Transport Committee on April 16th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 43.

I know many of you have been away. What I'd like to do is bring you up to speed.

On Friday you received a notice from me basically cancelling today's meeting and then amending it to include as orders of the day committee business. There are two motions we have to deal with.

I feel it's important to tell the committee the logic behind my decision and let the committee voice their opinions and see where we go. I thought it was important that we meet as a whole committee before proceeding, particularly with this rail safety review. I don't think anyone at this table would disagree that it is an important review, which should be done.

I left it as long as I possibly could. When we left here, the labour dispute was tentatively settled, but over the break it became clear that it wasn't agreed upon. We received word mid-week last week that because of the labour dispute, CN and CP, who were scheduled for Wednesday, would be unable to attend.

Hearing that news, I thought, similar to the last time—when Mr. Bell brought this motion forward, there was a labour dispute going on, and I felt we had deferred it, to a point, to try to let it settle and then bring the parties in whom we need to bring in to discuss this important issue—that we might want to defer it.

I leave that decision up to the committee itself, but I think it's important, with the on-going labour dispute, that if we decide to proceed we set up some parameters so that we're not getting involved in the labour issues out there and are not getting involved in the disputes out there among the organizations.

With that said, I apologize. I know that some people left on Friday to come to Ottawa for a Monday presentation before I sent out the notice. I apologize for that inconvenience.

Again, I think it's important that we have a brief or a long discussion, depending on what the committee wants, as to the direction we want to go with this particular review.

I'll leave it at that. As I think I have in the past, I've always sought the will of the committee. I'll start with Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say how disappointed I was with the decision.

I heard your explanation. I found out about this.... My understanding, first of all, is that there were calls made Friday afternoon between one o'clock and two o'clock by individuals interested in this meeting today. There was no indication at that time that there was going to be any change, so the three witnesses had come to Ottawa. One of them has since returned home. To get notification after five o'clock that the meeting had been cancelled was very disrespectful of the witnesses we had. They had to make personal plans to come here and had to prepare themselves for what would be questioning by this committee.

I appreciate your concern about the strike-lockout issue, but clearly with your skill as chair and this committee's general knowledge of procedure, we could have moved ahead and separated out the strike-lockout issue so that there wouldn't have been overlap. It's very easy. If a question crosses the line, the issues we're talking about here right now really relate to the two reports we have--the safety audit and phase one and phase two of the safety management study that was done by Transport Canada--and we need to begin the process. We still have derailments going on, and lives are at risk.

One of the gentlemen who's here today, Mr. Gordon Rhodes, himself had a near-death experience. He was one of the three members on that locomotive that jumped the tracks in Lillooet, and his two co-workers perished. But for the attention of one of his co-workers on another train ahead, he likely may not have been with us here today himself. It's very emotional, very stressful, for him to come here and be prepared to talk about the kinds of problems that he feels ended up happening in that situation, and other situations that he is aware of.

I think what we should do in this case.... We have Mr. Anderson, who is from Sioux Lookout, who I'm aware is in town, and Mr. Gordon Rhodes from British Columbia. John Holliday was here from British Columbia, but has since returned home, because it was advised that this meeting had been cancelled. On Wednesday the CN executives indicated to you that they would not be available. If we want them to be available, I think they would be, or they'd be in contempt if we direct them to be here--subpoena them--but I'm not attempting to agitate or inflame the current labour situation, the strike-lockout situation.

I think we should proceed, and I would suggest as a courtesy that we could proceed today to interview Mr. Rhodes, who is here, and then determine if Mr. Anderson and Mr. Holliday and indeed Mr. Rhodes wanted to come back again. If CN can't be here on Wednesday, then I'd suggest we invite the representatives of, first of all, the workers, and then we may want to ask Transport Canada sequentially, and then have CN come in if we want. I would have preferred to do the workers, CN, and Transport Canada.

I don't want to see this put off. I understand a report is being requested by the minister, but this is this committee's importance. We indicated that rail safety, air safety, and water safety were going to be priorities of this committee at the beginning of this year. We've dealt with issues on air safety, but the number of derailments that continue to carry on is incredible. It is maybe at a reduced rate, but it is still at a level that is far above acceptable to the Canadian public and certainly to this side of the committee, and I suspect most members of this committee are concerned about the safety risks that are involved in communities. We've got hazardous goods travelling through residential communities; we've got the safety of the rail workers themselves, the safety of the public, and safety of the environment, as we saw on the Cheakamus and at Lake Wabamun, situations in which, in the case of the Cheakamus River, the fish stock has been devastated for decades to come.

My suggestion would be that we invite the other two witnesses--and Mr. Rhodes if he wished to come back--to appear on Wednesday, and that we invite Mr. Rhodes right now, since he's here and took the trouble to appear as a witness today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will support Mr. Bell's motion. I would however just like to come back to the explanation you provided. I like working as a team, and that has always been how we have worked on the Standing Committee on Transportation. We have a minority government, and it is not an easy situation.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to follow your train of thought. You said you discussed the situation. However, you did not talk to me. I am one of the committee's vice-chairmen. I was not present for that discussion and I want you to know that.

When Canada Post last appeared before this committee, we chose not to call its representatives at the same time as representatives for the retailers and the unions because negotiations for a collective agreement were ongoing at the time. We had to be careful with regard to the questions we asked.

Today, the Conservative Party, through Mr. Fast, is tabling a motion which will directly affect the collective agreement negotiations, and the cases l before the courts. You tell us that we should not get involved in the issue of security. I don't quite follow your argument. I just want to be sure that we understand each other.

I respected our commitments to Canada Post, I agreed to hearing the witnesses separately and at different times. I even decided not to ask certain questions so as not to affect the cases before the courts or the negotiations between Canada Post and its employees. I have tried to respect all those commitments.

But today, you, the Conservatives, are tabling a motion which completely contradicts what you said at the last meeting. You decided not to hear witnesses on the issue of security because that would lead to problems. I hope we will be able to work out a friendly understanding.

Speaking for myself, I want to get to work, I want us to move forward and I want to respect everyone. But I'm a little disappointed. I did not think you would give us the reason you did today. I thought it was because the witnesses were not available for any number of reasons, and that we found out about this at the last minute. So it's news to me when you say that you discussed the matter and that you would rather not hear from them. That is why I will support Mr. Bell's motion. I would have preferred us to discuss the issue together beforehand, on the phone, and to know the reason for the decision. Otherwise, since we have witnesses here today, I think we should hear from them out of respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have an escalating derailment rate in Canada. Canadians are increasingly concerned. And we have Mr. Rhodes, who's a survivor of one of the most tragic of those derailments. We absolutely need to hear him come before the committee and testify and provide us with that information that may, in the end, help to save lives in the future.

I would like to talk about process for a moment. I support Mr. Bell's motion, obviously. I think this committee has been run effectively. I am involved in other committees that have not been, and I would hope that what happened on Friday won't happen again.

If you feel a need to change the agenda, I would hope that you would consult with the agenda committee. We're only a phone call away. I think it was a surprise and disappointment to all of us--it certainly was for me, coming in on the red-eye flight, as I'd left my office on Friday afternoon for other events and we were involved in the community all weekend--to arrive and find that the agenda had been altered. I would hope that next time you would consult with the agenda committee. I believe you're effective as a chair. I'm disappointed with what happened on Friday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do understand the reason why. I differ somewhat in what my friends have said, because I do understand the reason you were intending to and did in fact cancel today's meeting, especially having regard for what has taken place recently with CN. But I do also support the gist of Mr. Bell's motion, and I think it's a good motion. We have worked well as a committee and we've been very clear, as a government, that we take as job number one the safety and security of Canadians. All of us at this table think that is the most important job we can have, and that's why all of us on this side of the table have supported all measures to go towards that objective.

At the same time, we do have a serious issue in front of us and we do not want to see our economy stalled. We do not want to see any interference in labour negotiations between the company and labour, because nothing is more important. To that end, I'm wondering if Mr. Bell would consider a friendly amendment—and I'm not sure exactly how he would like this worded or if he would consider it—that if any issues are brought forward that refer to a labour issue or to a labour dispute, they would be ruled out of order, either as a question or an answer, by the chair. That is the government's only concern in this.

We should not be put in the middle of a labour dispute or a labour negotiation, and this venue, this committee, and this government and all members of this House should not be used as pawns in any way, shape, or form that would disrupt the labour negotiations that would move people forward towards a resolution. We do not want to be seen as being put in the middle of that. We do not believe that would be in the best interests of Canadians, nor in the best interests of the safety or security of Canadians, and as such that is our concern.

I would suggest a friendly amendment whereby if a question or answer is directed towards a labour issue and not a safety issue, it would be ruled out of order by the chair and be dealt with accordingly, because I do not think that Canadians want us involved in the middle of a dispute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether I'm on the fisheries committee, because I'm being asked to follow red herrings all over the place.

I have a lot of confidence in your ability to chair the committee.

I have two questions. The first one is on process and the second one is on substance. I think you have been unfairly attacked on substance—and I'll explain why in a second—but on process I think it's important for us to re-establish what everybody thought was the process by which we make decisions. It was unfortunate that the decision to change the agenda was made without consulting the other vice-chairs. If we can re-establish that process, I think we're well on our way to solving this, because that process has obviously led to very good relationships on this committee, in which people work collaboratively—all partisanship aside. So let's re-establish that.

The second thing is a question of substance. We're not here to discuss labour issues; the mandate for this particular session was supposed to be rail safety. I have more confidence in you, I think, than some of your colleagues. As chairman, you're going to keep everybody on the issue of rail safety, so we don't need a friendly amendment to put us in that direction. The chair can make sure that witnesses are respected and that questions are respectful.

I think we need to be able to address the issue of rail safety. The minister went on TV, and I think we all know which one, and said he couldn't release an audit because the company wouldn't allow him to do so. Well, here it is; all of us have it now. So for us, it's a question of trying to address all the problems that emanate from that audit. We have three witnesses. Yes, they represent the labour side of the business. In the instance of this witness, Mr. Rhodes, we have one of the survivors of a tragic accident. As for the other two, I guess one is still here, having come from the Sioux Lookout, which is not a quick ride to Ottawa, and the other one is in Montreal.

So I think we need to recognize that these people have come here, or agreed to come here, because they want to address rail safety. When you have 100 plus accidents per year—one every three days—nobody's confused about whether this is a labour or safety management issue.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should go back to what we were supposed to do, and that is to at least hear Mr. Rhodes and continue.

If CN and CP do not want to come before us, too bad. We have a more important issue than their economic bottom line: the safety of people and product going through their system, number one; and number two, the infrastructure of a network that keeps the country together. So we can't be distracted by someone who says perhaps this is going to be a labour-management issue that is under negotiation. Nobody has said we're going to be involved in negotiations.

And by the way, as I said about this being like a fisheries committee, how much more of a red herring can you get when we know that our colleague, the Minister of Labour, has just said he's going to introduce legislation to get people back to work? We knew that already. We knew it about three or four weeks ago, when he said that if they don't reach an agreement, he would be seeking the consent of all parties to introduce that legislation. That's not for discussion here; that's for discussion in the House. The discussion here is rail safety. We have an expert witness, a survivor—and we had others. We should have followed the process and the procedures accordingly, and we shouldn't deviate from doing this today.

There's no need for a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman.

And with all due respect, Mr. Jean, let him do his job. Let the chair do his job, and let's take the opportunity to hear what the witness has to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Jean. I wouldn't want to demean his intentions here. I believe the suggestion that his motion for an amendment is a red herring is wrong.

By the way, I do have confidence in the chair, and I believe all the members on this side of the table do have confidence in you, Mr. Chair. You've done an excellent job in the past, and I know you'll continue to serve us well.

As one of the three MPs from British Columbia, I, along with them, feel perhaps the most direct heat from the derailments that have occurred in British Columbia. Mr. Bell has brought this issue forward in the past. I've spoken about the importance of rail safety and that we need to get to the bottom of this.

I want to make it very clear that on this side of the table we take this issue very seriously. In fact the minister issued what is relatively uncommon, which is a directive to CN to present the government with a revised operational and safety plan. After much ado, the safety plan was submitted. It was found to be unacceptable by the minister. It was referred back to CN. CN then had to go back to the drawing boards and improve on it. It's not like the minister doesn't take this issue seriously.

I can tell you, I for one consider this to be one of the most important issues we're going to grapple with here at this committee. Having said that, though, I'm also keenly aware of the fact that the most recent disruption in rail service in my community alone caused a great deal of angst.

I can give you many examples, one being the poultry and dairy industries that rely on feed. We have three or four feed mills in our community, big ones, because we are the number one farm gate community in British Columbia. So we rely on those feed mills to keep our agricultural industry going. They were within one or two days of being out of feed because the product that comes into the feed mills that's required to make feed just wasn't available.

What was even worse is that even though this product had been ordered by those feed mills, the brokers who deliver the stuff were shopping the stuff around, finding the highest bidder for it. So even though you were the one who ordered it, you may not have got it because someone else bid higher. Those are the problems we're facing, not only in Abbotsford, but right across the country, and that's just in the area of agriculture. So for me it's critical that we get a resolution to this rail dispute.

Now, there was a suggestion that somehow this back-to-work legislation that our government has introduced and will be proceeding with is going to solve that problem. That doesn't deal with negotiations. If we have back-to-work legislation, labour negotiations continue, because there's no contract or collective agreement that's been negotiated at that time. So you need to continue with that.

I want to make sure that as we go through our deliberations here and hear the testimony of witnesses, nothing will occur at this committee that will in any way jeopardize the process of those negotiations. As four Conservative members of this committee, we are, I think, in a way using an olive branch to say that we agree that the testimony of these witnesses is important, but let's make sure that the chair has very clear guidelines that we want to avoid anything that's going to impede the ongoing labour negotiations.

If we can achieve that, I think we're going to have a harmonized approach to this whole safety issue. I don't want to in any way diminish the importance of that issue. I don't want that message to get out there, because for me as a British Columbian, it's very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I have no problem supporting Mr. Jean's motion, which calls on us not to involve ourselves in labour relations. As I said, I think we should not get involved in labour relations. However, CN will have to appear before the committee, because based on what I had originally understood, CN's representatives did not want to appear for lack of time, which was probably due to the fact that managers had to fill in for other workers, and so on. So we will have to make sure that CN representatives appear, with the assurance that they will not be asked questions about the labour conflict.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

People from other areas of the country too are interested in this issue. In the last month we've had two derailments in Ontario: one in northern Ontario, where you end up with sulphuric acid in the aquifer--or hopefully not, but certainly in the streams--and one near Kingston that disrupts the whole system. The concern goes away beyond B.C.

I have no difficulty whatsoever, as a member of the committee, supporting the motion to summon people here from CN and CP. With all due respect, I think they can walk and chew gum at the same time, and they should be here.

I do absolutely respect, Mr. Chairman, your admonition that we not go into the matter of the current labour negotiations in which CN is involved with its unions. However, I do have a difficulty with the notion that is being put forward that there may be matters of rail safety that would involve questions relating to the unions. As we've seen in our studies of Bill C-6, there have been some union positions here about whether we should be doing air inspections, or stopping them, and so forth. I absolutely have no difficulty relying on your judgment in determining when a question or a comment is appropriate or not appropriate and cutting that person off. I'd rather we stick to that and give ourselves the flexibility we need to look at rail safety.

My colleague here, as far as I know, has not put forward a formal motion. He is putting forward a suggestion on how to proceed. I suspect we should just proceed and rely on your good judgment to do it the right way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've got Mr. Jean and Mr. Bell, and then we'll move forward.

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to carry on with what Mr. Fast said. After the last incident regarding rail labour issues, I had an opportunity to meet one of Mr. Fast's constituents. I can assure you that these individuals took this very seriously, and it was close to a tragedy in the interior of British Columbia for those companies. I want to make sure everybody is aware of how important it is not to blow this issue out of proportion or to have an issue that actually comes forward out of this committee that would cause some undue strife and a breakdown of communication or labour negotiations.

I do want to carry on where Mr. Fast left off. A full review of the Railway Safety Act by an independent panel is going on as we speak. It has to have a report back to the minister by this October. In fact, he issued notices, and as Mr. Fast said, he issued orders and another order--the first time ever done by a minister in this particular area--for a safety plan for CN. In fact, I know there might be a slight bit of embarrassment for the Liberal members, because we have seen, since this Conservative government took control of this file, a 25% reduction in main rail incidents. That does speak to the success of this minister and it does speak to the success this minister wants to get to, which is to have the rail industry safe. It's not safe enough yet, but we are moving in the right direction.

I would suggest, finally, that the audit--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe has a point of order.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we were on topic and on the process. I'm looking at the audit report to which Mr. Jean makes some reference, and I'll quote: “The audit team did not find evidence indicating that data from these processes is used on a regular basis to trigger documented risk assessments.” Why? It's because the reportable accident criteria are FRA accident numbers that represent only a small portion of the actual numbers of CN accidents in Canada, because they are American--so let's stay on topic.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of order. Can you be very brief, please?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

In relation to the audit itself that my friend Mr. Volpe alluded to that was being hidden by the government, and we weren't being accountable, I'm certain Mr. Volpe would not suggest that we take proprietary information and information garnered under the Access to Information Act and go against the privacy rights of the company to let it go. It was their decision to let it go; it wasn't up to our government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Please give your final comment.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I haven't heard a response yet from Mr. Bell on whether or not he would be prepared to accept the friendly amendment. If he's not, I would be prepared to move an amendment to his motion nevertheless.