Transport Committee on July 23rd, 2013

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

It's not my understanding that when a motion is on the floor, one can then introduce a second motion without first dealing with the initial motion.

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

Mr. Chair, my motion was circulated before the beginning of the meeting, so you have to rule that you either allow one or you allow both, or you allow neither.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to come back to and acknowledge that the chair recognized Mr. Watson and that a legitimate motion has been put forward. It seems to me—and I look to the chair's ruling on this—that this is the motion that we should deal with. I think it's substantive. I think it's eminently reasonable. I'm not sure why the vice-chair from the opposition has such objections to dealing with this.

Her amendment, which you have ruled inappropriate or out of order, is one thing, and now as a result of that it would appear that what she's trying to do is to then make it a coincident motion. I don't think that's allowed under the rules.

I think we recognized Mr. Watson, and I think his motion has to be dealt with.

Thank you.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the rules, according to the Standing Orders, say that a very substantive motion requires 48 hours' notice. Mr. Watson's motion didn't have 48 hours, as you just pointed out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Correct.

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

That's why I was moving a motion to waive the requirement so that we can debate Mr. Watson's motion. That was what I was trying to do. At the same time, you have seen my motion in front of you. Let's not waste time and get bogged down with parliamentary rules. I know them as well as you do, so let's waive the requirements for the 48 hours.

If five minutes later, Mr. Holder, you want to move a motion related to studying rail safety systems, let's do it. Let's just get on with this.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The motion I moved relates to the business at hand, and I don't believe it requires the requisite notice. Neither would her motion or her amendment require any additional notice if she wanted to move it as a separate motion. It relates to the business at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Based on your comment, Mr. Watson, you're saying that no unanimous consent is required.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm saying that our motion is in order, and if she wants to move her motion afterward, it's in order as well.

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

I should move it. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. We have that on record.

We're going to deal with your motion, Mr. Watson, but I did have Mr. Holder on the speakers list. You're okay?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'll wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there further discussion on Mr. Watson's motion?

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just by way of opening remarks, I join my colleagues in saying our sympathies remain with the people of Lac-Mégantic. This has been a terrible tragedy and a shocking loss of life. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are shocked, and their hearts and their support are with the people of Lac-Mégantic.

The Transportation Safety Board, the police, and others are still investigating this tragedy, one of the most tragic in Canadian history. In fact, this morning we counted a total of almost nine currently ongoing or prospective investigations, Mr. Chair.

The Transportation Safety Board has 20 people on the ground in Lac-Mégantic full-time and 10 here in Ottawa. There is a criminal inquiry. There is a formal coroner's investigation. Transport Canada is investigating with respect to regulatory compliance. Environment Canada is investigating with respect to spills and tankers. Quebec's ministry of the environment and sustainable development is investigating. A class-action lawsuit has been launched by the people of Lac-Mégantic. The railway's own internal railway investigation is pending, and the Quebec government is possibly going to be pursuing a public inquiry.

I think as we go through this meeting this afternoon we cannot lose sight of the people of Lac-Mégantic. I know there are always procedural difficulties in a committee like this, but I think you have to remain focused on making sure the people of Lac-Mégantic get the support they need now.

I know our colleague from the NDP assures the committee that if we pursue an immediate study there will be no impact on those resources. I wish I could say that with the same absolute certainty.

I think the single next most important thing is that the ongoing investigations be thorough, complete, and professional. I don't think we can be calling witnesses to Ottawa, Mr. Chair, who are needed at the site of the disaster, for example. The residents of Lac-Mégantic and all Canadians deserve no less than to get all the facts and the truth of the matter. That's why we have to ensure that these investigations are unimpeded, that they are resourced properly, and that they are not obstructed, particularly with politics.

We need to make sure that the Transportation Safety Board, the police, the firefighters, the coroner's office, and all first responders have the resources they need. Are those resources sufficient? This committee can't answer that question. Is the federal government providing enough assistance? An announcement was made yesterday. If they have all the necessary resources, we must let them proceed without political intervention or disruption. I don't know if this committee can answer the question of whether the $60 million announced yesterday is sufficient or not for the people of Lac-Mégantic.

Of course we can't prejudge the outcome of the current investigations, and only a fool would attempt to do so. To have hearings before they have completed their investigations may be premature. We have heard many questions raised here today. There are other questions that might be addressed in due course. Is the relief money for the victims and the businesses—the people of Lac-Mégantic—sufficient? I'm not sure we're in a position to answer that question, but it is a very important question that does have to be addressed immediately.

With respect to liability issues, is the $25 million in place sufficient? The common consensus is it's probably not. Is the Canadian taxpayer going to be asked to pay for the cleanup if the company becomes insolvent? Has the government instructed Justice Canada to prepare the necessary and requisite legal opinions and not to wait? I understand. I think all Canadians understand the calls of the population for immediate answers. We cannot prejudge the conclusions.

I have full confidence—and I know everybody here does—in the Transportation Safety Board and the police investigation. Everyone has questions about this event. Once again, it might be premature to put forward any recommendations until the investigation is complete.

Let me also say that, looking forward, when I look at the motion that's here, we should be cognizant of the fact that the Transportation Safety Board has, unusually, written two letters to Transport Canada and the government with respect to unattended trains and trains carrying dangerous goods. This is new for the Transportation Safety Board, as far as I understand it, early in the midst of an incredibly important investigation. This is out of the ordinary. There are no conclusions here, but the question might be, what motivated the Transportation Safety Board to take this unusual step?

There have been recommendations made from other accidents over the past few years, as has been alluded to earlier. An inventory conducted by our analyst and researcher could be compiled this summer and would be helpful to all members of this committee. The question of the status or implementation of those recommendations is something that this committee, I think, has to turn its mind to in due course.

So I think we have to focus on what is emerging from the investigations, for example, the recent TSB statements, the measures that were released an hour-and-a-half or two hours ago. There is nothing wrong with these, in terms of being starting points, but once the investigations are done, or at least in mid-course or further along, we will be able to offer specific regulatory and legal responses. Because these investigations are going to be specific—I think we can anticipate that—we will have to respond to what the government is being called upon to do. That is where I think our role as legislators kicks in and really begins.

That does not mean that each of us cannot go forward and continue with our own internal assessment of what's been happening over the last several years. It does not mean that our analyst cannot be instructed to go forward and work with the Library of Parliament to provide us with a more fulsome picture of where we're coming from, how we arrived at the situation and, hopefully, to inform us of what we're going to learn from this terrible tragedy at Lac-Mégantic.

I think that's where we ought to be focusing, in terms of the motion that's been tabled by our colleagues in the Conservative Party. I don't think any more bickering about procedural rules is going to help the people of Lac-Mégantic. If the government can continue to ensure that all of those on the ground have everything they need to do their job, I think we can have some confidence as legislators that we've done what is immediately the most important thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the discussion we've been having since the meeting began, I would like to share a few thoughts with my colleagues, respectfully, of course .

I think my colleague Ms. Chow did an excellent job of explaining the problem. We can well imagine that the eyes of the entire Lac-Mégantic community are on us as we discuss this issue, but that's only part of the picture. The truth is every resident of a town whose urban landscape is dotted by a railway now lives in fear because of what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Just as the brave people of Lac-Mégantic are rolling up their sleeves and working tirelessly to put their community back together, I believe the entire population expects the country's politicians to support them throughout the process.

That being said, we are more or less in agreement that we aren't going to rush the findings of the investigation under way as we speak, on the ground. Never was there any question of taking resources or money away from the investigation into the Lac-Mégantic disaster so the committee could undertake a more comprehensive study on transport safety.

Be that as it may, we seem to be dealing with some inconsistencies, or considerations, that we need to address. Take, for instance, the measures that were re-introduced at around 2:30 this afternoon. They were put in place for a period of six months, but everyone here knows that we probably won't have the report on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy in six months' time. Once that period is up, we'll be confronted with the same questions the people are asking right now, questions that are causing them to feel increasingly unsafe. Someone has to try to allay that fear, and if not the federal administration or this committee, then who? Isn't that our true mandate? I think enough pre-Lac-Mégantic reports on rail incidents have come out to allow us to start examining the situation and looking for answers to many of the questions that the Lac-Mégantic tragedy has brought to light.

Will the Lac-Mégantic report give us more insight into rail safety and shed more light on the issues? We'll respond accordingly at that point, and that is the reason for the second part of the motion. The motion, as presented, in essence focuses solely on Lac-Mégantic and suggests that we would wait for the report, because we can't do anything now. What that motion does is send all Canadians the message that they will have to continue feeling unsafe and asking questions that we might address at some point down the road if we have all the information.

And once we have all the facts on the tragic incident in Lac-Mégantic, does that mean we'll be able to alleviate the concerns of the other municipalities? They're asking how do they figure out what products are being transported through their region. They want to know what emergency measures the mayor can put in place, when they don't even know which goods are moving through their municipalities or who the first responders are. The bottom line is that there are numerous issues we could start discussing now to work together on finding solutions.

I was—and still am—hopeful that we won't spend this meeting hiding behind partisan politics and strategies. My hope is that we will listen and respond to the fears and concerns of not just the people of Lac-Mégantic, but also the residents of many municipalities across Quebec. They are looking to their politicians for guidance now, not in two years.

Some people are even speculating that the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic could have been prevented. I don't know. Perhaps the report will tell us. It's too early to draw any conclusions in that regard.

What is clear, however, is that we have a responsibility to do everything possible to prevent another accident of this magnitude or worse, even one that is less serious. And that means we must get to work now. What's more, because it's summertime and the House isn't sitting, we have more time. And people expect us to tackle these questions as a matter of priority. That is our job. I hope we can work out a schedule very quickly, instead of arguing about commas in a motion whose relevance, I repeat, extends far beyond the Lac-Mégantic accident.

Who are people supposed to rely on for peace of mind when they go to bed at night, for total assurance that they are now safe, no matter where they live in the country?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Adler.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been listening with great interest to both members of the NDP and the member of the Liberal Party. I've been here now for, I guess, a little over two years, and it's quite striking how the NDP never finds a way to rise above their partisanship and wants to play cheap political games with one of the greatest tragedies that ever happened in Canada.

The fact of that matter is that the scene of the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic is currently a crime scene. There are a number of investigations, including a couple of criminal investigations, currently under way. The NDP talks about recommendations from prior rail disasters. Those recommendations are quite clear. They're available to anyone who wants to read them. There's no need to have a committee to reread what is already in black and white. They should use their time to read those themselves. We at this committee, however, should be waiting for the final results of investigations that will transpire in Lac-Mégantic.

We cannot afford at this point in time to hinder any investigation occurring right now at Lac-Mégantic. We cannot afford to take the experts who are currently invested in this crime scene away from that. We have a very limited number of these kinds of people who have these investigative skills in this country, and they are doing their utmost, some of them working without sleep, to conduct this work. It is imperative, an obligation of elected political officials, to wait for the investigation and to wait for the results and the recommendations that transpire from these various investigations.

Now is not the time to be studying—I see Mr. Nantel finds some humour in this, but I fail to see any humour whatsoever—but to let the proper authorities do so. We must have respect for not only the victims, who currently are not all accounted for, but also the families and friends of these victims. I say this is just not the right time for this. I say the NDP lacks any shame and common decency, and I am shocked and appalled that they would come forward and want to play cheap politics with one of the greatest tragedies that has ever occurred in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to put a different slant on this, if I may. The hearts and compassion of all of us in this room, those around this table and others present, go to the families who lost members or others close to them at Lac-Mégantic. All of us feel that way. I think that's clear. I don't challenge the official opposition's motives in trying to get to the bottom of things and see things through.

Having said that, I think we're talking about timing. I thought Mr. Watson's motion was balanced and fair. I thought Mr. McGuinty's response to it was balanced and fair. It struck me that all of us are trying to do the right thing. We'll be measured by doing the right thing. The fact that we are back here in Parliament having this discussion rather than at Lac-Mégantic, which I know was an option suggested by someone earlier, I think shows some sensitivity, and I think it is appropriate.

We all try to make sense of something like this. When you lose people who are close to you, nothing can bring those folks back, but we have an obligation as members of Parliament to do our very best. Part of that comes back to the timing for us to consider this.

My deepest fear—and I think it was articulated well by Mr. Watson and Mr. McGuinty—is that anything that takes away from the work that needs to be done by those folks in the various studies that are taking place is inappropriate. I think we'd all agree it's inappropriate.

What has Transport Canada done? Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me, I think there are a few things we need to put into the record, because I think it is important that we acknowledge here that some actions are being taken. This comes from Transport Canada, which made an announcement about certain emergency directives to increase rail safety. As was referenced earlier, these were announced today. I need to share them with the committee. There are six points.

Effective immediately, the emergency directive requires all rail operators to:

Ensure that no locomotive attached to one or more loaded tank cars transporting dangerous goods is operated with fewer than two qualified persons on a main track or sidings; Ensure that no locomotive attached to one or more loaded tank cars transporting dangerous goods is left unattended on a main track; Ensure, within five days of the issuance of the directive, that all unattended controlling locomotives on a main track and sidings are protected from unauthorized entry into the cab; Ensure the directional controls, commonly known as reversers, are removed from any unattended locomotives, preventing them from moving forward or backward, on a main track or sidings; Ensure that their company’s special instructions on hand brakes are applied to any locomotive attached to one or more cars that is left unattended for more than one hour on a main track or sidings; Ensure that, in addition to complying with their company’s special instructions on hand brakes referred to in the item immediately above, the automatic brake is set in full service position and the independent brake is fully applied for any locomotive attached to one or more cars that are left unattended for one hour or less on a main track or sidings.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer this in English and French as part of the testimony today so we can get the precise wording in case my English isn't as good. The translation of my accent can be quite challenging. I'd like to submit that if I may.

Mr. Chair, what are we trying to do when all of this is said and done? If a government, and I mean all of us in government, is not responsible for the safety of Canadians, which is what it is expected to be, then we are not doing our job. I think Mr. Watson's motion is thoughtful. It doesn't presuppose that we are going to take away from the efforts and initiatives of the current review and investigations—and there are several—that are going on. I think that's our obligation as politicians who are elected to serve the people of this country. I think that's what we do. I hope we allow that to go on. There's nothing in what Ms. Chow said that might not be considered as we go forward with this.

Frankly, I think what all of us here are talking about is a question of timing. I think that's all we're talking in terms of. Let them do what they do, and then we bring all of this to bear. I think that's the thoughtful thing. I have a sense that it feels right; it balances the comments that everyone's made as we work towards doing the right thing.

I would hope that we would allow Mr. Watson's motion to pass and that we would be vigilant. We don't have a choice to leave this by the wayside. We have an obligation to be vigilant; Canadians expect no less than that. But I do think it is a function of timing and doing this right. It must be comprehensive.

I would like to make some suggestions about the official opposition's comments when they come back to this later. As opposed to presuming certain conclusions that might well come out of the reviews that are taking place and that might well be worth reviewing, frankly, if they are, I say we review them, and we study them hard. I think we have to do that. I just think at this stage that piece of it is not in the best interests of the people of Lac-Mégantic or Canadians.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Holder.

Mr. Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking Mr. Holder for putting the discussion back on a constructive track, contrary to the tone taken by Mr. Adler, when he falsely accused me of finding some sort of humour in such a tragic situation. There is no doubt that we share the sorrow of the people who suffered in this tragedy, and that our thoughts are with all Canadians, all Quebeckers and all the people of Montérégie who are worried about the situation.

I would like to point out that, because it is absolutely necessary to let the key experts stay in Lac-Mégantic—and that goes without saying—it would be heresy to even consider pulling away anyone serving as a first responder or whose particular skill set is needed now. But it also goes without saying that the sooner we begin this study, the better off everyone will be.

I can tell you that the people in Boucherville, who were mentioned in a La Presse article the day before yesterday, are troubled by the fact that certain railway cars carrying unknown goods pass 20 feet away from a school. This isn't a matter of whether to move the railway line or not, but a matter of getting the necessary information.

The residents of Longueuil are a bit less anxious because they know they have a planning committee managing rail transport, and that's a good thing. Does every city have such a committee? Based on the recommendations of a study like ours, which should begin immediately, Transport Canada could open up the lines of communication with municipalities to ensure each of them is better informed about what's going on in their backyard. It could do that, couldn't it?

These are crucial considerations, to my mind, and I see no reason to oppose them. I think everyone can see the importance of examining the issue quickly. We're being accused of playing partisan politics, and yet Transport Canada made the decision to implement temporary emergency measures as a pragmatic and immediate response to the accident. It took action that needed to be taken now.

I wouldn't want to give Canadians who are following this committee's proceedings the impression that all politicians do is talk. On the contrary, let's get on with it and do our job, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

I now have Mr. Rousseau.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone who travelled to be here today.

What I can speak to is the human element in all this and the serious concerns of the elected officials, mayors and reeves of regional county municipalities in my riding. Railways that have been privatized in recent decades run through a dozen or so of the municipalities in my riding, sometimes in the centre of town, sometimes just on the outskirts. People have a lot of questions, and they could get answers to those questions right away. The fact of the matter is that all kinds of studies and reports have already been done but were simply ignored. They were never given any real consideration.

People are worried. One month before the Lac-Mégantic disaster, a spill occurred just a few kilometres away. About 3 feet of track was damaged, resulting in a toxic spill. In Farnham, the week following the tragedy, two wheels of a rail car came off the track but didn't cause any damage. Just a few days later, a tourist train collided with a vehicle at a railway crossing because the lights didn't come on.

All of that is weighing heavily on our elected representatives and people. They are seriously worried. I've been to the site of the tragedy twice, once with our leader. Six of the municipalities in my riding are close to Lac-Mégantic. I went to those areas to talk to people who had loved ones, family or businesses that were affected. All the small agribusinesses saw their revenues drop by 80% right after the tragedy. That was one part of the immediate collateral damage. Those people, too, are worried. They are worried about their income. Their concern doesn't have to do with rail safety but is still a legitimate worry.

What happens if an accident occurs right in the heart of downtown Sherbrooke? The mayors are extremely concerned and don't have the answers to their questions. The same goes for me and the members for other ridings in Quebec where the MMA rail company or other American companies have acquired railway lines in recent decades.

We're hearing about railway bridges that were built in the late 19th century. Municipal officials are saying they don't really know who does what or whether anyone even inspects these sites. People need reassurance, and that will only come from a study. We have to work together. We have to keep in mind the human tragedy that happened. How will the people react when the trains start running again? What will happen? Will we see barricades? What will happen on the ground if we don't reassure people?

A sure way to reassure people is to do our duty as elected officials, and that means pulling together and studying a whole slew of reports that have come out in past years. The study on the disaster will produce other findings, but right now, people have a multitude of questions that aren't being answered. Rail transportation is our responsibility because it comes under federal jurisdiction. What we must do quickly is assume our responsibility and reassure Canadians.

I would appeal to the chair to have the committee conduct a study and gather information. All of us need to join forces and work together. I am calling on every member to put partisanship aside. Partisan politics have no place in this matter. We've got a human tragedy on our hands, and I want us to give Canadians across the country some reassurance, and quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

Mr. Watson.