Evidence of meeting #46 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Eastern Region, Canadian National
We'd like to offer an invitation to our facilities. We have a very large terminal in Montreal. We have the largest terminal in our system in Toronto. If any of the committee members or any of the concerned parties here would like to come out and visit and tour those facilities, we would be more than happy to set those opportunities up so you can come and see the workplace for yourselves and see the processes for yourselves.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Gentlemen, we're back to committee business.
We have a motion from Monsieur Laframboise. I have circulated some notes from the subcommittee meeting.
Before I go to Monsieur Laframboise, I want to give Mr. Jean 10 seconds. I think it's of interest to the committee.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
This is in relation to the Quebec bridge. I'm offended that Transport Canada would for years negotiate with CN to get work done, and it would take the Attorney General, through the minister, ordering them to take legal action for them to do anything on the Quebec bridge. I find it insulting, quite bluntly--I wanted to say it in front of them--that they would say such a thing about the Quebec bridge and about safety. There are just so many incidents.
I just wanted to put that on the record.
Can I speak to the motion?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
A point of order. Before we start, I notice that my motion, which was supposed to be deferred to today, as per our agreement last Wednesday, isn't on the agenda. I understand it went to the executive.
It's the only motion I've ever presented. I'd expected that people would take it seriously. Since the Liberal leader has now announced that he is going to be supporting the remailers, it seemed to me that this would be a simple motion for us to pass. Could I have an explanation as to why it's not on the agenda today?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's my understanding that the adjournment was to bring it forward at a future date, and the subcommittee agreed with this agenda. I would certainly be prepared, on your behalf, Mr. Fast, to bring it forward to the subcommittee again. We are going to be meeting very soon.
April 25th, 2007 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Maybe the blues will correct me on this, but my understanding of the motion was that the committee as a whole agreed to defer this in the interest of time so that it would come forward at the top of today's agenda when we discussed committee business. I believe that was the decision of the committee of the whole. I don't understand how the subcommittee can overrule what the committee as a whole has said.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I don't want to get into a debate. I will check the blues with the member and will advise, but in reality, Monsieur Laframboise's motion is the first order on the committee business, and I will deal with that first.
Monsieur Laframboise.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The motion states what it states. You heard the mayor of Montmagny. Until the Transportation Safety Board's report is published, we recommend—this is a recommendation we're making to the government, not an order we're giving it—maintaining the limit of 40 miles an hour. We're recommending that the government do that; we're not ordering it to do it.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Actually, the coincidence of this is that Mr. Blaney, who was, of course, here when the mayor was here, actually came to me with an almost identical motion that he wanted to present to the committee. I went to the minister, and the minister advised me that the government could support this motion. Indeed, it is good to see that Mr. Laframboise is so similar in nature, as far as Mr. Blaney goes, to come forward with the same recommendation and notice.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent motion, particularly since, in view of CN's presentation, I don't have any confidence they'll follow common sense and logic. This sends a very clear signal to CN that we are concerned and that we want regulations put in place to reassure the citizens of Montmagny.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I'd like to recall what was mentioned earlier, that is to say that the speed was not at issue in the derailment. That's a fact, except that, as my colleague said earlier, since houses are located very close to the railway line, when there is a derailment, speed means that the train can reach them and even destroy lives. So we should mainly think about that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think, having heard from everyone, I would ask if the committee is in favour of the motion as presented by Monsieur Laframboise.
(Motion agreed to)
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I do want to address Mr. Fast's comments.
In the minutes of proceedings, the last motion, Mr. Bélanger's...it was agreed that the committee “defer consideration of the motion to a future meeting”. That's the wording. That's not to say that you can't bring it forward.
