Evidence of meeting #48 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Did you read the document submitted to us by the unions last Thursday? Did you get a copy?
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
You saw that they suggested four amendments. What do you think of them?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
I don't have them in front of me.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
You answered regarding the one that dealt in part with fatigue. I can understand that this isn't to your liking.
How should we feel about the amendments submitted by the unions?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
I'll try to do this from memory because I don't have the document in front of me. If my memory serves me correctly, there was one recommendation with regard to a formal reporting system put into the legislation to the government. I think we've spoken about that a number of times around the table.
Our strong view is that it's not necessary. If our employees want to speak to people in the government, they can do so now. We don't see any requirement for that in the legislation, and we would prefer, as we said earlier, that reporting systems be in the context of the SMS system, not outside the SMS system.
So we're not comfortable with that one. I think we've spoken to fatigue. I'm just trying to remember the other two they raised. Can you remind me of them?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Well, I'd be pleased to finish that off, because that's what I was going to raise as well. We've had two sets of witnesses now, and we've got quite a number of amendments to this bill that have been proposed. One of them is to say that rail traffic control of Canadian operations must be located in Canada. Do you have any problems with that?
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
No, because that's how it is. Ask my colleagues to speak to it.
4:55 p.m.
Chief Safety and Sustainability Officer, Canadian National Railway Company
Mr. Bevington, speaking for CN, we have three rail traffic control centres in Canada—Montreal, Toronto, and Edmonton. We have no plans at this point. It is not under any discussion to move.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Safety, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Pacific Railway
CP has the same position. We have rail traffic control centres in Calgary and Montreal and no intention or plans to relocate them anywhere.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Well, I haven't had a chance to get into the subject of the people moving onto your line. You talked about the crossings, of course, but the other thing is people accessing your property inappropriately, and the death toll there is very high. Is there anything in this bill that would help that?
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
Not in a very specific sense, but again, anything we can do to improve public awareness, these sorts of things, is a step in the right direction, particularly with younger people. You probably heard about that unbelievable thing out in Saskatoon last week, where this guy who was walking with earphones on got hit by a train and got up and walked away. Well, my God. That's the kind of thing we see happening with young people in particular.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you. Yes, I want to get back to my first question and comment from my previous series of questions, in particular in relation to the rail freight service review that's coming down. And I know you guys are all excited about it. It's going to be pretty exciting.
I mentioned earlier that we had three stellar Canadians on that particular review, making recommendations. What I'm interested in is that we heard earlier that there might be competing interests between service and safety. At least there were some questions that went that way, and I just want to be assured by you gentlemen that there isn't a competing interest between them. You can both have good service—and congratulations, I think you've actually picked up your service in relation to wheat farmers across the country. Congratulations. It was something like a 90% on-time delivery of cars. I was very impressed with it when I saw it. I remember that.
But with this new service review that's obviously coming forward, do you see any competing interests with its providing better service and at the same time providing better safety? They don't have to be competing interests. They actually can go together and work at the same time, and I'd like to hear a few comments on that.
4:55 p.m.
Chief Safety and Sustainability Officer, Canadian National Railway Company
Speaking for CN, we absolutely agree with that view. In fact, in addition to a moral, legal, and ethical responsibility to operate safely at all times, it's only good business, and we run a very asset-lean model. In order to provide the kind of service we have to provide to grow our business successfully and sustainably, we have to operate safely. So there is no competing interest between safety and service.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Safety, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Pacific Railway
I echo that as well, Mr. Jean. The vision statement that our company has had for many years is “safest, most fluid”, and we believe very firmly that they move together in lockstep. Fewer derailments equals less interruption of service.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
And better service.
I can say without any equivocation that the short lines would subscribe to that. Good safety makes good business.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
I thank our witnesses for being here today. I do know it was on short notice, so I appreciate your making the time, and we look forward to the final results. Thank you again.
We're going to take a short, two-minute recess and then come back and deal with motions. Mr. Bevington has a motion, and then Mr. McCallum has two motions. So we're going to a two-minute recess.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, and welcome back, everyone.
Before we move to Mr. Bevington's motion, I just want to let you know that we have circulated a calendar to show you the upcoming events, and Bonnie has advised me that she will be contacting your office in regard to the Bombardier visit. We'll ask that you put forward dates, and we're going to put forward dates back to you that you've agreed to. We just need a commitment so that we can move forward with that.
Right now, we have Mr. Bevington with a motion, and I'll ask him to present.
5 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
In this motion I'm calling on the government to provide the committee with copies in both official languages of Canada Post's strategic review document, “Universal Service Obligation and Other Public Policy Analysis - Study 1”.
This study was started up in July 2008 and speaks to the universal service obligations of Canada Post. I think it's a very important study for our consideration, and that information would be valuable for members of the committee to have.