has to be dancing. Therefore, I will continue to make my best efforts.

This afternoon, we will continue debating the opposition day motion from the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

Tomorrow we will conclude debate on the amendments coming from the other place, on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. We will have our final vote on this important legislation on Monday night. Bill C-10 will pass a number of important proposals that our government has put forward over the last five years that stand up for victims and for making our communities safer. I might add that Monday will be the 94th sitting day of the House, which means our government will have easily met our election commitment to make this bill law.

Also on Monday, the House will resume debate on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. We will return to this debate on Thursday and Friday.

Tuesday will begin with Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act. This is an important bill that was nearly passed before the opposition forced an election last year. I hope we will see the debate conclude sometime Tuesday.

If we have extra time on Tuesday, the House will take up a second piece of legislation, Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Wednesday shall be the seventh and final allotted day of the supply cycle. I might correct my friend that I do not think this has ever been designated in the House. We will debate a motion from the New Democratic Party and end the afternoon with two appropriations bills from the President of the Treasury Board.

Transportation Safety

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of the victims of the tragic accident that happened some days ago.

Rail security is very important to our government, which is why we have taken strong action and delivered results.

Once Bill S-4 is adopted, we will have implemented 83% of the recommendations from the Rail Safety Act review panel, and our actions helped to decrease the numbers of rail accidents in 2007.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this has been discussed in the past, but as the member knows, that involves many partners, including unions and managers of rail companies, who will continue these discussions because it was tasked to have further discussions. We are very close to an agreement and to adopting a piece of legislation.

I would like to remind my colleague that for her party an opportunistic election was more important than ensuring the safety of hard-working Canadians. The previous version of Bill S-4, Bill C-33, died on the order paper on March 21, 2011. It went through first reading, second reading, committee stage and was reported to the House. We were so close.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we followed the implementation of this matter in the U.S.A., but have tasked the Advisory Council on Rail Safety on an urgent basis to look again into the matter of installing voice recorders in locomotive cabs.

Once Bill S-4, which will be very well supported, is adopted, we will have implemented 83% of the recommendations made by the review panel on the Railway Safety Act and 100% of the recommendations of the committee of which the member is part.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why today we are debating a free trade agreement between Panama and Canada. I wish I were standing here debating Bill S-4, the safer railways act, for example. That is a high priority for me.

The bill we are discussing would allow the Conservatives to be soft on crime and on criminals. How would the bill allow the Conservatives to do that? It would allow criminals to hide money obtained through illegal means in the tax haven of Panama. In fact, the Conservatives do not really want to track this money from illegal activities. They have no problem doing a trade deal with Panama even though Panama refused to sign the tax information exchange agreement which would disallow criminals from hiding their money in that country.

Right now there is absolutely no transparency. In a small country like Panama, there are 400,000 corporations, many of which are there just to hide their illegal funds. One might ask what kind of illegal activities those corporations in Panama are involved in. The country is used to launder drug money. It is used to divert aid. It is used to bribe the government. It is used to fund paramilitary groups. It is used to defraud shareholders. It is used to embezzle public funds. It is used for human trafficking. It is used to trade in illegal arms. Those criminal activities are intolerable and the people involved in them should be punished.

However, this trade deal would allow criminals not only to avoid taxes, but to also launder money and hide their funds. In fact, Panama is known as a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian traffickers' money laundering activities according to the U.S. Department of Justice and other entities. Let me read a memo from the U.S. Embassy in Panama that was revealed by WikiLeaks:

Along with its sophisticated banking services, Panama remains an environment conducive to laundering the proceeds from criminal activity and creates a vulnerability to terrorist financing.

These are the words of the U.S. Embassy, not of the NDP. The memo indicates:

The money laundering process of: placement (putting money into a legitimate financial institution), layering (distancing the money from its origin) and integration (causing the money to re-enter the economy in legitimate-looking form) is perfectly replicated in Panama.

My gosh. Placement, layering and integration; this is how criminals hide their money in Panama. Not just in that memo from 2006, but in 2009 a U.S. Embassy cable on Panama reported Panama's failure to report Colombian kingpin David Murcia Guzman's laundering of drug money. It is incredible. These criminals are using the drug money they have made from selling drugs and wrecking people's lives. They are able to take the money made from doing drug deals and hide it in Panama.

The Conservatives have said that is okay. They are going to turn a blind eye to it and will not even ask about who is behind the corporations. They do not want to know what kind of people are hiding money. They do not want to know about the illegal activities. They do not think it is up to them. They will see no evil and speak no evil, because it is another country. They are going to wash their hands of it and allow the criminals to continue their activities. That is inexcusable.

How would the trade deal make it even worse? The Canada-Panama trade deal would worsen the tax haven problems. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices would encourage this secrecy and allow even more offshore tax dodging.

There is reason to believe that the trade deal would not only increase tax haven abuses, but it would also make fighting them that much harder. How would that happen? For example, even if we could persuade the government to put in place legislation giving Panama a deadline to clean up its act or face sanctions, and we tell the Canadian banks that they are restricted from transferring money to their affiliates, article 9.10 of this trade deal says that each party shall permit transfers relating to a covered investment to be made freely and without delay into and out of its territory.

What does that mean? It means speeding up the transfer of illegal funds. It means giving criminals more freedom to cheat. It means making sure that they can hide their funds without any barriers. Moreover, chapter 9 and chapter 12 of the FTA have non-discriminatory clauses that protect Panama's registered investors. That means protecting criminals from Canadians or anyone going after them.

Article 12.06 states that Canada will always allow Canadians to purchase financial services from banks operating in Panama.

This is the kind of deal that we are debating.

What is a tax haven? It means people do not have to pay any tax or very little tax on relevant income. They do not have to provide information about their income. There is a lack of transparency. There is no substantial activity by the taxpayers in that jurisdiction. That is the OECD's definition of a tax haven. Panama fits the criteria of this definition to a t. That is what it is known for.

Why are we doing a trade deal with that country? I looked at how much trade Panama is doing with Canada. I noticed that it is less than 1%. It is not a major trading partner for Canada.

Two-way merchandising trade between the two countries reached only $149 million in 2008 and is less than 1%. Therefore, why this rush for trade with Panama? I would understand if we wanted to discuss trade with China. There is a big market there. It is not as if Panama is a big country. It is well known as a tax haven.

This trade deal is being negotiated in record time without any consultations. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the government does not want people to rise up and say that to shelter criminals and be soft on crime is not the way to go. Perhaps that is why we are debating this bill.

Panama is well known for allowing people who are close to bankruptcy to take their cash and assets to an anonymous offshore company so that they do not have to pay their creditors. They rack up a big bill and owe a lot of people a lot of money, so they take their assets and hide it in a corporation in Panama. No wonder they have tens of thousands of these corporations functioning very well.

Panama is also known for allowing people to transfer profit to these offshore centres. In fact, in 2008, Goldman Sachs paid a federal tax rate of 1%. This was before it collapsed. It would have paid 35% in the U.S., but it only ended up paying 1% because it was able to move a lot of its money to Panama.

Global Financial Integrity estimates that there is $1.2 trillion in tax havens in secret jurisdictions around the world. One-third of that money, 33%, is money that comes from the proceeds of crime. As well, 3% of that money comes from corruption. That is $335 billion of criminal funds hiding in tax havens around the world. Because of these tax havens, one might ask how much tax is not being paid to governments such as the Canadian government. In total, governments around the world are losing $165 billion worth of taxes, which could go to AIDS, helping people in poverty, providing drugs for kids in Africa, providing education for women, creating jobs or building infrastructure around the world, but is not because of many tax havens, such as the ones in Panama.

Panama is also famous for the registration of ships. It is number one for flags of convenience. They could be Canadian ships. Some of us may recall that we have a famous person who has these ships that do not fly Canadian flags. Rather, they fly flags of convenience.

Do members know how many ships are registered in Panama? Eight thousand ships are registered there so they do not have to pay much tax. I would rather see some of these ships, those that are owned by Canadians and registered in Canada, pay Canadian taxes so we could take some of that money and provide health care for seniors, for example. There are lots of ways one could use the funds from tax avoiders.

Some of the 8,000 ships that are registered there, just registered but not really there, just fly the flag of convenience. Some of these ships do have crew members from Panama. What kind of people are they? Forty per cent of them are migrant Chinese workers who earn less than $3,000 per year. As a result of registration in Panama, illegal fishing vessels can avoid fisheries regulations and controls. Some of these fishing vessels can fish illegally using methods that are prohibited by international laws. Since they hide in Panama and fly flags of convenience, they do not have to be regulated. I focus mostly on these illegal activities.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, in a speech made at the end of the G20 conference in Switzerland in November of last year, named Panama as one of the countries with serious problems. He said that countries that remain tax havens would be shunned by the international community.

Shunned by the international community, except Canada perhaps, because the Canadian Conservative government wants to be good friends with Panama. It does not want to curb these illegal activities. It does not want to understand or learn about the illegal arms groups that use Panama for drug trafficking. The government does not want to learn about the funds generated from illegal activities that are being laundered through banks, real estate developments and various corporations.

Panama is a country of extremes. It is a country of about 3.4 million people and yet 40% of the people living in Panama are poor and 27% of those folks, close to three out of ten, are extremely poor. The rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in the indigenous population. Even though the country has endured extensive structural adjustments, liberalization and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population. I have no doubt that when this trade deal passes through the House of Commons it will not help four out of ten people in Panama and lift them out of poverty. It will help criminals, drug dealers, arms traders, people involved in extreme illegal activities and fraudsters.

Safer Railways Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.