Bill C-33 (Historical)

Safer Railways Act

An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act

These amendments amend the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport by, for example, requiring railway companies to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate indicating compliance with regulatory requirements;
(b) strengthen that Department’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing court-enforced penalties;
(c) enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive accountable for safety and a non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies;
(d) clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters; and
(e) expand regulation-making authorities and clarify the process for rule making by railway companies.

Safer Railways Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, no member may speak for more than 10 minutes on the second reading motion of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, indeed it is a privilege for me to stand and speak on Bill C-33, an act to be able to deal with some of the amendments to the Railway Safety Act.

Railways in this country hold a tremendous amount of opportunity for Canadians. There are 73,000 kilometres of rail, 33,000 locomotives, 700 trains per day and 72 million passengers per year, just to give an idea of how important they are. That represents the delivery of over two-thirds of our freight across the country. Therefore they do play a tremendous role.

It is very important that as a government we make sure that they are reliable, that they are safe, they are economically viable and that they deal with passengers in as safe a way as they possibly can.

The amendments proposed in the bill would increase public safety for Canadians. They would enhance the safety of our communities and would contribute to a stronger economy, modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment.

A safer railway system would provide economic benefits also for the industry. It is not just those who ride or ship. Immediately and for the long term, it will decrease the likelihood of costly accidents and delays. A safer rail system will also benefit external stakeholders such as the provinces, municipalities, shippers and the travelling public.

The proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act, which were tabled in the House of Commons on June 4, 2010, are largely coming from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities as well as the Railway Safety Act review. I think everyone in the House needs to understand this.

These two studies made recommendations to government and we are acting on those recommendations.

Both of these initiatives took place from 2006 to 2008. They were very consultative in nature. They asked for input from a large group of stakeholders, both public and private.

The proposed amendments support the government's safer communities strategy to protect the safety and security of Canadians. They will also demonstrate effective economic leadership, as a strong and safe rail transportation system is vital to Canada's economic well-being.

We are putting our money where our mouth is with regard to the funding of this as well. In the 2009 budget we provided $72 million over five years to Transport Canada for rail safety initiatives.

This includes $44 million to enhance regulatory oversight and enforcement capacity, conduct research and develop projects to advance new safety technologies. As well, there is $28 million to improve grade crossings.

With that being said, it is pretty clear that our government is committed to making our railways the safest railways in the world.

The proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act will encourage rail companies to create and maintain a culture of safety as well as have penalties for rule breakers by enabling the government to crack down on the rule breakers with tough new administrative and judicial fines, require each railway to have an executive that is legally responsible for safety, and create whistleblower protection for employees who raise safety concerns.

Furthermore, these legislative amendments would improve Transport Canada's capacity for oversight and for enforcement. More specifically the amendments, one, improve Transport Canada's oversight capacity by requiring railway companies to obtain a railway operating certificate after meeting the regulatory requirements; two, strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing existing judicial penalties; three, emphasize the importance of safety management systems and include provisions requiring rail companies to appoint an accountable executive for safety and introduce a system for non-punitive reporting by employees; four, expand the act's current provisions for the review of enforcement actions by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada; and five, clarify and enhance the authority and responsibilities of the minister and expand regulation making authorities of the government generally and specifically in the areas of railway engineering and environmental protection.

To expand on that, the requirement for a railway operating certificate will apply to all railways under federal jurisdiction. Existing companies will have a period of two years from the coming into force of the amendments to meet the requirements for their certificates.

The amendments will strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement capacity through the introduction of administrative monetary penalties as an additional enforcement tool to improve rail safety. Maximum levels for administrative monetary penalties would be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation.

The amendments will also strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement powers by increasing judicial fines to levels consistent with other modes of transportation. Maximum fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would be $1 million for a corporation and $50,000 for an individual. Maximum fines on summary conviction for contravention of the act would be $500,000 for corporations and $25,000 for an individual for each day of non-compliance.

The legislative amendments will also improve rail safety by reflecting the central importance of safety management systems.

A safety management system is a formal framework for integrating safety into the day-to-day railway operations and includes safety goals and performance targets, risk assessments, responsibilities and authorities, rules and procedures, and monitoring and evaluation processes.

Also included in the bill are amendments to clarify the authority and responsibilities of the minister in respect of railway matters. For example, the amendments will clarify that the act applies in respect of all railway matters within the legislative authority of Parliament. This will ensure that all companies operating on federal tracks are subject to the same high level of safety requirements.

The amendments will also clarify that railway safety inspectors exercise their powers under the authority of the minister and that the minister may enter into agreements with the provinces on matters relating to railway safety, railway security and the protection of the environment.

These proposed legislative amendments are backed by Canada's economic action plan, as I mentioned earlier, which committed $72 million for rail safety, including $44 million over five years for additional inspections, safety management system audits and enforcement action in cases of non-compliance.

It is no secret that our government has worked hard towards the goal of having one of the safest railway systems in the world. Our government continues to pursue a strong working relationship with the industry to strengthen the act.

It is also important to highlight other railway safety initiatives and funding in order to further illustrate my point.

In the opinion of the government, and as I have stated many times, one accident is one accident too many. Accidents are very costly, and we have made improvements. Through Canada's economic action plan, we announced close to $11 million to improve up to 155 new high-priority rail grade crossings.

We also renewed our funding of over $1.7 million over five years for Operation Lifesaver, which educates people in rural and urban areas on how to be safe around railways.

There are very few times when an MP can come into the House and relate an incident that has happened in his or her own backyard. As members of Parliament, we can bring forward legislation that deals with the problems at hand. That is the case here.

I was a first-hand observer of the incident in Alberta at Wabamun Lake. Many members may remember it. Other incidents have occurred in British Columbia and Quebec. These incidents have led us to where we are today with these proposed rail safety amendments. These incidents are not cheap. They harm the environment, they harm industry, and they harm shippers.

I remember vividly the incident in Wabamun. A room full of very hostile people were upset because their lake had just been polluted by an oil leak from the railway. The railway had lied to them. An older gentleman asked why we did not just slow the train down. The railway representative stood up and said it was because the railway did not have to. At that time I knew that something had to be done with regard to changing these rules.

That is why it is a great privilege for me to introduce these legislative amendments to the House. Members have worked on them very hard, as have the stakeholders, and we have come to a consensus.

In terms of the greater Toronto area, I was talking to the Mayor of Pickering, of the region of Durham, and he told me how important this absolutely was.

I want to thank my hon. colleague and every member in making certain that they deal with this. Their support is needed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for putting forward this legislation on behalf of the government. It is legislation that I am sure will get hearty debate in committee if it gets to that point.

I would like my colleague to give us an answer as to how many enforcement actions have taken place in the past decade against the rail companies because of their lack of preparedness or their complicity in accidents.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know all of them. I can tell members about the one that I talked about in my speech with regard to my first-hand experience. It cost CN $130 million to deal with the Wabamun mess, because of fines and actual costs of making certain that those who were impacted negatively were reimbursed appropriately.

What we see here, though, is that the actual fines under this piece of legislation would go up considerably.

However, I believe the most important part of this legislation is not necessarily the fines; it is the culture of safety that would change. Every one of those corporations would have to have a legal entity, an executive who is responsibly solely for the purpose of ensuring that there is safety and that the culture of safety is adhered to by that corporation, and they would be legally bound. I believe that would change the culture and would make the greatest improvements with regard to the safety of our railways and the people of Canada.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, this morning at the agricultural committee, it came out that as a result of the tragic listeriosis events there had been a major report calling for an audit with respect to the regime in place to guarantee that inspectors would have the tools to do the job where there were serious infractions taking place.

It was pointed out that while a review had taken place, the actual audit had not been done in a comprehensive manner in order to determine exactly the role of the inspectors and what the consequences would be once it had been discovered that there were violations taking place.

Under this bill, could we guarantee and could we assuage the concerns of the public that in fact the resources with respect to inspections would be taking place and that there would be an accountable implementation, through Transport Canada, with respect to ensuring that the analysis is done before an accident would occur and after--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will have to give the hon. Minister of State time to respond.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. There is no point in having legislation if we are not trying to prevent an accident from happening and then ensuring that we have the enforcement there.

We have put $72 million into that, of which $44 million actually goes to making certain that the inspectors are inspecting so that we would stop an accident from happening, that we would ensure that the railways are dealing with those issues that are potential accidents, prior to them occurring.

We have also put $28 million into rail crossing improvements. That is certainly going a long way and is very well received by municipalities and provinces as they realize that safety is becoming a lot better as we implement this program.

So we are not just saying we are going to do it; we have actually done it. We have put the money there. This piece of legislation would actually help us accomplish what we are trying to do.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of State has given an overview with respect to the relevance of Bill C-33 in terms of railway safety. I would suggest that while he has done a good job of that, he has really only scratched the surface. I mean that as a compliment in the sense that the bill is so compelling against the change that is taking place throughout the country in relation to rail and in relation to transport generally.

The whole issue with respect to competitiveness, the ability to move people and dealing with our environmental issues, health and safety through to pollution, is becoming more and more a fundamental problem that we have to address.

As we think of the changing nature of the forestry industry and the dependence on the movement of goods, as well as the changing nature of urban communities in terms of commuters, we realize more and more that rail is fundamentally positioned to offer a large degree of strategic compensation against the huge indemnity that we might face if it were not for having a rail service from sea to sea to sea that has served us historically.

Reference was made to the Mayor of Pickering in the region of Durham. I would just like to expand a little bit as a case in point that the greater Toronto area is choking on congestion. The ability to move people, and through people, services is being impeded by the fact that road construction has lagged far behind the capacity to meet the needs of transporting people from their origin to their point of destination, from where they live to where they work. Those commuting distances have become longer and longer, and the result is that the pollution created from the congestion is a health and safety issue.

When it comes to the movement of goods, the capacity of the road system to accommodate the trucks that are hauling and distributing goods is becoming more and more impeded. So rail, whether in terms of freight or urban commuting, offers a huge opportunity to make a difference with respect to the strategic response that we in government make to our environmental prerequisites and to our economic prerequisites.

In keeping with that sort of clinical analogy and the analysis that we must continue to use more of our rail capacity comes the prognosis of how to convince people that in those major rail corridors we can do it safely and we can do it in a manner that will not impede their quality of life, particularly those who live close to the rail rights of way.

The bill comes at a time when those questions are being asked. In fact, in the greater Toronto area, members who are on the Georgetown corridor in the Weston subdivision will know that there are huge plans to expand GO Transit to meet the needs of that broadening population and geo-economic area in the GTA, and to also expand service up to Barrie and over to Bradford.

The City of Barrie years ago acquired part of the old VIA right-of-way that would have been abandoned, in order to protect the opportunity to move people up and down that corridor, as is the case with Bradford at this time. As we speak, the city is negotiating with respect to protecting a rail right-of-way.

We know that some of these rail rights of way have gone for short line service, which has served the economy of local communities. Be that as it may, it is to the benefit of our populations that these rights of way are protected.

However, it must be done in a manner wherein the safety, health, responsibility and accountability for operating rail within federal jurisdictions must be absolute. We must absolutely close the loop so there is no question in the minds of the public that we are dedicated to not only using the rights of way, but using them in a sustainable way and in a manner that is going to protect the public.

As my colleague has said, the bill follows up on the Railway Safety Act that was approved in 1989 and updated in 1999. However, against the background of what I have said, the environment has changed immensely.

In 2008 the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities made 14 specific recommendations, which, with a bit of editing, provided the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities the necessary tools, as the Minister of State for Transport has said, to regulate railways and ensure their compliance.

The nature of that compliance in monetary terms is considerable. A maximum fine of $50,000 on an individual found to be negligent, as a result of an inquiry or quasi-judicial process, and a fine of $250,000 on a corporation are within very minimal violations of the Canada Transportation Act.

We have heard that for major violations, individual judgments can vary from $1 million to $50 million on a railway that is operated in a manner not in the interest of public safety. These are not minimal parts of the legislation calling for major monetary retribution against railway operators that do not act in the public interest.

The whole notion is the minister is given the authority to review, grant and monitor railway operating certificates and the terms and conditions over which certificates are provided. The minister also has the power to set the conditions by which the railway operates. In my particular area and I am sure in those of my colleagues who also have rail expansion this is something we can take to our constituents. We can say that in keeping with the changes and requests we are making in the interests of the higher community that need to use our rail corridors, this is where safety and health standards are going to be accountably applied through the minister.

I will not get into the question of the administrative monetary policy regime to the extent that the Minister of State for Transport did, but I learned this morning that commensurate with the industry being held accountable, there has to be the ability to inspect and take action on violations and violators.

When people say they have experienced with their departments violations that they are very concerned about, it means protecting the people who are loosely described as whistleblowers. However, they are acting in the public interest. When they come forward, their actions should be taken and responded to in a positive way.

I hope I have given a little clarification and provided some comfort to those who may be watching. With the changes in rail and the projected role of rail, we are bringing in a regime that is going to operate in the higher public interest in terms of air quality, safety and the return that goes back to the public in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, Census.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to preface my question to my colleague by saying that I am sure he will agree that the best way to ensure rail safety is, as in anything else, prevention. My colleague may remember that about a year ago, there was a major tank car spill in Manitoba—near Dugald, to be precise—involving 51,500 litres of flammable liquid propylene.

Apparently, there was a problem with the stub sill, which is part of the frame that connects the tank cars. The stub sill was faulty and it broke. Of the 41,000 cars equipped with this device, 35,000 are used to transport flammable or dangerous goods.

Does my colleague know whether specific measures have been taken to fix the faulty stub sill on those 35,000 rail cars?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and extremely relevant. It is amazing how the relevance goes from the rail to air safety. Just yesterday we saw the implications with respect to the Concorde crash and the finding of liability on the part of Continental Airlines. The liability was not only with respect to the Continental Airlines generally, but with respect to the individual mechanic who was charged with responsibility. Through professional oversight, he or she did not see a problem that could have been disastrous.

The member has related to what the minister of state has said in a way, that the legislation also has fines for individuals who see a functional problem with equipment and who do not take action. To answer the member's question, in that case, I do not know whether the accountability loop has been closed. However, the legislation with respect to that tanker spill would in fact be instrumental in continuing the investigation, finding fault and then taking whatever remedial action required.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised by the Teamsters Canada press release of June 2. It indicates that there have been, over the last 10 years, 10,000 train collisions and derailments, an average of 3 a day. I was certainly not aware of that.

In terms of loss of life in railway accidents, the largest loss of life was the Dugald accident in Manitoba in 1947. I think most people here would be familiar with the Hinton, Alberta train crash which killed 23 people.

This is a long-standing problem. We have been aware of it for quite some time. Other countries in the world are running high-speed trains. Imagine the money that would have to be put into our railway system to upgrade to the level of the Japanese railway system, where trains run at 200 or 300 miles per hour.

Even in our lifetime, we have seen the speed of the trains increase a lot. There are no cabooses. There are mile-long trains. We have seen the results of a poor roadbed and poor track system.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my experience, in Europe and Japan the dedicated rights of way for passenger traffic and the transport of goods are separated. For the most part, we have integrated systems where the sharing of the subdivisions is an implicating factor with respect to how careful we have to be on safety. There are different safety standards for tunnelling with respect to the transfer of chemicals and goods as opposed to transporting people. In other countries they have separated those functions.

The safety factor only gets worse, but we are very fortunate we are now starting to address these issues and building our railways accordingly.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that I will have 10 rather than 20 minutes. I will try and squeeze my remarks into the time allowed. There is much to say about rail safety, however.

Bill C-33 is very important, in our view, and we will soon vote on it at second reading. The bill will then be considered in committee, amended and improved, despite having an already solid foundation.

Everyone wants rail safety improved, but it is also important to talk about disturbances caused by trains and railways. As it happens, there are often hazards lurking behind these disturbances. I will speak about noise, particularly rattling of the railways, vibrations, obstruction of inbound municipal tracks and the speed of trains.

This legislation was enacted in 1989 and amended in 1998. It was improved somewhat on each occasion, but the time has come to take into account the work done by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which has made a number of observations and recommendations.

After considering the work done by the individuals and organizations that appeared before the committee, we can conclude that rail companies, such as VIA Rail and Canadian Pacific, are doing quite well when it comes to hazard management. It is CN's conduct in this area, however, that warrants particular attention.

On the heels of this introduction, and right from the outset, I would like to indicate that the Bloc Québécois intends to put forward a number of proposals in the House.

The Bloc Québécois would first like to see the safety management systems of all rail companies enhanced to make them more effective and fail-proof.

The Bloc also believes that safety management systems cannot replace inspections and suggests that there be increased monitoring by Transport Canada.

Furthermore, Transport Canada must improve the inspection system for land occupied by rail tracks and also obtain the financial and human resources that are required.

The Bloc Québécois also recommends that railway companies appoint heads of safety who, on behalf of their respective companies, would be required, for the reasons that I outlined a little earlier, to report annually to Transport Canada regarding safety management. I will come back to this.

The Bloc Québécois recommends adding provisions to encourage railway company staff to voluntarily share their safety concerns without fear of prosecution and disciplinary measures.

Those are five measures we would like to see in this bill.

I indicated earlier that some behaviour is unacceptable. If the behaviour is repeated, this means there is a lack of monitoring and a lack of means to do that monitoring. In a question I asked my colleague earlier, I announced the examples I was going to give.

One of those examples happened less than a year ago in Dugald, Manitoba. A tank car containing 51,500 litres of flammable liquid propylene separated from the rest of the train before coming to a stop. The problem was a faulty stub sill.

A stub sill is part of the frame which connects the tank cars. There was a problem. The other thing the Transportation Safety Board indicated is that approximately 41,000 cars within the North American tank car fleet are equipped with this model of stub sills, and approximately 35,000 of them are in dangerous goods service. There is still cause to take action in order to prevent the worst from happening.

I would like to remind hon. members that in my own riding of Chambly—Borduas, more specifically in Mont-Saint-Hilaire, on December 30, 1999, a train derailed. Roughly 2.7 million litres of hydrocarbons burned; 350 families were temporarily evacuated. If that had happened in Saint-Basile, which has a population of 16,000, then almost the entire town would have been evacuated. It is a neighbouring town, barely 6 km away, with a train track running through it from one end to the other. On one side there are schools and family developments nearby. Over time, urban settlements have developed near railroads, which means that we cannot look at safety the way we used to. Trains used to approach the stations only and therefore stayed fairly far away from densely populated areas.

So we have to look at this differently now. We have to pay more attention to the towns and the citizens too—the people who are directly affected by the emerging danger. The towns in my riding of Chambly—Borduas are experiencing a lot of nuisance problems that point as well to the emerging danger. The MRC and a number of towns, including Mont-Saint-Hilaire, McMasterville, Otterburn Park, and Saint-Basile-le-Grand, have gone so far as to make representations to CN and VIA Rail to try to find out what is making the new noises we did not used to hear. They are coming from somewhere. Why is it that two or three years ago, these noises did not exist? There are new sounds now and vibrations that are very disturbing because they cause houses and the furniture in them to shake. People are awakened by the shaking of their beds, and not because of something they were doing. That is what we are being told.

There is the blockage as well. The trains are so long that when they stop, they block both entrances to the town of Saint-Basile-le-Grand. Sometimes they wait 30 to 45 minutes or even an hour to allow other trains to pass.

There is something new going on here. The railway companies say that if there are vibrations, it is because of the clay soil. This soil is a relic of the old Champlain Sea and has always been there. Why did it not used to shake but it does now? The answer is in a statement made by Mr. Bob Robinson of the Transportation Safety Board. He says that, in addition to these risks, there is the fact that trains are longer and heavier than ever and therefore harder to manage.

We need to remember that.

Not more than three months ago, CN was telling our municipal officials, through one of its representatives, Ms. Julie Sénécal, that the maintenance of the tracks was up to standard and the length and weight of the trains had not changed over the last few years. That is totally false according to what the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is telling us.

I would have more to say, but—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He actually talked about some of the same issues that are facing residents in my constituency of York South--Weston where the Georgetown corridor will be expanded with not only new traffic with respect to serving the airport, but also with the GO Transit expansion. The same kinds of concerns have been coming back through my office.

My question is related to the safety aspects. He wanted to know whether there would be a closing of the accountability loop where there are malfunctions, switching issues or whatever. This bill is designed to try to close that accountability loop. He has described his community. Does he feel more convinced that rail is an answer and does this bill help to assuage some of the concerns that people might have with respect to noise, safety, air pollution and those kinds of issues?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow member for his question. We believe that it is possible as long as we designate authorities who are in a position to take action. They must also be given the means to do so or, in other words, they must be given a budget and competent employees. Every report of a potential risk must be looked into.

The people who are in the best position to inform us of potential risks are the employees. When employees report dangerous situations, they are often reprimanded and even punished by the company they work for, which is completely illogical. We have to protect these people and give the authority to a competent organization such as the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I noted what my colleague said about the change in the way that the municipalities have developed around railway lines. I am very interested in his reaction to how those municipalities are dealing with the issues surrounding trespassing and whether there is an effort made through those communities to fence off the railway lines so they are safer for people generally. Is that something that is taking place in the communities that he represents? Is that going ahead in a good fashion?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question is extremely relevant. It is very concrete and practical. For example, there are very long fences near the railway tracks in Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville. In Mont-Saint-Hilaire in particular, the fence is so long and there are so few places to cross on foot or by bicycle that people have been breaking the fence to get through. Some will say that this is not good and that people should not do such things but, at the same time, it shows that we did not adapt the new reality to the needs of the people living close to railways. Why was construction allowed in these areas?

As soon as the regulations permit, all necessary accommodations must be made so that the trains can run without putting people at risk or making things more complicated for them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-33, Safer Railways Act, which has been brought forward today by the government. It represents the government's thinking on moving forward with railway safety in this country.

I certainly agree with most of the speakers here that the railway system in this country is one that is under pressure. We need to ensure that it is operated in the safest and most complete fashion for all those who live near it or are involved in it.

There are some deficiencies in the current safety act that are in need of fixing, but I think this bill takes on some elements that are perhaps redundant. These may not move so much forward on safety but rather increase the bureaucracy around the railways.

This bill corrects some minor errors that have been identified in existing acts and creates a certification process for railroads to show that they are safe. Also, it creates a ticketing process for enforcement and tweaks certain elements within the safety management system for railways. That is all good and proper.

However, there are problems, such as using a ticket system of fines for enforcement. The U.S. has a system of tickets but now uses it only in the most serious and egregious violations. The U.S. has learned that tickets do not actually work to improve safety. There are reports throughout the United States that the tickets were sometimes paid by the railways rather than go ahead with required improvements and fix-ups. In some cases, the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration prefers to issue compliance orders, special notices for repair, disqualification orders, injunctions, and emergency orders so that things actually are done on the system. If there is a point in the system where problems are occurring, they get fixed with these types of orders.

We can talk about the certification process, but once a railway starts operating, it has already complied with the Railway Safety Act. By starting up it goes through a process of ensuring that its system is well set up and within the rules that it is guided by. Therefore, the extra process of certification is something that we would like to understand better. Perhaps at committee we will see how this certification process would improve safety. That is something we must leave to witnesses and those people who will know about that in committee.

What Bill C-33 does not do is dramatically increase railway safety. According to “Stronger Ties”, the 2007 review of the Railway Safety Act, the major cause of death comes from accidents at level crossings and trespassing.

Since 2001, an average of 84 people have been killed or seriously injured annually as a result of crossing accidents and an average of 79 people have been killed or seriously injured due to trespassing. These are very large numbers. These are real issues of concern when we talk about railway safety. Many Canadians are dying around our railways. In 2006, 142 people were killed or seriously injured as a result of crossing and trespassing accidents. The railway industry considers these collisions to be a major problem. The greater tragedy is that perhaps many of these incidents could have been avoided.

Rail collisions are in fact one of the most predictable of all transportation hazards. Trains and motor vehicles are alike in that both travel on hundreds of thousands of kilometres of rail or highway and urban road networks. Similarly, aircraft have millions of kilometres of airspace in which to fly.

However, a highway railway crossing has a precise location. The intersection of the highway and the railway track is where a collision between a motor vehicle and a train is most likely to occur. We have a very defined area within the rail system where these accidents are occurring.

Investigation reports reveal that in most circumstances motorists are responsible for these collisions. They disregard the horn and bell warnings of approaching trains. They ignore light and bell warnings at crossings and sometimes they even drive around lowered gates. There is nothing in the bill that will decrease those numbers.

How could we do this? Perhaps we could begin a larger, federal, education campaign. Working in partnership with the Railway Association, Transport Canada could lead the effort to bring together people who can deal with the education required for motorists to better deal with rail crossings, to not be impatient when the gates go down, and to be observant.

There are about 43,000 federally and provincially regulated public and private level crossings in Canada, so when the minister talks about the dollars that the government has invested over the past number of years on railways crossings, he is not talking about a huge sum of money in comparison to the issues before us.

In “Stronger Ties”, the railway safety advisory panel recommended the government develop a program to identify which crossings can be closed, limit the number of new crossings, and improve the safety at existing crossings.

Many of the European countries do different things with rail or level crossings that allow high-speed trains to move through rail crossings with a great degree of safety. They have automated systems that detect metal in the level crossing and stop the train on an automatic basis. We have to train Canadians to wait for this to occur, because if we stop a train because somebody is in the level crossing, we have to close the crossing earlier for that to occur.

We know that trespassing accidents can never be completely eliminated, but what about the requirement for fencing? Where can we do better on that particular requirement so that we reduce the number of incidents of trespassing and reduce the number of deaths that are occurring? These are serious problems with railway safety, problems that need to be addressed, and perhaps as we take this bill forward to committee, we could look at some things there. Once again, the bill is directed in a more bureaucratic fashion to deal with penalties and to deal with other issues, but really we need to look at some of the basic precepts of railway safety.

Another area would be to have regulations that ensure that trains respect signals. In many countries, if there is a red signal, the train automatically slows down or stops. In Canada that is not the case. We do not have those fail-safe systems and that can lead to more accidents. Once again, the issues are sometimes technical in nature, but they are also things that this federal government has a responsibility to legislate.

Actions do not come from nothing. It is not a simple job to improve railway safety. It is an investment. It is regulations. It is certainly enforcement, but it certainly speaks to the need for more than what is in the bill here today. The bill may do something, but we really need to look at the overall picture of railway safety and fix the things that need to be fixed to ensure the Canadian public is protected.

We need to ensure that our standards for some of the problems we have are raised to the point that they match up to other countries and the rest of the world.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member for Western Arctic, and through him to the government, is in the context of studying rail safety. Is it not a good time to study the larger issue of rail relocation altogether?

In many cities, especially in western Canada, in the 1880s the rail ran right down the main drag of these cities and, in many cases, like in the city of Winnipeg, it cut the city in half. The great thundering marshalling yards of the CPR created a tale of two cities in terms of north Winnipeg and south Winnipeg. Our whole social development has been affected by that intrusion into the city of Winnipeg.

I raise that in the context of safety because there have been explosions, chemical spills, oil spills and ongoing degradation of the environment by virtue of the rails running through the city.

The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act used to pay for 50% of the rail relocation if a municipality applied to the federal government saying that it did not want the railway in its municipality anymore. Does the member not believe, in the context of rail safety, that the federal government must recommit to the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, I do not really want to respond because he raised some excellent points that should be addressed in this particular discussion that we will be having going forward, perhaps in committee where we can see some of these issues brought out. We can bring witnesses forward to talk about this particular aspect of railway safety.

It is commendable that the member has raised this issue now and I will certainly carry that message forward.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have several communities in my riding where there are problems with the length of trains today. The trains are so long that if an accident were to occur in a community it could be landlocked.

I have s a CNR community in my riding called Capreol. If a serious accident were to happen at the right place, this community would be landlocked possibly for days. I am just wondering if this bill, when it goes to committee, would look after a situation like this?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would say once again that these issues are part of what will need to be examined at committee. I think the bill opens up a number of doors that people want to see into in terms of railway safety. However, there is not one simple answer.

To understand whether this bill would actually improve railway safety in this country would be to understand how some of those questions will be answered by the regulations and the changes to the safety act that have been put in place.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Western Arctic for having defended so well his proposals with respect to railway safety in Canada.

I will be using my speaking time on this matter to say that the City of Montreal is not an exception to the rule described earlier by my colleague, the transportation critic, and by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. The City of Montreal, one of the oldest in Canada, has had the same experience: what was once very important now cuts through the city from one end to the other. We absolutely have to do two things: ensure that there is communication with the various areas of the city that are sometimes in the midst of repair and reconstruction work and also establish communication with the people responsible for the railways to ensure, for example, that there are safe crossings.

In this regard, I would like to point out that Luc Ferrandez, mayor of the borough of Plateau Mont-Royal, Alex Norris, councillor for the Mile End district of the borough, and his colleague Richard Ryan, Mile End councillor, cannot fathom that the City of Montreal to date has not even received a response to a letter sent at their request, because the city and the boroughs obviously must work together. Louis Roquet, as we all know, is the city manager, and he wrote to Denyse Nepveu, Director of Government Affairs for Canadian Pacific Railway, on August 20, 2010, regarding a railway interface and urban redevelopment project for the Saint-Viateur Est and Bellechasse sectors and the construction of a level crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. I will quote a portion of his letter.

Some steps have been taken informally by various departments of the city and boroughs to inform you of the main development projects on the outskirts of Plateau Mont-Royal and Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie as well as the challenges related to railway crossings. I hereby wish to confirm the importance of these development projects for the City of Montreal and also take the opportunity to continue discussions in order to find innovative solutions that will improve the interface.

They tried to explain to the railway company involved that there were 4,500 people living on one side of the railway tracks with their workplace on the other, as well as the metro station that their tax dollars paid for. These situations are always very complicated. Sometimes land will be freed up. The railways are moved. Outremont's railway yard is a good example. Construction will soon start on a group of buildings for the Université de Montréal's science and biosciences sector on this large site. It is being decontaminated. After a lot of hard work was done to convince the Conservatives that it was their responsibility to subsidize the decontamination because it was a rail site, the money came. Announcements are being made. However, it is an integral part of what is happening in Montreal. Whole sections of the city are working again. Good jobs with innovative businesses are being brought in, and problems from the 19th century are being dealt with.

Those in charge of the railways did not even bother to provide a response when called on by the public, by representatives of the borough and, as I just demonstrated, even by Montreal's city manager. Ms. Nepveu received this letter in August. It is now mid-December and there has still been no response. That is sad. How are these dynamic forces supposed to help their city move forward? If this antiquated equipment is useful for certain sectors of the city, then adaptation is key and the public needs to be given the means to cope with that. That is what today's bill is about.

We are putting certain important aspects of rail safety back on the table. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre reminded us that relocating these railways can be good for some cities. His city, Winnipeg, is a little like Montreal. It dates back to another time when the railway was connecting all of Canada. It only made sense to have the railway go right through the middle of town. However, what was once a blessing and a positive thing has in many cases become a nuisance today. Now we must deal with that.

It would be impossible to do the same thing immediately in every city. Yet this issue concerns every one of us here today. I am talking about the level crossing that should be our number one priority in Canada, because it would open up one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods in Canada: Mile End in Plateau-Mont-Royal, with its industrial park with 4,500 employees on one side and a metro station on the other.

The only thing preventing the 4,500 industrial park employees and the residents of Mile End from enjoying the full benefits of a metro station, which, as I said, was paid for using their tax dollars, is CP's obstinacy. The status quo is not safe. We are talking about safety around railways. The only legal pedestrian walkways available to get from one neighbourhood to the other are unsafe sidewalks that go under the tracks and are poorly lit, too narrow and really unpleasant, where there is excrement, graffiti and so on. Not many people use these walkways, and it is considered unsafe to walk there alone, especially for women.

According to a study carried out by the borough of Plateau-Mont-Royal, several hundred people a day illegally cross the railway between the two boroughs. During a peak period of just two hours, some 400 people were counted illegally crossing the railway between the two boroughs. This is extremely dangerous and these people could receive big fines if they were caught.

The number of these illegal crossings will only increase, because both sides of the railway are currently being redeveloped. In Mile End, 300,000 square metres of industrial space traditionally used by the clothing industry are being replaced by commercial and residential sites.There is a similar development in the Bellechasse de Rosemont sector.

So we can see that the urban fabric—no pun intended, since we are talking about the clothing industry—is starting to change. They want people to come live in the industrial sectors that never used to be attractive. They want to attract interesting businesses that would bring in a clientele that will support restaurants and businesses and that will buy and live in the neighbourhood. If the railway companies do not co-operate to provide safe crossings that can be used correctly by these people, railways will increasingly be seen as a hindrance to the harmonious future development of urban centres.

Like my colleague from Western Arctic who spoke earlier, I would very much be in favour of studying this bill for a number of reasons, and the main one is the ability to hear from Ms. Nepveu from Canadian Pacific Railway and from other officials. They do not even respond when they are questioned by cities like the city of Montreal.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Outremont for being generous in his treatment of this bill by recognizing the challenges that my city shares with his city of Montreal in terms of rail safety. In both of our cases, the railway was put through the very heart of our cities back when it was a logical and reasonable thing to do in 1882 or 1885. Now, in the context of rail safety, a real safety liability exists in both of our cities.

I note that many American cities are taking proactive steps to get the rail marshalling yards well out of the city for two reasons. First, as the freight has been forced from the rail onto trucks, often the most dangerous freight is still on the rails, that is chemicals, oil, et cetera. Spills do happen in the inner city of Montreal and the inner city of Winnipeg. Explosions do occur in both cities.

Would my colleague encourage the government to consider revitalizing the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which exists as legislation but which has been dormant for 15 or 20 years. The federal government used to pay 50% of the cost of rail relocation if a municipality applied to the federal government for assistance.

Would the member agree that we need to tear up the tracks in inner cities? Does he agree that the federal government should revitalize the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one need only look at the problem that I have just explained with regard to the city of Montreal to understand that the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act is a good idea. It should be revitalized and made a factor to which we can actually refer. As my colleague has explained, it is relatively dormant right now.

What is not dormant are the problems that are caused by the current situation of the tracks in a city like Montreal. Unfortunately, it often leads to people being killed. There was another case very recently of three young people killed on the tracks in the heart of Montreal. We have to deal with this.

A lot of companies are being served within the limits of that city right now that are having very toxic products brought to them through the centre of town. I hate the expression, but it seems to be applicable in this case. It is an accident looking for a place to happen. That place should be somewhere else other than in the centre of the most populous neighbourhoods.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Outremont.

My riding of Nickel Belt is mainly a rural area and, since the railway line crosses roads that do not have barriers, accidents occur frequently. I use the term “accidents” because these incidents are exactly that—accidents.

Does my colleague agree that, when a railway line crosses a road, lights and rail barriers should be mandatory at the level crossing?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout Canada, there are some railway crossings in rural areas that are not marked at all. This is not safe. This is exactly the type of situation that could be covered by the legislation we are discussing. I completely agree with my friend and colleague from Nickel Belt. This type of situation should not be allowed to continue.

This is of concern to us as legislators because, even though it has become common to congratulate ourselves on the role the railway played in the establishment of Canada, we must understand that most of the communities were there well before the railway. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that the railway companies implement the necessary resources. They will not do so unless we make them.

A fellow member recently tabled a bill for repairing the Quebec Bridge, a bridge that carries the railway. At one time, an agreement was reached with CN, which was supposed to be responsible for repairing the bridge; however CN did not respect the contract. I find this regrettable. This is not the first time we have witnessed such behaviour by the railway companies. If no one makes them take action, they will continue to get away with doing nothing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 at second reading. The legislation is very important, given the history of accidents and safety concerns over the last large number of years in Canada. In fact, it has not only the support of the government but it also has the support of the Teamsters Canada union, representing workers in the railway industry.

The proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act will encourage the rail companies to create and maintain a culture of safety and penalize rule-breakers by enabling the Government of Canada to do several things. One is to crack down on the rule-breakers with tough new monetary penalties and increased judicial penalties, and those have been indicated by some of the previous speakers. I believe it is a maximum fine of $1 million for a corporation and $500,000 for an individual. Other summary fines are $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation. It is good to see there are some increased and fairly tough penalties.

Also there is a strengthening of the safety requirements for railway companies. I had indicated in the question earlier that there had been 10,000 train collisions and derailments over the last decade, which is an average of 3 a day. I found it astounding that it would be that high, but it has been documented so it must be true. On that basis alone, we need strengthened safety requirements for these railway companies.

It also creates whistleblower protection for employees who raise safety concerns. We are starting to see whistleblower protection emerge in a lot of areas nowadays. It is very important to protect information that should become public. In the past it never became public because employees were afraid to lose their jobs if they gave information out.

In addition, there is a requirement that each railway have an executive who is legally responsible for safety, a position in the railway to deal with safety issues.

The Railway Safety Act came into force in 1989. It gave Transport Canada the responsibility to oversee railway safety in Canada. In addition, it strengthened Transport Canada's regulatory oversight and enforcement capacities. These proposed amendments are consistent with the legislative framework of other transportation modes.

In terms of funding for this, the new amendments are supposed to be funded, for a total of $44 million over 5 years, to cover a national rail safety program based on detailed inspections, safety management system audits and enforcement action in cases of non-compliance.

As I had indicated, Teamsters Canada represents 4,000 rail workers at CP Rail. Those employees are involved in inspecting, monitoring and repairing tracks, bridges and structures on the network. The employees and their union are in support of the legislation. They sent out a press release earlier this year, indicating that it was time to plug the loopholes that allowed railways to put profit ahead of public safety. They are clearly on the side of the legislation, and that is always a good sign.

The proposed legislation calls for a tightening of rules, hiring more safety inspectors at Transport Canada. I also indicated the penalties involved. However, it is always a good sign when the government actually does consult on its legislative initiatives and presents a bill in the House, while taking into account the concerns of the union and of the workers who work at the enterprise. I commend it for doing that.

It has been mentioned that some of the derailments in the railway industry over the last number of years have involved explosions. I pulled information regarding the Mississauga situation a number of years ago, but I was particularly interested in the cases of train railway accidents involving loss of life.

The accident that caused the most loss of life in Canada was in my home province of Manitoba, the Dugald collision of 1947 that killed 35 people. The second biggest railway accident involving loss of life was the Hinton train collision on February 8, 1986, when 23 people were killed. I think many people remember the Hinton situation, which caused a lot of initiative into looking into the problem.

As one of the government members mentioned earlier, subsequent disasters have caused people to start to look at the whole issue of collisions.

It is possible for anyone who knows about railways to have foreseen this happening. In the 1960s, and the member for Winnipeg Centre will know this too, the roadbeds were not up to standard. There was a big push in those days to improve the roadbeds and put in ribbon steel as opposed to the short railway rails that were there before. Coupled with that was faster and longer trains. Then there was the move to take the cabooses from the trains.

We were running trains at much higher speeds through some areas where we had muskeg and so on. It was hard to maintain the roadbed and something had to give at the end of the day.

People in my party are very interested in seeing Canada invest in railways. We look to best practices elsewhere, for example in Japan and Europe, where trains are running at 200 miles an hour, which is a little faster than I would like to ride in a train, but I have ridden in them. They are even looking at 300 miles an hour.

How in the world will we be able to do something like that in Canada when we cannot even keep our trains on the track at the speeds they go right now, not to mention the issue that my friend from Winnipeg Centre has mentioned about relocating railway yards? That causes a lot of problems in his area and in my area of Elmwood—Transcona as well, with traffic being shut down for long periods of time, especially during the rush hour periods.

Before I finish I want to talk about my constituency. While the member for Winnipeg Centre has railway yards in his area, Transcona exists because of the railway industry.

On April 6, 1912, Transcona received its charter. In those days it was a heady period for Winnipeggers because the city had visions that it would become a second Chicago, Chicago of the north. The town of Transcona was named for the Transcontinental Railroad and cona for Lord Strathcona. It is one of the few places in Manitoba that does not owe its origins to agriculture, but to the railway. In 1907, 800 acres were acquired for the railway shops.

I want to mention that 2,000 people found jobs in the facility that planned to employ 5,000 people. There was work for trainmen, machinists, blacksmiths, boilermakers, electricians, pipefitters and upholsters. Over the years Transcona has had its ups and downs. Lately the numbers have fallen, unfortunately, to a low of perhaps only 700 people working in the Transcona area.

It is very shocking but this has all happened just in the last 20 to 30 years. It is a moving—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member there. I think we can accommodate a very brief question or comment and similarly timed response.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member from Winnipeg's community is cut in half by railway tracks just like my community of Sudbury.

So, I would ask the hon. member if he believes that the government should help fund the removal of those tracks from downtown municipalities that want to have them moved.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course every situation is different. In the case of the member for Winnipeg Centre, it certainly seems like a very positive thing to do. I know he has talked about it before. This is not the first day that he came up with this idea. He has talked about it for many years now and has received a lot of support within the city of Winnipeg for it.

However, relocating the railway lines has to be done in conjunction with a lot of different things; that is, the construction of new types of roadbeds, faster trains, maybe electric-type trains and high-speed transportation, all the things that the transportation committee has been looking at for the last number of years and should continue—

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When the House last dealt with this matter, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona had three and a half minutes left for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Churchill rail transportation is absolutely critical, given we have isolated communities along the Bay line leading up to Gillam and then Churchill that depend entirely on it for access to goods and services. The first nation of Pukatawagan also depends on rail transportation. We recognize that rail safety is absolutely critical.

Could my colleague expand on his views around the importance of the bill and of rail safety, given the history of rail transportation in our country?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an important question. I have taken the train from Thompson to Churchill on several occasions. There is a big problem there. Sometimes the train takes a long time to arrive because of problems with the railbed.

A viewer who was watching yesterday contacted my office regarding some information that I put on the record yesterday. I indicated that the largest train accident involving the loss of life was in Dugald, Manitoba in 1947. He pointed out that on December 8, 1942, in Almonte, Ontario, close to Ottawa, 36 people were killed in a train wreck. One of them was from the member for Churchill's riding, Dorothy Rafter from Gillam, Manitoba. Both of these disasters were equally devastating to the families of the victims.

This points to the fact that this report is long overdue. We have to establish tough rules for safety when it comes to railways, both passenger and freight trains. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out yesterday, when he introduced the bill, the passenger rail system in Canada carries some 72 million passengers a year and two-thirds of Canada's freight is still carried on the railway. With 72 million passengers riding the trains, we have to make certain that we do not have accidents like those that happened in Almonte and Dugald.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act.

Canada's railways are an intrinsic part of our country's history and nation-building experience. They continue to serve as a symbolic reminder of the great geographic distances brought together by Confederation.

In addition to the purely symbolic aspects of Canada's rail network, railways continue to provide a vital connection between the various regions of Canada, both in terms of passenger trips and cargo and freight shipments. Although the advent of modern transportation, such as air travel, have led to a reduction in the number of annual passenger train trips, this does not mean that the industry in Canada has become obsolete. In fact, rural and northern communities remain highly dependent on the availability of rail services.

That is why since my election, as a member of the great riding of Sudbury, I have been a vocal advocate for the expansion of rail lines and the upgrading of rail infrastructure in communities in northern Ontario. Specifically, I have been an ardent supporter of keeping the Huron Central Railway's operations alive and running.

Along with the help of northern Ontarian New Democrat members, including the members for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Nickel Belt, and Sault Ste. Marie, the NDP has successfully lobbied both the federal and provincial governments to infuse $33 million into infrastructure funds devoted to maintaining and improving rail connections in northern Ontario.

In addition to maintaining and upgrading northern and rural access to rail services, ensuring that rail travel is safe is paramount. Whether it is passengers on board trains themselves or pedestrians and motorists at railway crossings, it is crucial that Canada maintains an exemplary record in regard to safety.

Although the numbers of pedestrians and motorists in collisions at railway crossings have marginally declined since the early 1990s, general incidents have actually increased during this period. This does not mean that in implementing more stringent safety practices we should be ignoring crossing accidents. In 2006 crossing accidents accounted for approximately 23% of all railway accidents in Canada. Instead, we need to provide adequate provisions that ensure improved safety for motorists and pedestrians at crossings, while continuing to implement processes that will simultaneously reduce the more general forms of railway accidents, which include both collisions and derailments.

In spite of the marginally decreasing rates of crossing incidents, in 2003, 247 collisions were reported, resulting in deaths of 27 people and more than 50 serious injuries across the country. This rate has remained roughly stagnant over the past seven years, as from January to September 2010, there were 128 officially reported incidents resulting, unfortunately, in 16 fatalities and 15 serious injuries across Canada.

Let me recall a story from my riding of Sudbury as a demonstration of how the issue of rail safety can affect ordinary Canadians and their children.

Just last year a newborn baby was miraculously unharmed following a two-vehicle collision at the CN railway crossing on Maley Drive in Sudbury. The vehicle carrying the child was slowing to a stop for the flashing lights and control arm as the train was approaching the crossing. The vehicle was struck from behind and pushed across the tracks as the train approached. Thankfully, the vehicle cleared the crossing and was not struck by the train or the resulting collision would have caused significant injury, damage and possibly death.

This story demonstrates the necessity of implementing enhanced public awareness campaigns designed to ensure that Canadians are aware of potential dangers that meet them at railway crossings. Moreover, it demonstrates the overarching need for heightened safety standards which will provide protection to passengers, pedestrians, motorists and railway service staff, all of whom deserve to be protected from dangerous incidents, such as crossing accidents, collisions and derailments.

As of 2001, there were approximately 22,500 public railway crossings across Canada, with an equal number of private crossings falling under the jurisdiction of 2,500 different road authorities. In addition, 2001 statistics reveal that 145 of the 278 crossing collisions occurred at public crossings when there were automated flashing lights and warning bells.

This speaks to the fact that many Canadians are not taking the necessary precautions when approaching these crossings. Furthermore, the incident rate at these types of crossings also point to a deficiency in the way public railway crossings are managed. Clearly, the government needs to address the danger which these types of crossings can present by taking a dual approach encompassing more stringent regulations and an enhanced public awareness campaign.

Improving rail safety across Canada is integral for protecting passengers, pedestrians, motorists and railway staff respectively.

Therefore, the New Democratic Party will be supporting Bill C-33 at second reading in order to send it to committee for further debate and discussion.

Although the proposed amendment to the Railway Act is not perfect, the broad goal of improving railway safety is laudable. Our party welcomes the opportunity to discuss this bill at committee in order to improve specific aspects of the legislation which are lacking in its current incarnation.

The New Democratic Party is therefore committed to the goal of improving railway safety in Canada and looks forward to working with all parties to ensure that this bill provides the necessary safety protocols which are needed to protect Canadians across the country.

We also hope that this bill will continue to protect people such as those unfortunate two who were involved in the accident in Sudbury, and all people who have been involved in accidents in the past.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Sudbury on his wonderful speech here in the House today.

I know that there has been a lot of talk in his riding of Sudbury and my riding of Nickel Belt about the railway going right through downtown Sudbury. I would like to know if he thinks that the federal government should get back into assisting municipalities that request to have their railroads removed from downtown where they are causing traffic congestions.

Could the hon. member for Sudbury please give me his opinion on that?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his great work on all issues pertaining to our ridings, as we are neighbours, especially regarding the Huron Central Railway.

When it leads specifically to the railway crossing in downtown Sudbury, there is a line that goes right through Elm Street, which is right in our downtown core. This line not only causes major traffic backups, which have caused accidents, but many times I have seen individuals who try to run across the tracks, and what they do not recognize is that there is one track in front and then another track in between, and then a line behind.

There have been so many instances of people thinking they can beat the first train, but they do not realize that the arms coming down and the lights that are flashing are actually for the third train coming on the far line.

We have had way too many close calls in Sudbury. I agree with my hon. colleague that it would be fantastic if we could get the federal government involved again in supporting federal initiatives with the municipalities when we are looking at removing train lines, and removing tracks and moving them to other locations.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sudbury is familiar with a community north of Sudbury called Capreol. Bill C-33 is a railway safety bill. Because of the length of the trains today, often if the train stops in a specific area, the community of Capreol is landlocked, so if there were an emergency such as a fire, it would be in trouble.

Does my colleague believe that these trains should be shortened to make it safer for communities like Capreol?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the great town of Capreol. I had the opportunity of spending one summer working on a tie gang, so I know rail safety quite well. I swung a sledge hammer for a summer, hence the large physique.

However, the town of Capreol, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, has been landlocked several times because of trains being so long and not being able to move. It is fearful for us, as residents of those communities. We hope we will never hear a tragic story of someone being rushed to the hospital in Sudbury from Capreol because they cannot get through because of the two kilometre train they cannot get around.

The bill and the legislation we will looking at in committee we hope will address many of these concerns.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, does he believe that the federal government ought to play a greater role in investing in rail?

In northern Manitoba, the Liberal government of the time privatized the railway. We face some real challenges. There is deterioration in terms of infrastructure and that has had a real impact on safety. While work is currently being done, we need a great deal more and the federal government is nowhere to be seen.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we need the federal government to play an active role by investing in rail, especially in northern communities like that of my hon. colleague and my own community.

Unfortunately, if I wanted to take the train right now to Ottawa from Sudbury, which is about 500 kilometres away, it would take me two days because there is no train line between Sudbury and Ottawa.

We need to ensure that northerners can commute to their nation's capital, to other cities, to one another to see family, and the federal government can play an active role in that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their enthusiastic response as I take this opportunity to share the views of the residents of Winnipeg Centre on a subject that we find very timely, topical and of great import, and that is the review of Bill C-33, the railway safety act.

In the context of speaking to the bill I want to share a little bit about Winnipeg and how the railway has not only affected modern-day Winnipeg but actually almost shaped the way that my city grew and developed into the great metropolis that we know it to be today.

In 1882, when the CPR first laid down the tracks in Winnipeg, it laid them down quite logically and reasonably right from the junction of the two great rivers, the Assiniboine River and Red River, directly west to the Rocky Mountains and the west coast. This was the transcontinental railway.

As such, the marshalling yards were put well outside the developed area of Winnipeg as it stood in 1882, but frankly it was not long. In fact, by the turn of the century, Winnipeg had grown out that far and these great marshalling yards, 40 tracks wide in many places with full shops for upholstery, maintenance and the wheel house, created a great divide for the city of Winnipeg.

It created a tale of two cities because the railway barons lived along Wellington Crescent south of those tracks and the north end of Winnipeg became, as we know it, the low-income working class part of the city. That great divide exists to this day. So it shaped the growth of our city very much.

The reason I want to mention these things in the context of Bill C-33, the railway safety act, is that it has been a huge safety issue, not just a great physical barrier and a great industrial blight in the heart of our city. It has created a safety issue to where there have been explosions, collisions and accidents. There have been vehicle-train mishaps, chemical spills, and 130 years of environmental degradation as the trains just naturally spill diesel and drop materials onto that soil.

It is not a good thing to have a huge marshalling yard in the middle of a major urban centre. Those houses beside the tracks, north and south, are the least desirable neighbourhoods, the least desirable housing. Creating what began as reasonable housing for workers alongside the tracks, it gradually became, over a period of time, some of the roughest and meanest streets in the city of Winnipeg as they were not exactly a person's first choice to move to in terms of raising a family.

I raise this in the context again of Bill C-33 because I believe when it comes to committee, the government will hear from a number of sources that we want another element added to the bill. We want reconsideration of what was called the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which has laid dormant, essentially, for almost 15 to 18 years.

The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act was, in fact, a rail safety measure where a municipality, upon application to the federal government, could appeal to have the railways lift up their tracks, whether it was a level crossing or a marshalling yard, and tear up the tracks, move them outside the city to a place where they would not pose a health or contamination hazard, and 50% of that cost would be borne by the federal government.

One would think with all we have given the railways over the years, that they would heed the wishes and will of the residents of the municipality where they reside and we could oblige them to move those tracks somewhere that would be more beneficial to us. They were not all that co-operative. I do not know how this developed, but at a period of time, the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act was the avenue of recourse for municipalities which wanted to get rid of the rails.

It exists today. It is on the books. It exists as legislation. It is inactive and dormant and we believe the government of the day, in the same context of dealing with the Railway Safety Act, should be reviewing the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act .

I could make the argument that it is directly relevant to the safety of citizens to get these tracks out of the yards, but it also helps us to rationalize our rail transportation network in the country. If we are to truly avail ourselves of the new reality that rail is the best way to move freight, the old marshalling yards in the inner city of Winnipeg, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, in Outremont in Montreal and in other cities around the country are obsolete, outdated and unable to avail themselves of the new intermodal container shipping practices that typify a modern shipping transportation system.

In fact, we believe the city of Winnipeg needs to develop what we call a great inland port, in other words, a fully-modern, 21st century intermodal container terminal that is not on an ocean but is in fact at the heart of the continent. It is the heart of a great X from the Asia Pacific trade route, from the St. Lawrence Seaway through the Great Lakes, over the northern Ontario trade route straight up to our only deep sea Arctic port at Churchill and then straight down the Red River corridor to trade into the populated areas of the United States.

We are uniquely located. The city of Winnipeg's best advantage is being at the heart of the continent. Yet it is handicapped and stymied by the outdated, obsolete, polluted marshalling yards that are not only an eyesore and a liability, but are holding us back from developing into the inland port computerized terminal we need.

I have travelled to modern-day container shipping terminals in Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and Fuzhou, China. I went to those four terminals and studied the way a modern, computerized shipping terminal worked. It is nothing like the inner city of Winnipeg. It does not even bear a remote resemblance to what we need to develop and we cannot develop that in its existing grounds.

These container terminals work with computerized gantries that can go about half a mile down a line of terminals that are stacked 12 high and find the exact shipping container that it is looking for 80 rows down, 6 rows up and 15 rows over. It can go on this gantry system, pick it up, bring it out and ship it.

That is the kind of speed and just-in-time shipping we need if we are to have a proper distribution network in our country. We also need to consider that it has to be intermodal from air traffic to train traffic to truck traffic, all in the same centre if we are to put more freight on the rails where it belongs and take it off the highways.

In the consideration of Bill C-33, the safer railways act, we are negligent in our duties if we do not consider the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act in the same context at the same time. We do not know when we will be able to raise this issue in Parliament again as part of the legislative framework associated with rail safety. If I had more time, I would also explain that the government needs to revisit the rail freight review for western Canadian grain farmers.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member time to finish his thoughts because this is not the first time he has spoken about the relocation of railway lines in Winnipeg. He has fought this issue for at least a decade.

Where does he see the rail yards being relocated to? Not only are there rail yards in his constituency but there are rail yards in the Transcona area as well. He seems to suggest that they should be around the airport and I agree with him that the transportation hub would have to be concentrated around the new expansion of the airport.

What is his vision on where the rail yards in his area should be relocated to as well as the rail yards in the Elmwood—Transcona, if at all?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona comes from an area that was actually borne of the railway industry. I do not think there is a community in Canada where the railroad is more relevant. However, the member asks an excellent question.

I believe there will be input from the federal government should we avail ourselves of financial support from the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. We expect the transportation ministry to have some input as to how we reroute the rail yards around the city of Winnipeg and to rationalize the rail so it does not need to be a CN line and a CP line both running through the inner city of Winnipeg. They can share track at least until they get past Winnipeg and even past the province of Manitoba.

If we are trying to view an intermodal consolidation of our transportation system, it is going to be key to having freight arriving by air and rail and put on trucks for further distribution all in the same intermodal network somewhere near the airport.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question that relates to something I think we have in common in terms of our communities. I was asked earlier by my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt about the problem we have with rail lines through our downtown core. It seems the hon. member has talked about a similar problem.

My municipality is talking about the possibility of moving the rail yards. Our downtown business association is talking about turning these rail lines into a park, almost turning the city core into a park.

What does the hon. member think about the role of the federal government in supporting downtown business associations and municipal governments in getting these rail lines out of our communities to ensure we can still have a rail line through our communities, but at the same time have a prosperous downtown core?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sudbury is absolutely right. The liability also has an opportunity built into it as well. As we tear up the tracks and relocate the rail line somewhere outside of the city, for safety and pollution reasons, it leaves us opportunities for green space within the inner city. I understand Windsor, Ontario has made very good use of the lands it made available.

The Forks in downtown Winnipeg, of which we are very proud, was in fact the old rail yard's maintenance shops. It was terribly contaminated and polluted, but with the co-operation of all three levels of government, we have turned an eyesore liability into one of our best assets.

I like the idea of bicycle paths along the routes where the rail lines used to run. In fact, it is natural to use that whole railway bed for a bicycle path.

We need a recommitment to rail transportation in our country. For years the tracks have been torn up in places we did not want torn up. The tracks should be torn up in our inner cities and urban environments to create more green space and opportunity to social housing. We can put that land to better use.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Government Spending; the hon. member for Labrador, The Hon. Member for Nepean—Carleton.