Evidence of meeting #55 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
But there are no rules on scheduling.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
No, that's what I say. It will only be good if amendment LIB-3 passes.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Rail Safety Secretariat, Department of Transport
It's amendments NDP-5 and LIB-3, I believe.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Rail Safety Secretariat, Department of Transport
It's clause 37.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Clause 37 would read: “systems must conform, including the principles of fatigue science which must apply to scheduling rules”.
I guess that's why you wanted to define fatigue science. However, there are no scheduling rules in place, and we do not have the authority in the act under section 18 to create a rule on scheduling. The reference to SMS would not be a rule; that's the issue. A “rule” really means...what it is. So that's an issue.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is it an issue we can deal with when we get to the clause, or do we want to address it right now?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, when we get to the clause, I think, is okay. It makes sense.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That's for clause 37.
Okay.
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)
Now we're going to move back to clause 12.
(On clause 12)
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, it may be simple for Mr. Julian to go backwards, but it threw me right off.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes. We're doing clause 12.
Clause 11 was carried, and then Mr. Julian made his intervention and we went back to clause 4. We've addressed that, so now we're moving on with clause 12.
There are no amendments for clause 12.
Shall clause 12 carry?
(Clause 12 agreed to)
I do appreciate all the help of the committee members.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
(On clause 13)
We have amendment NDP-2, on page 8 in your package.
Mr. Julian.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What this would do is simply add that in making regulations around level crossings under subsection 18(2), “the Governor in Council shall take into account, as a primary consideration, the safety of the public and personnel.”
I'm just speaking on behalf of Mr. Bevington, our transport critic. He mentions that there continues to be an issue around level crossings and ease of access across railway tracks. He references the railway safety report, Stronger Ties, saying that crossing accidents comprised 23.6% of total accidents in 2006 and that since 2001 an average of 84 people have been killed or seriously injured annually as a result of crossing accidents.
So this would make sure that primary consideration is the safety of the public.
On behalf of Mr. Bevington, I so move.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I understand what Mr. Julian said, but forgive me; isn't it already implied in just about everything we do on a safety bill that safety is the entire purpose of this legislation? I know that when I'm saying “safety”, I don't have to put the word “human” in front of it—maybe in the French translation, but....
I'm just not following why this would be necessary. Does it actually add anything whatsoever?
4:25 p.m.
Director, Rail Safety Secretariat, Department of Transport
It doesn't, really, because this is already included in the act's objectives at the beginning, in section 3.
Also, all of our regulations follow those principles as well as the cabinet directive on streamlining regulations, so we would be looking always to safety.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Coming from rural Saskatchewan, where sometimes certain animals are viewed as more valuable than some humans--like politicians, say--you'd still take care of us first.
Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have literally no problem with is--I think it's a repetition--but I was wondering whether I could ask the gentleman in the back, the legal expert, in relation to the words “primary consideration”, what the legal ramifications would be.
I apologize; I promise not to put you on the spot too much.
4:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
I think, practically speaking, it's not going to make a huge difference. I firmly believe it's completely redundant; it's already in section 3 of the act.
By virtue of saying that the primary consideration has to be that, it must be that when you enact the regulation; your first focus has to be on that. But it doesn't meant that has to be the only focus. It adds a twist to what you're actually going to consider when you enact the regulation, but it's stuff you're already looking at, so it wouldn't change anything, essentially.
But it is redundant. I mean, there's no doubt about that.
