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.

[Karen Swol]

This came about as part of the DRAP exercise. If you recall, it started off as Bill C-33. It was reintroduced after the election and had been going on for quite some time. That bill was probably already in the Senate by the time these decisions were made to go forward with changes to this. So it was not part of the original thinking.

Safer Railways Act

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a break from these rather technical discussions to talk a little about philosophy. I would submit that we sometimes have to look to philosophy to light our way and our common future.

We are considering a bill that deals with railway safety. The railways are inextricably connected with the building of this country. They are the key factor in the marriage of diverse regions that we call Canada.

Canadians and members of this chamber will know that any marriage that is successful is based on trust. It is the essential element of any good relationship. When one loses that element of trust, that foundation, no matter what we build on top of it, the relationship will crumble.

Many will say that we are past the days of railways and have moved on to other more flashy, more attractive means of transportation. We must not forget that railways are still a foundation of our nation and of our economy. Canadians need to trust that rail will always be there.

This bill is an important part of building Canadians' trust in our railways. I want to turn to the issue of trust in terms of the presence of rail rather than the security.

Too often, in the past, railway service has been a favourite spot for making cuts. In 1981, Prime Minister Trudeau made cuts to popular VIA Rail lines. His government reduced the operations of VIA Rail, a crown corporation, by 40%. When the Mulroney government came to power it restored the services that had been cut. However, heavy rail traffic resulted in one of the most tragic accidents in Canadian history: the collision of a VIA Rail train with a CN train in Hinton, Alberta. Twenty-three people died. That is one of the reasons behind the bill we are considering today.

Cuts were made to VIA Rail in 1989, 1994 and 2003.

Canadians love the train, but they think service is not as reliable as it should be. To restore confidence, there have to be investments and improvements in terms of administration.

I return here to the analogy of a marriage in the specifics of the bill before us. In any marriage, people make vows, usually with the intention of creating a bond that will last a lifetime. In the day to day, people make negotiations and compromises. Now the vows, negotiations and compromises do not mean very much if one of the parties does not intend on enforcing or following the rules.

That is why those provisions in Bill S-4, which touch upon enforcement, are important. Time will tell if the judicial penalties are effective. I believe it is important to pass this bill as soon as possible but I must admit to a bit of skepticism that it will solve all railway safety problems.

I believe the government's work in this area is not over and we will see in the years to come what other measures will be necessary. There are many tools in building trust so that Canadians feel safe about their railways. Mandatory voice recorders in locomotives, for instance, would be a beginning.

Another thing that would be helpful is separating out elements of budget bills so that proper debate and discussion could take place about security. Instead, the government goes on with its infantile method of putting everything into a omnibus bill and then claiming that we vote against particular provisions.

I will return once again to the marriage analogy. It is like the government is a cheating spouse and we, the opposition, who want to make this work, just want to search through the credit card records to find the hotel where our partner made a dalliance. Instead, we get flooded with all the household bills and office papers and are told that we are never supportive. It is bad faith.

The government should accept criticism where criticism is due instead of using this infantile “You voted against it” line. Canadians are intelligent. They see through this kind of politics.

As well, we have heard rumours that VIA Rail is going to be privatized. We often hear this government, and in particular the minister, proclaim that they do not interfere in the affairs of a private company. We can therefore expect this legislation to be meaningless, since it is coupled with that ideology of non-intervention in regulation of the private sector.

I am still skeptical about the effectiveness of enforcing a law like this. The government has already shown that it is powerless against the private sector. We hope it will change its mind in the case of railway safety. I would remind the minister that it is the job of government to provide services to the public, for the public welfare, and that this must be done responsibly. Sometimes the government does not believe in its own laws, as was the case with the 1988 Public Participation Act.

The minister has said before:

Railways are the backbone of our economy. As such, they are an important part of our history and our future. It is our shared responsibility to ensure they remain safe.

We in the NDP certainly agree.

I would like to conclude by talking about something important to many people in my home town of Saint-Lazare. It touches regulation directly.

Presently we do not have a mechanism which would get municipalities and rail companies to sit together and discuss issues such as vibrations caused by the speed of trains as well as a panoply of other issues. I have spoken with citizens and with rail company officials. They both tell me that they would like to see a mechanism through which dialogue could take place and that the federal government could play a role in this process. Bill S-4 does not have this provision.

These issues, the relationships between the municipalities and rail companies, directly affect the ridings of Vaudreuil-Soulanges and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. The head of operations at VIA Rail, Mr. Marginson, indicated that there are 98 level crossings between Coteau and Ottawa.

Currently, companies are forced to contact private landowners if they wish to close a level crossing. The government must play a role to avoid the kind of conflicts and economic repercussions that are often the result of these disputes.

We all have the tools we need, but what is lacking is the political will to use them, because of this government's ideology and its belief that the state should not intervene.

I quote Mr. Cliff Mackay from the Railway Association of Canada, who said this about Bill C-33, the earlier bill:

Increased proximity between rail operations and everyday life in our communities across Canada is a risk factor that must be addressed to improve rail safety. We believe that Bill C-33 can be strengthened in this area. At the centre of these concerns involving proximity between railway lands and municipal development is the wide variation that exists across Canada with respect to land use planning regulations....Bill C-33 is silent on this issue at this time.

Unfortunately Bill S-4 remains silent on this issue as well.

We will support the bill but, as I said before, there are places where it could be improved.

Recommendation 34 that was made would require a process of consultation, which would have been an effective tool in reducing use conflicts and in turn increasing safety. Education campaigns are fine, but they rarely do the whole job.

Cliff Mackay also said:

We believe that one of the most efficient ways of improving railway safety in this area is to give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations respecting notices that should be given to railways regarding the establishment of a local plan of subdivision, or zoning by-law, or proposed amendments thereto, where the subject land is within 300 metres of a railway line or railway yard. We believe the 300 metres is a distance that makes sense from a safety point of view.

In terms of jurisdictional questions of this quote, they do it already in the air, not exact, for air infrastructure. Why not for rail? I admit maybe 300 metres is excessive. It could be less, but it was not really even discussed in a serious way, either as Bill C-33 or in its present incarnation, as Bill S-4.

For Pete's sake, all the companies were asking was that municipalities send a notice of when they were going to make changes that would fall within the area of this rail corridor. They were not even asking for any sort of decision on these questions. Those companies are forced to go to 10 provinces and 3 territories to negotiate an agreement with each one. It could be so much more simple and effective. That is what good governance means. It means the federal government takes its role seriously in bringing the country together.

In the future I hope the government will move from merely being a force for awareness of these issues to being a responsible public administrator that ensures that marriage between Canadians and their railway lines remains healthy for generations to come.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Bourassa, for splitting his time with me. I do know that, as our Liberal Party critic, the member for Bourassa has done an outstanding job in terms of ensuring there is this sense of urgency to see this particular bill pass through the system.

It is great to see. It is not that long ago that we had it before us in second reading, and we have it again today in third reading. I suspect we would love to see it pass here today and, ultimately, continue on going through the system.

It is important to note that this particular bill was in a different form prior to the last election, better known as Bill C-33, which had its origin here in the House. I know there was some concern as to why this would have started off in the Senate.

However, I do think there is a sense that this particular bill does need to be fast-tracked, primarily because we recognize just how critically important it is to the railway industry as a whole to ensure we do what we can to improve rail line services throughout the country.

It has been a long time since there was an actual significant change to the Railway Safety Act. My understanding is we would have to go back to the 1990s, I think it was 1999, under the Chrétien government, where there were other amendments of significance that were made. A lot has happened over that period of time. That is one of the reasons we have the bill here today in recognition of the changes and the number of things that have been brought to the government's attention by a wide variety of stakeholders.

I think it is worthy of note that the stakeholders come from a fairly wide spectrum of individuals and groups who have actually been able to contribute to what we have here today.

It is interesting. When I had the opportunity to read through the bill and some of the notes that my colleague from Bourassa had provided on this issue, one of the things that really came to mind is the whole whistleblower content and how important it is to recognize that people working somewhere within the industry or with the train company have the ability to say they are concerned about the safety of X, whatever that X might be, and not be in fear of losing their job. To me, that is something that is good to see in legislation.

I can recall when we supported similar legislation with regard to whistleblower legislation in the province of Manitoba and how well that was received.

I would suggest that the same principle applies here. This way reasonable issues would be brought up because individuals working within the industry would now feel comfortable knowing that, if they have a concern that is related to safety, they could actually bring it up and would not have to be in fear of ultimately being fired because of raising an issue that is related to safety.

That is just one aspect of the bill we have before us that makes it so important that the bill ultimately passes. At the end of the day, I believe all members here in the House recognize that the bill would in fact improve the overall safety of our rail lines. We have seen that demonstrated through comments with regard to this bill, whether in committee stage, in second reading or, now, in third reading. So, I see that as a positive thing.

It is also important to recognize, and I have already made quick reference to it, that there are advisory committees out there, there are members from within our unions and there are others who have had the opportunity to provide input. I know we, as the Liberal Party, have had that opportunity and appreciate that the government, on this particular piece of legislation, seems to have listened and responded in kind.

It is somewhat noteworthy, and I put it tongue-in-cheek, that the government does not require time allocation in order to pass this particular bill, which tells me it is another good reason to believe we are seeing more of an all-party approach to recognizing this as a good idea.

Well we should, because the consequences of rail accidents, whether in our rural communities or urban centres, are quite significant. On the macro scale, a derailment can cause a complete and total evacuation of communities. On the micro scale, people may be hit by a train, causing fatalities. Both of those happen far too often. At the end of the day, this is what we are hoping to deal with by passing Bill S-4 today.

I want to emphasize the importance of rail safety. It is not just up to the federal government to pass this legislation. There is a need to have co-operation among different stakeholders. Some of the stakeholders I am referring to are municipal governments. I would suggest municipal governments of our rural communities all have a role to play. They are in essence the groups that ultimately decide, in many communities, where there will be flashing railway signs or railway arms that are lifted to accommodate the flow of traffic versus train traffic.

Provincial governments also need to step up to the plate. A lot of the monitoring of our highways is done through our provincial governments. They too need to step up to the plate and deal with what they can of their responsibilities.

Obviously, it goes without saying that our rail lines, companies like CN, CP, VIA Rail and other rail lines that are operating on our tracks, have the most significant role to play in ensuring the quality of the line or the quality of the vehicles they are using to transport goods is of a high standard, so we can minimize any sort of damage to the individual or the community as a whole.

I have spoken in the past about how the rail industry has played a critical role in the development of the city of Winnipeg and many communities. I want to focus some attention on the city of Winnipeg. I have had a history with the rail line in one form or another, primarily indirectly, with the impact of the railway industry on my ancestry. I can talk about my grandfather's time and today, in terms of how it divides communities in geographical regions.

The last time I had the opportunity to speak, I talked about Main Street, Salter Street, McPhillips, Arlington in between those other two, and Keewatin and Route 90. All of those have either underpasses or overpasses that cross the CP tracks. There are tens of thousands of people who live around the CP yards. One can rest assured that the constituents I represent have a vested interest in this legislation and how important it is that it passes. It is all about rail safety.

I see my time has expired. I posed a question about the expansion of rapid transit and where rail lines could play an active role in it. It is something I may be able to talk about in the future.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everybody is happy about this debate because it is probably the only bill that everyone agrees on. I thank the member for Beauce, who was initially against the bill, but then supported it later on. Apparently, even he sometimes sees the light. We thank him.

One thing is certain: I was proud to suggest at the last committee meeting that the bill be fast-tracked and reported without amendment, so that it can return to the House. This is a subject that everybody agrees on, because health and safety are not partisan issues. Everyone has made an effort and worked hard on this issue.

The issue should have been considered as part of Bill C–33, which unfortunately died on the order paper. We know that the subject was then dealt with in the other chamber, in the form of Bill S–4.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, Senator Mercer, who did an admirable job. What is important and interesting about this bill is that we had proposed a series of amendments as part of Bill C–33. These amendments were adopted virtually unanimously thanks particularly to the tireless work of my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, who did a very good job.

We could talk about what more could be done. There is obviously a lot more to be done. Health and safety are ongoing issues. This had to be done to be in sync with the other forms of transport. It was therefore crucial that it be done. As far as air and marine transport are concerned, we know that measures had already been proposed. It is important that the same thing be done for the railways.

I would also like to thank the members on both sides of this House, especially the minister who answered my questions. Someone said earlier that he was quiet. It is true that he is sometimes quiet on a number of issues, but at least he answered the question in this case. I am quite happy about this.

As a former minister, I have always been in favour, whether from a curative or preventive standpoint, of having some power to protect people's quality of life. I believe that this is the very core of this bill: enabling the minister to intervene. This of course is a power that can be delegated. Often, such an intervention can prevent things from getting bogged down in administrative or bureaucratic details. In a democracy, it is crucial for the people's representative, the minister, to have this ability and this power to intervene. Very often, this kind of prevention can save lives. Providing it is essential.

In short, it is clear that this bill will improve Transport Canada's oversight capacity. It will increase the department’s powers to enforce the act. There will be punitive fines. This is important. It is not always enough, but it is important.

I also believe that it is necessary to have someone who is accountable where safety is concerned. In my view, the other essential element is that whistleblowers be able to intervene without becoming victims of intimidation. As we know, very often, knowledge is power. Once people realize, whether in the private or public sector, that they can have this "political” power to intervene and prevent problems, it becomes not only the right thing to do, but the essential thing to do.

Needless to say, there has to be a process that leads to a form of certification. I believe that such certification is vital. It is a step in the right direction. It is even several steps in the right direction. After the two reports were prepared, we were able to demonstrate that we were listening carefully. It was essential and important to be able to intervene.

I do have one concern, however, because this is not the end of the story, and it is not a panacea. All our amendments were accepted, but a further step is still required, because things are different in rural communities and urban communities. I asked the minister some questions. There is of course this whole concept of accountability of individuals, parents and everyone who has a supervisory role to play. You can put up 12-foot-high fences. You can build all kinds of infrastructure to prevent people from getting through, but people will get through anyway.

Given the existing urban reality and even, in some cases, the existing rural reality, it is important that all stakeholders make a pact so that, after this bill is passed, they can move on to the next step and come to an agreement about safety.

Earlier, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina spoke about certain elements that could be added to improve safety and protection, both for passengers and workers.

Today is May 1, International Workers' Day. We must therefore also think about the railway workers whose do quite an admirable job.

This is not just a legal battle. We cannot say that this is not our responsibility because it involves the private sector or it falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. We also cannot say that we are not going to get involved because this falls under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and they are creatures of the provinces.

With regard to security and protection, it will be essential to come to an agreement with all the stakeholders, whether it be the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or the major cities. In areas where there are railway crossings, it will be key to have additional tools to protect our youth and others who too often recklessly decide to cross the railway tracks.

In addition, certification is not a solution in and of itself but, rather, a means to an end. It is an additional tool that will aid in prevention.

Yes, the train is one of the safest forms of transportation. The other day, we spoke about the train that derailed in Burlington. We were very distressed about that situation. Could this type of accident have been avoided?

In order to prevent those kinds of incidents, it is important to provide individuals with all the tools they need to ensure their security. I proposed a fast track at committee because we have been talking from both sides, not only this time but even before the last session. It has been a long process since 2006 but it is not the first time that we have talked about security and prevention. This is why the Liberal Party of Canada will take responsibility and support the bill.

I believe it is very important to mention that if everybody wants to work together, majority government or not, it would be a great thing for democracy because we would be sending a true message that we are all equal as representatives and that we have a role to play. The fact that we can put forward some amendments that, from the two chambers, we can talk together and work for the sake of our communities, is the good news today. It is a lesson learned that we should take note of that process. It is like the movie Field of Dreams, if we build it they will come.

It is a wonderful process. I am very pleased with the answers that Transport Canada and the minister provided to us on that issue. The minister and I do not agree on everything but I do recognize that in that process he delivered. We are looking forward to providing some new alternatives afterward because there are some other issues regarding alternatives for security.

What is important is that it is a living paper. We will need to see what happens in the future but we have a framework here that addresses some of the issues that we wanted to address and the fact that the stakeholders, such as the unions, are on the same page. Nothing is perfect but I believe we are better having an imperfection realized than a perfection en attente, as we say.

We will support Bill S-4.

[Luc Bourdon]

Just going from my memory, I'd say that most of these amendments have had value added. There were some proposed by the teamsters. For instance, in terms of the whistle-blower protection, Bill C-33 was requiring the employees to report directly to the companies. The unions felt that with the relationship they had with Transport Canada, and with the trust that was between us and them, we could handle that. So this was one of their amendments.

They also asked that fatigue science be considered within a safety management system, which was also tabled by members of this committee at the time. There was also the possibility for all regulations passed by Transport Canada to be revised by this committee.

There have been some housekeeping items. For instance, with all the stakeholders that were involved with revising this bill, some of them, and even us, found that words were missing at some points. Amendments were proposed to add these words that may have been missing. In section 11 of the Railway Safety Act—clause 8 of this bill—there was something with sound engineering principles where “maintenance” was left out. One of the amendments was to add it.

Those were, I'd say, the main amendments that came through this committee. As I said, there was very little.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

In 2010 our government tabled Bill C-33, which is virtually the same bill we're discussing today. Since Bill C-33 was tabled, our government has continued to discuss the proposed amendments with stakeholders. Further consultation will occur as part of the regulation-making process. Going forward, many members have congratulated our government on the extensive consultation on that one draft before the drafting of this bill.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Bourdon, and members.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss these proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act. This committee already has a high level of familiarity and engagement with these amendments and your continued support to improve the safety of our railway system is appreciated.

As you know, these proposed amendments were previously reviewed by this committee when they were presented to the House as Bill C-33 last spring. At that time, after several weeks of comprehensive discussion and analysis, all parties agreed unanimously to support the amendments, with one minor change related to safety reporting. Although that approved version of the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called, the same amendments, with this committee's approved changes, were tabled in the Senate as Bill S-4, where they were again approved virtually unchanged and resubmitted to the House.

During second reading on March 13, we again heard many supportive comments from honourable members on the other side of the House. In brief, all parties once again expressed their strong support for the bill.

I believe the New Democratic Party member from Vancouver—Kingsway summed up the general feeling of the House when he referred to Bill S-4 as “...an excellent piece of legislation...that has gained the buy-in of industry, labour and government. ... It is a solid piece of legislation.”

The list of members who expressed their strong support for Bill S-4 goes on. Every member who spoke in the chamber agreed that this bill enhances rail safety, has the support of many stakeholders, has been widely debated and analyzed, and must be passed in a timely manner.

I must say, as the Minister of Transport, I deeply appreciate this enthusiastic support from all corners of the political spectrum. Everybody agrees on the importance of a safer rail industry for our economy and our communities. We all recognize that the industry is rapidly changing and that the Railway Safety Act needs to be updated accordingly. We all agree that the amendments, which have already been consulted on, debated, and unanimously approved by committee—not once, but twice—are the appropriate means to help ensure Canadians can reap the full benefits of a safe railway system. Better safety is clearly the objective that we all support.

The bill, as noted in the House, is a strong one. It is timely, it is thorough, and it is firmly focused on important and achievable improvements to our rail safety regime. I think much of the strength of this bill comes from the high level of stakeholder consultation that both preceded and followed its introduction to the House.

The initial Railway Safety Act review, which was launched in 2007, included input from the entire spectrum of railway interests, including the railways themselves, their shippers, their suppliers and their unions, as well as federal, provincial and municipal governments, national associations, independent researchers and the public. Essentially, all of the groups in our country were consulted.

Everybody had something to say, and we listened closely to their concerns. This bill is our comprehensive response. We identified the issues, we consulted on alternatives with the key players, and we subsequently took action with Bill C-33, and now with Bill S-4, to ensure that the safety concerns of Canadians are being properly addressed. We all seem to agree that they are. The member from Chambly—Borduas said during second reading that the NDP unabashedly supports the bill. Similarly, the member from Markham—Unionville said that “...the Liberal Party will certainly be supporting the bill”.

Speaking personally, I must say that I'm proud of this legislation. I am proud of it because it contains an effective blueprint for better safety in the rail industry. I am also proud of it because it shows how effective our parliamentary system can be when we decide to work together for the national interest. The net result is solid, seamless, and practical legislation like Bill S-4. I would like to remind you of some of the most important amendments in this bill.

First and foremost, Bill S-4 will improve railway safety in Canada by increasing the regulator's authority for stronger oversight and enforcement.

For one thing, these new authorities will allow the introduction of safety-based railway operating certificates for all railways. This means that every federally regulated railway in the country will have to demonstrate how they meet the safety standards set by the operating certificate before they begin operations.

This bill also provides the regulator with the authority to issue administrative monetary penalties when non-compliance with railway regulations is found. These monetary penalties have a very positive impact on safety and have already proven themselves effective in other modes of transport such as marine and aviation.

In addition, your approval of Bill S-4 will allow us to raise existing judicial penalty levels which were established 20 years ago and are now badly out of date. Raising these levels will make them equivalent to other modes and provide an important additional tool for our safety compliance and enforcement toolbox.

One other key component of these amendments is the significantly stronger focus they place on railway accountability and the need for effective railway safety management systems. With these amendments in place, railways will be required to appoint a senior executive to be responsible for safety issues. They will also be required to establish non-punitive reporting systems so that employees can raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal. In addition, railway companies will need to demonstrate how they continuously monitor and assess the level of safety of their operations.

These are critical steps for the development of an effective safety culture, and both the railway companies and the unions have expressed their strong support for these measures.

In addition to these key improvements, S-4 will also clarify the minister's authority related to national railway matters and expand regulation-making authorities, which will enable us to implement requirements for environmental management plans and emission data collection.

In sum, the proposed amendments before you today will significantly reinforce and modernize the Railway Safety Act to reflect the needs of this generation and those to follow. Railways are the backbone of our economy. As such, they are an important part of our history and our future. It is our shared responsibility to ensure they remain safe.

As we all know from the recent tragedy in Burlington, even one accident is one too many. We cannot afford to hesitate. The time to move forward is now.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank all parties for their ongoing support. I would also like to thank this committee again for the opportunity to be here. I deeply appreciate your high level of engagement on this bill and all transport and infrastructure issues.

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. My riding has an abundance of train tracks that are used by CP, CN and commuter trains. I think it is very important that we take the time to debate this bill, which is a very good bill, as my colleague said. I would like to talk about it a little more, so that the people of my riding really understand what it is all about.

The purpose of the bill is to 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; strengthen the Department of Transport’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines; enhance the role of safety management systems by including provisions for a railway executive who is accountable for safety and a non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies; clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters; and expand regulation-making powers, including in respect of environmental management, and clarify the process for rule making by railway companies.

Allow me to provide some context for what we are talking about today. In 1989, the Railway Safety Act was born. Seven years later, the Canada Transportation Act was passed. Consideration was subsequently given to re-examining the Railway Safety Act, but the idea was abandoned at the time. Then, in 2000, we started seeing many railway accidents. From 2000 to 2005, there was an increase in the number of incidents, deaths and damage caused by railway accidents. In 2006, the government decided to begin a review of the Railway Safety Act. In May 2008, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities made a number of recommendations after studying the issue. In 2010, Bill C-33, which was more or less the same as this one, unfortunately died on the order paper. Finally, there was a Senate bill, which reproduced roughly everything that was in Bill C-33.

All members of our party support this bill. The NDP has often promoted railway safety. We are talking about lives and injured people. We will definitely support a bill that will improve rail safety.

The NDP fully supports the fact that the bill would provide additional powers to more closely regulate the rail system in Canada. However, we find that the bill does not contain concrete measures to achieve that. We are putting pressure on the government to make voice recorders in locomotive cabs and positive train control systems mandatory.

I will explain how a positive train control system works. If a train is going too fast, this system makes it possible to slow down the train remotely. On February 26, there was a train accident in Burlington, Ontario, that killed three people and injured 42. This should never have happened. We know that speed was a factor, but unfortunately we do not know much more than that. We do not know why or who decided this train was travelling too fast. An automatic safety system would have made it possible to control this train and reduce its speed. This accident killed three Canadians—VIA Rail employees—and could have been prevented.

Voice recorders are mandatory for planes and ships, but for some unknown reason they are not mandatory for trains.

Basically, if there had been a voice recorder in the locomotive, we would know what really happened on February 26 and we might be in a position to prevent this type of accident in the future.

In my riding, the train tracks are very close to the houses of my constituents, within a few metres. There are laws about that, and the houses are built at the minimum distance required by law. That worries me.

The railway system in Canada is very safe. We live in a very safe country and we are careful, but improvements have to be made. There are still some shortcomings that allow accidents like the one on February 26 to happen. That was a passenger train. In my riding, many trains that carry hazardous materials also pass through. A speed control system and a voice recording system would enable us to go even further.

I am not really going to say more about it. On this side of the House, we are definitely in favour of the bill, and all the parties involved agree that our country's safety is very important.

Let me reiterate that I am in favour of this bill and pleased that it was introduced. That could have been done earlier. We have gone through a number of stages and we have taken some time before considering the matter. I am really pleased now that the Senate has proposed a bill that will improve our country's railway safety. I also hope that we will be able to go further by perhaps including the two solutions suggested by the NDP.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-4, the safer railways act. I would like to reiterate the comments I made this morning. Very often the opposition stands in the House and criticizes the government, as is our job to do and as is very often necessary in this place. However, it is also important to give credit where credit is due. I want to congratulate the government and the minister in particular on bringing forward a piece of legislation which is much needed, well crafted and will accomplish a great deal on railway safety in this country.

Our party's late leader, Jack Layton, used to talk about it being necessary to propose as often as oppose. The corollary to that is it is important to compliment and criticize when each is due.

The bill has been 20 years in the making. The reason the bill is in as good a shape as it is the approach that was used on this legislation. All Canadians would like to see more of that approach. The government sat down and consulted with industry, labour, and stakeholders of many different stripes. Government members sat in committee, listened to expert testimony and worked with the official opposition and all parties to make improvements to the legislation. Once again I want to thank the government and point out that its good work has resulted in a piece of legislation that is improved because of that approach. I might suggest that the government follow this procedure more often. I think it is something Canadians want to see.

The bill seeks to modify the Railway Safety Act to do a number of things. It improves the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport. It requires railway companies to obtain the safety-based railway operating certificate that indicates compliance with regulatory requirements.

The bill strengthens the department's enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing court-enforced penalties. It enhances the role of safety management systems by including a provision for the identification of a railway executive who would be legally responsible for safety, and a whistleblower protection system for employees of railway companies who raise safety concerns. I will talk about that very important aspect in a moment.

The bill clarifies the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters. It expands regulation-making authorities and clarifies the process for rule making by railway companies.

By way of background, Bill S-4 was introduced on October 6, 2011 in the Senate by the leader of the government there. Bill S-4 is virtually identical to former Bill C-33, which was introduced in the House of Commons during the third session of the 40th Parliament.

Bill C-33 was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and was reported back to the House of Commons with amendments in March 2011. Unfortunately, the bill died on the order paper when the general election was called later that month.

The text of Bill S-4 incorporates the amendments adopted by the standing committee and otherwise differs from Bill C-33 only by the addition of one new paragraph and some minor changes in wording.

The bill was reported back to the Senate by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with that one amendment in November 2011. The bill was sent back to this House where it received first reading in December of last year.

The Railway Safety Act was implemented in 1989. The act sets out a regulatory framework for railways under federal jurisdiction to address matters of safety, security and environmental impact. Transport Canada notes that the Canadian rail industry has changed significantly since the act was amended in 1999 and operations have become increasingly complex and traffic is growing rapidly. Therefore, this bill is timely.

I mentioned earlier that labour supports the bill. I want to mention a couple of things which I think labour was instrumental in achieving.

Labour made several key important points.

It wanted to see better fatigue management. That aspect is addressed in the bill.

It wanted to see greater whistleblower protection. In particular, it wanted to see a process of non-punitive reporting whereby railway employees could report their safety concerns directly to Transport Canada and not to a company manager. If workers identified any defects or safety problems, they could without fear go directly to Transport Canada. There had been a problem. Some railway workers feared being disciplined. Some had been disciplined by companies for nothing more than reporting their safety concerns. This is a positive legislative change.

Some railway workers say that they do not want to rely on good luck and gravity for railway safety. They want to rely on careful attention to detail, and swift and accurate reporting of problems so that accidents do not occur and problems can be identified before something happens.

Bill Brehl, the president of Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, maintenance of way employees division, did stand-up work in pushing for the amendments to this bill and for the overall concept of railway safety to be included in the legislation. Rex Beatty, president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, locomotive engineers, and Rob Smith, the national legislative director of that same body, also played pivotal roles in this piece of legislation.

This also shows how important it is to involve experts and Canadians from coast to coast, to bring to bear in this House their experience, knowledge and expertise. It helps make better legislation. This will make life safer not only for all Canadians, but for the thousands of women and men who work every day on the trains, tracks and rolling stock to keep them in shape.

There are some areas that need improvement. At-grade crossings are a problem in this country. Greater control of trespassing is still a problem which I do not think this bill fully addresses. The issue of track and metal fatigue is not fully addressed by the bill.

In terms of at-grade crossings, approximately 100 people per year are killed in railway accidents. Accidents happen frequently at the at-grade crossings. There are several ways to address this. We could raise the crossings, which is an expensive but effective way to go. We could bring in an automatic train stopping mechanism, as Sweden has done. There are automatic metal detectors and if a vehicle is on the tracks at an at-grade crossing, the train will automatically slow and stop in advance. That is something I would encourage the government to look at and implement as soon as possible.

With respect to trespassing, we need to fence off tracks especially in urban areas, which are places of death and injury. People trespass and get on the tracks, even though they should not.

Last, in terms of track maintenance and metal fatigue, there is no requirement to establish the fatigue life of rails. There are no common industry standards for rail life based on tonnage, defects or steel quality. For a country that relies so heavily on rail, we should be ensuring that we have state of the art world-class standards in this area. We can do more and better in this area.

In 2005 there was a derailment of a train near Wabamun Lake in Alberta. A report pointed out that the railway track safety rules do not provide any guidance on fatigue life, nor are there any common industry standards for rail life based on the state of the metal used on the tracks. A clear recommendation of the Transportation Safety Board was to establish those standards to ensure that the tracks upon which our trains roll are in the best shape possible.

I would like to conclude by thanking members of the committee on all sides of the House, and in particular the good work of our member for Western Arctic. He did such great work in pushing productively, proactively and in a non-partisan way for greater standards in the act.

I congratulate the government on bringing forward a piece of legislation that has the support of all parties of the House. It is a testament to a non-partisan, co-operative way of working together to get the job done which results in good legislation that every Canadian wants to see.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about our government's efforts to improve the safety of Canada's national railway system through the safer railways act. For my riding of Elmwood—Transcona, the name Transcona comes from “transcontinental“ which is one of the CN line's main facilities that was put into my riding many years ago. So the background of my riding is very much historically involved with the rail industry.

These amendments have been supported from the outset by all stakeholders. The government introduced a similar bill, an act to amend the railway safety act, on June 4, 2010. Also known as Bill C-33, it was studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It was approved unanimously by the committee, with minor changes, on March 10, 2011 and reported to the other House on March 11, 2011. However, the opposition prioritized politics over the safety of Canadians. This bill died on the order paper on March 25, 2011, with the call of an election.

During the second reading debate on Bill S-4, members in the other place shared personal stories concerning the economic and environmental damage and personal tragedies that had resulted from rail accidents in their own jurisdictions. Their reactions to the proposed amendments were very positive. I believe our shared support of this important safety legislation reflects a common desire to ensure our national railway system, which is one of the most important components of our economic infrastructure, remains one of the safest in the world for the long-term benefit of our economy, our communities and our environment. The safety and prosperity of Canadians is of paramount importance to us all.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, was introduced in the other place on November 1, 2011. This bill was studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and approved unanimously by the committee with one amendment. It was reported to the other place on November 24, 2011. By reintroducing proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act, the government is reiterating its commitment to a safe and secure national rail transportation system, not only to communities across the country but also to Canada's economic well-being and its vision to further improve rail safety and environmental protection.

Before going further, I would like to remind hon. members of the origins and purpose of this bill. For many years, the safety of Canada's federal railways was regulated under the Railway Act, originated at the turn of the century when Canada's railway system was rapidly expanding. The Railway Act was designed for an older era. At that time, much of the national rail system was under construction to open up new territory and to encourage settlement. In 1989, the Railway Act was replaced by the Railway Safety Act, which was designed to achieve the objectives of the national transportation policy relating to the safety of railway operations and to address the many changes that had taken place in the rail transportation industry in recent years. It was a time of privatization and restructuring, supported by a new federal policy that separated economic and safety legislation to provide the railway companies with the flexibility they needed to prosper.

The Railway Safety Act gave direct jurisdiction over safety matters to the Minister of Transport, to be administered by Transport Canada where responsibility for other federally regulated modes of transportation resides. Today, economic regulation of the rail industry is guided by the Canada Transportation Act, which provides an overall framework to ensure a national transportation system that is competitive, economic and efficient. That act, which came into effect in 1996, also established the Canadian Transportation Agency which is responsible for dispute resolution and economic regulation of all modes of transport under federal jurisdiction, including rail.

Rail safety regulation, on the other hand, is governed by the Railway Safety Act which was developed in the spirit of co-operation between industry and government. The Railway Safety Act moved away from a fully prescriptive regulatory approach to one that recognized the responsibility of railway companies for the safety of their own operations.

At the same time, the federal government, through Transport Canada, retained the responsibility and the power to protect people, property and the environment by ensuring that the railway companies operate safely within the national framework. Transport Canada undertakes its responsibility to maintain a safe national rail system through policy and regulatory development, outreach and education, and oversight and enforcement of the rules and regulations it implements under the authority of the Railway Safety Act.

Applied in tandem, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act have successfully guided the growth of Canada's rail sector since the 1990s. But there are issues. As it stands today, the interrelationship of the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act has created a notable gap in rail safety oversight that must be addressed if we are to ensure the continued safety of our national railway industry.

Following a review of the Railway Safety Act in 1994, the act was amended in 1999 to further improve the legislation and to make the railway systems even safer. Those amendments were designed to fully modernize the legislative and regulatory framework of Canada's rail transportation system. They were also designed to make railway companies more responsible for managing their operations safely. They gave the general public and interested parties a greater say on issues of rail safety.

The fundamental principles on which the regulation of railway safety in Canada is based are: to promote and provide for the safety of the public and personnel, and the protection of property and the environment in the operation of railways; to encourage the collaboration and participation of interested parties in improving railway safety; to recognize the responsibility of railway companies in ensuring the safety of their operations; and finally, to facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme that will ensure the continuing enhancement of our railway safety.

The 1999 amendments to the Railway Safety Act aimed to help achieve these objectives by providing for the safety of the public and personnel and the protection of property, and the environment in the operation of railways; and by providing the regulator with the authority to require railway companies to implement safety management systems.

In 2007 the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities launched a review of the Railway Safety Act following a series of devastating train derailments that had caused the death of loved ones, the disruption of businesses, and the serious pollution of trackside lakes, rivers and communities.

An independent panel conducted a review of the existing Railway Safety Act. This review was intended to identify possible gaps and make recommendations for improving railway safety. The panel of experts commissioned research and held extensive public consultations across the country.

Over the course of a year that panel travelled from coast to coast gathering input from a full spectrum of concerned stakeholders, including the railway companies and their association, the railway unions, shippers, suppliers, municipalities, other national organizations, other levels of government and the public. Interest in the consultations was high and all key stakeholders participated.

The panel's final report, “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”, was tabled in the House by the Minister of Transport in March 2008. In the report the panellists noted that although the Railway Safety Act and its principles were fundamentally sound, more work was needed. A number of legislative improvements were required. The report contained 56 recommendations to improve rail safety in Canada.

The standing committee, which also conducted extensive stakeholder consultations, accepted the panel's recommendations and tabled its own report in the House in May 2008 with 14 recommendations, many of which built on those of the Railway Safety Act review.

Both reports identified key areas for improvement and recommended increasing Transport Canada's resources to allow it to strengthen its oversight and enforcement capacity and to implement new safety initiatives.

Transport Canada agrees with the recommendations of these reports. It has taken steps to action them through a variety of government, industry and union initiatives, and through the proposed legislative amendments to the Railway Safety Act which are required to address key recommendations and enable many safety initiatives.

The proposed amendments would significantly modernize the current Railway Safety Act to reflect changes in the industry and provide for higher levels of oversight and enforcement. The key elements and advantages of the bill are clear and would include: a stronger oversight and enforcement capacity for Transport Canada through the introduction of safety-based railway operating certificates and monetary fines for safety violations, as well as an increase in existing judicial penalties to reflect the levels found in other modes of transport; a significantly stronger focus on the importance of railway accountability and safety management systems, which both industry and labour applaud; a clarification of the minister's authority on matters of railway safety to bridge existing gaps in the act; and, an expansion of regulation-making authorities which have particular importance and would enable Transport Canada to require annual environmental management plans from the railways as well as a requirement for railways to provide emissions labelling on equipment and emissions data for review.

In sum, these proposed amendments to the act would improve rail safety in Canada for the long term. They are the culmination of two important studies and extensive consultations. They provide increased safety for Canadians and Canadian communities; economic benefits to the industry by decreasing the likelihood of costly accidents and delays; a variety of benefits to external stakeholders, including provinces, municipalities, shippers and the travelling public; and last, but far from least, support for a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment for all Canadians.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the same committee that launched its own review of rail safety and made many of the recommendations reflected in this bill, has examined the contents of these proposed amendments thoroughly. It has given the bill its unanimous blessing with only a few minor adjustments.

During this examination, the committee heard strong support for this bill from a number of key stakeholders, including railways, the unions and municipalities. Clearly, this bill has been analyzed and consulted on exhaustively. It is our responsibility to move forward with the passing of this legislation.

This bill has already gained widespread support. Witnesses before the committee expressed strong support for the implementation of safety-based railway operating certificates for railways that run on federal track. These certificates would significantly strengthen Transport Canada's oversight capacity and ensure that all companies have an effective safety management system in place before beginning operations. Companies that are already in operation would be granted a two year grace period to meet the requirements for their certificate. This would include all federally regulated railways as well as several of our largest national transit systems that use hundreds of miles of federal track and carry millions of Canadians to and from work daily. Increased safety for these travellers would be a significant benefit for businesses, communities and families.

Witnesses before the committee also expressed their support for the introduction of monetary penalties and an increase in judicial fines for serious contraventions of safety regulations. Monetary penalties already exist in other modes of transport. They serve as a complementary enforcement tool to existing notices and orders and provide additional leverage on companies that persist in safety violations. The proposed increase in judicial fines, established 20 years ago, would also strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement options and bring those fines to a level currently found in other modes.

Witnesses before the committee also spoke of the significant improvements contained in the bill, particularly for the implementation of safety management systems. There was strong support for the introduction of a requirement for a designated executive legally responsible for safety issues.

There was also strong support for an introduction of whistleblower protection for railway employees who raised safety concerns. In fact, support for this was sufficiently strong that the committee approved an amendment to the bill that would provide additional safety reporting options for employees, including direct reporting to Transport Canada. Amendments such as these will help the growth of a strong safety culture in railway companies.

I would like to point out that the expansion of reporting options for safety violations was the only significant amendment made by the committee to the original version of the bill that was referred to it after second reading. There were seven other amendments made by the committee, all of which were minor technical adjustments and clarifications of definitions.

Personally, this is a very impressive achievement, as very few bills make it through committee with such overwhelming accord.

Finally, the committee heard strong support to move the bill forward as quickly as possible so we could begin implementing an enhanced railway safety regime that would clearly benefit industry, benefit labour, benefit communities and benefit the Canadian public.

Without these amendments, the government's ability to effectively regulate railway companies in an environment of continued growth and increasing complexity would be sorely diminished. Improvement to Transport Canada's regulatory oversight and enforcement programs would be limited. The pursuit of new safety initiatives, with respect to safety management systems and environmental management, would be badly constrained. The legislative framework for railways would remain inconsistent with other transportation modes, which have a broader range of enforcement tools. Regulation-making authorities could not be expanded to allow for the creation of safety-based operating certificates and increased environmental protection.

Members' support for the bill will result in fewer long-term costs for the government and Canadians, due to reduced fatalities, serious injuries and damage to both property and the environment. There is no controversy over the intent or the content of the bill. We all want better railway safety in our country. This bill is the blueprint to ensure that we can achieve that.

The legislation would strengthen the national rail system that is so vital to our economy. By reducing the risk of accidents, we would enhance the competitiveness of our railways, increase the public safety of Canadians and add an additional layer or protection for our natural environment.

These amendments are a priority for the government. Canada's railways are vitally important to the national economy and are the most fuel-efficient form of transport for the movement of goods in our interdependent transportation system. Our railways have 73,000 kilometres of track stretching from coast to coast, more than 3,000 locomotives and handle more than 4 million carloads of freight. They operate more than 700 trains per day, moving nearly 70 million passengers and 75% of all surplus freight in the country. The railways were the foundation of our national growth in the past. They remain integral to our prosperity in the future.

Since the launch of the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, Transport Canada has worked continuously with stakeholders, through an advisory council on railway safety, joint technical working groups and individual consultations across the country to ensure the bill will meet the needs of all parties engaged in the rail industry.

We believe these proposed amendments are essential in timely. They respond directly to the recommendations of two important studies on rail safety that involved the high level of participation from all key stakeholders in the rail sector.

The bill has been exhaustively debated and analyzed for several years. It has received widespread support from all interested parties. It is now time to move forward with the passing of this important legislation for the safety of all Canadians.

We are modernizing the Railway Safety Act to reflect the requirements of a growing and increasingly complex rail industry, and these are changes all Canadians can agree upon.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we are having on this very important bill.

The original version of the bill left many recommendations for an in-depth inquiry into railway accidents unaddressed. I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for having tabled amendments to former Bill C-33. I congratulate the other place in tabling Bill S-4 with those NDP amendments.

The bill is about safety. The Conservative government ignored repeated calls by the Transportation Safety Board for safety measures such as voice recorders and positive train control. In 2001 and 2003, the Liberal government ignored calls from the Transportation Safety Board for additional rail safety measures. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on the need not only to pass this legislation quickly but also to implement it.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think as we are discussing this today that you were just at the Little Native Hockey League in Sudbury. I am glad that you were there supporting them. I think that it is really important we support them.

There is a train service that goes from Sudbury to Toronto and, eventually, to Ottawa and Montreal. I cannot help but think if it were faster, how much of an imprint that would have on the environment and how much the tourism would mean to our economy. I know that I would the take train more often if it were faster.

As my colleague knows, the bill was actually tabled in the House in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-33. I wonder whether he wants to comment on the amendments which made it possible to have the bill before the House again. I am sure that he would agree with me that my colleague, the member for the Western Arctic, was instrumental in having that amendment tabled.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great existential question. Are we optimists or pessimists? I know the minister well enough to know that he does not play with safety and that he is open-minded. I like trusting people. I do not want to indulge in crass partisanship like certain NDP members who are saying that he is not open-minded and that he will not accept amendments. He has proven in the past that he can listen. This is a truly non-partisan issue. I am going to be fairly optimistic and realistic. I do not see why I would doubt the integrity of one of our colleagues. It would be unparliamentary.

Given that he has already said that he is open to discussion and amendments, we should believe him. The work that has been done, mainly in the other chamber, shows without a shadow of a doubt that they listened to us. At the time of Bill C-33, the Liberal Party and my colleague proposed amendments that were accepted. I do not think that this is a matter of minority or majority, but of doing what is necessary to help Canadians.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I was a minister in another government and the important thing is to be pragmatic and find a way to put some teeth in the regulations.

My colleague asked some good questions. They are the types of questions we can ask the minister and all the stakeholders directly in committee in order to make the bill effective. This is not just lip service. We want to reduce the red tape and have the necessary tools to ensure greater safety, including environmental safety.

Earlier I was talking about municipal zoning. We have to respect the jurisdictions. These are the types of questions we can ask in order to assess the feasibility of this bill and ensure that it is not just wishful thinking, that it could indeed work. Given the work that has already been done in the other place and all the amendments that were proposed and approved regarding the previous Bill C-33, this is a good bill, but there is always room for improvement. We will ask questions, but not to the detriment of passing this bill.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Bourassa and on behalf of my party, I would like to start by commending the work that was done in the other chamber. Obviously, we all remember that this bill is a revival of former Bill C-33 and that a good job was done with the amendments. People did a great job.

At the time, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville was on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the work done there was quite outstanding. Since the work was well done and everyone decided to work together to ensure everyone's safety, the bill deserves our support today. We most definitely have to send it to committee as soon as possible in order to look into certain aspects and see if we have to make some improvements.

In the other chamber, Senator Mercer, together with the other hon. senators—from both the government side and our side—have already done a thorough job. All players had a chance to speak their minds. We realize that there is already a lot of support and a series of amendments has been moved as a result of the work accomplished on the former bill.

It is only fair to say that we must support this bill and find the proper way to do so. Obviously, pulling on a flower does not make it grow faster. However, we certainly want to make sure that things will be done as quickly as possible. The bill has to be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities so that we can do a proper job and quickly address the issue to determine whether adjustments have to be made. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario will agree with me in saying that Bill S-4 is a good bill and that, as a result, we should support it, given the significant work that was done in the other chamber.

I want to explain to the thousands of television viewers watching us today what Bill S-4 is all about. It is intended, of course, to amend the Railway Safety Act, specifically to improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport, to strengthen that department’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines, to enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive who is accountable for safety—and the word accountable is important here—and to implement a confidential non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies. It also seeks to clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with respect to railway matters.

It is important that, as the representative of the people, the minister have those powers and, clearly, the regulation-making powers must be expanded, including those dealing with environmental management. The process for rule making by railway companies must also be clarified.

What I find interesting about this approach is that, for the most part, all partners support this bill. The unions, as well as the Railway Association of Canada, are generally in favour of this legislation. Naturally, the RAC is not in a position to say at this time if the industry will support the bill without reservation because, after appearing twice before the parliamentary committee that studied Bill S-4 and Bill S-33—the predecessor to the bill we are studying today—the RAC had proposed seven amendments to improve safety, all of which were rejected.

It is fair to say that our system is quite safe, but we need to make the necessary changes to make it safer. Naturally, I acknowledge my colleague from Burlington, who had that tragic accident in his riding. We will let the investigation take its course, but we must ensure that we develop the necessary tools to guarantee safety.

I truly believe in rail transportation. We all know that this country has been built on that vision. It is a great way to bridge rural and urban Canada. However, I think we need to provide better tools to make sure that citizens from coast to coast to coast feel that they are first-class citizens with that mode of transportation. Bill S-4 would provide that and some problems would be prevented.

Let us take a look at infrastructure. Certain areas may have some situations, such as the one my colleague for Trinity—Spadina spoke about in eastern Quebec. Of course, we would promote specific programs on infrastructure to make sure that we have the capacity for the track to be accurate. We must make sure we are providing the service which, in certain areas, is an essential service. It is important that we take a look at that.

We would not play with security. At times it might be used in partisan ways, such as on Bill C-10, but for the railway I think it is a non-partisan issue. I think that all sides believe in security.

However, this bill needs to be quickly sent to committee. I think that we need to look further at the bill. My colleague suggested that the Canadian Urban Transit Association, in approaching the committee, was concerned about how the provisions of the bill would affect the operation of light rail transit that operates on federally regulated rail lines. There are only a few examples of this in the country. For example, the Lakeshore line of GO Transit moves an incredibly large number of people each day. Therefore, the committee concerns must be twofold.

First, overly large increases to the administrative burden on authorities like GO Transit would negatively impact ridership and fares. However, considering the volume of riders and the number of level crossings on the Lakeshore line, it is also important that the Government of Canada ensure that these trains operate with the highest level of safety possible.

Second, the Railway Association of Canada made a request that the bill be amended by adding to subclause 24(1) the following:

Respecting notices to be given to railways regarding any proposed local plan of subdivision or zoning by-law or proposed amendment thereof in respect of land that is located within 300 meters of a line of railway or railway yard.

This amendment would require municipalities to notify and consult the railway if they made any zoning amendments on land within 300 metres of a railway or railway yard. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was understandably concerned about this measure. At the heart of its concern was this requirement for communities to inform railways of changes from adjacent land to proximate land. As it was explained to the committee, municipalities across Canada already inform railways when their zoning plans affect land adjacent to the railway's right of way.

The FCM's objection to this change was twofold. Primarily there is a concern that the 300 metre limit is overly burdensome on municipalities that already inform railways of land use changes on property adjacent to the rail line. There is also a concern about the federal government mandating a provision that directly interferes with how provinces legislate municipal power and zoning laws. As these laws and powers vary drastically across the provinces, it would be inappropriate for the federal government to simply override them all. It could also create needless red tape for the local transit association.

These are just some of the issues that the transport committee could consider taking up at its hearings. However, I think everyone has done a great job in the other chamber.

I believe it is a good idea to pass this bill very quickly in order to provide the minister and the department with the necessary authority to enact regulations, and to ensure better safety and greater consistency of the regulations. Partners must be heard quickly one last time by the Standing Committee on Transport to ensure, as we all wish, better safety for all Canadians.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill S-4, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to you today for second reading Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

I believe this is the first time I have ever had the honour of presenting a bill that is as finely crafted, broadly applauded and widely supported as Bill S-4.

This legislation has been in development for more than three years, with constant consultation and input from all levels of government, industry and labour stakeholders. It has also been commented on by witnesses, dissected clause by clause by standing committees on two separate occasions, and approved unanimously by all parties both times.

Clearly, the debate is over. It is now time to pass this important bill as quickly as possible to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Bill S-4 is clearly a progressive and forward-looking bill, and the amendments it contains will mean better safety for Canadians and Canadian communities, better protection for our fragile environment, and a stronger Canadian rail industry in a stronger national economy.

All of these things are priorities for our government, and I believe that they are priorities for all members in the House.

There is nothing more important than the safety and prosperity of Canadians.

As many members may know, the bill has quite a bit of history. For many years, the safety of Canada's federal railways was regulated under the Railway Act, which originated at the turn of the century when Canada's railway system was rapidly expanding. The Railway Act was designed for an older era. At that time, much of the national rail system was under construction to open up new territories to encourage settlement.

In 1989, the Railway Act was replaced by the Railway Safety Act, which was designed to achieve the objectives of the national transportation policy relating to the safety of railway operations and to address the many changes that had taken place in the rail transportation industry in recent years. The Railway Safety Act gave direct jurisdiction over safety matters to the Minister of Transport, to be administered by Transport Canada where the responsibility for other federally regulated modes of transportation resides.

Following a review of the Railway Safety Act in 1994, the act was amended in 1999 to further improve the legislation and to make the railway system even safer. Those amendments were designed to fully modernize the legislative and regulatory framework of Canada's rail transportation system. They were also designed to make railway companies more responsible for managing their operations safely and to give the general public and interested parties a greater say on issues of railway safety.

These changes were commendable, but there was a problem. A number of high-profile train derailments in 2005 and 2006 across the country—in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and in other provinces—resulted in fatalities, serious injuries, significant environmental damage and negative economic impacts for railways and communities.

These tragic accidents caused concern for the public and the government and focused national attention on rail safety. They also provided the impetus, in part, for the Minister of Transport to launch a full review of the Railway Safety Act in 2007. The objective of the review was to identify possible gaps in the act and to make recommendations to further strengthen the regulatory regime.

The seriousness of those derailments also provided the incentive for the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to begin its own railway safety study. The Railway Safety Act review was led by an independent panel of experts who commissioned research and held extensive public consultations across the country. Interest in the consultations was high and all key stakeholders participated, including railway companies and associations, labour organizations, national associations, other levels of government, municipalities and the public.

The panel's final report, “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”, was tabled in the House by the Minister of Transport in March 2008. In the report, the panellists noted that although the Railway Safety Act and its principles are fundamentally sound, more work is needed and a number of legislative improvements are required. The report contained 56 recommendations to improve railway safety in Canada.

The standing committee, which also conducted extensive stakeholder consultations, accepted the panel's recommendations and tabled its own report in the House in May 2008. The committee's report also made 14 recommendations, many of which built on those that came from the Railway Safety Act review.

The authors of both reports identified the main areas that required improvement and recommended increasing Transport Canada's resources in order to increase its ability to monitor compliance and enforce the legislation and take new rail safety initiatives.

Transport Canada agrees with the recommendations made in both reports and has taken steps to implement them through a variety of government-industry-union initiatives and through these proposed legislative amendments to the Railway Safety Act, which are required to address key recommendations and enable many safety initiatives.

In fact, Transport Canada took action to address these concerns almost immediately after receiving them.

In March 2008, following the publication of the report on the review of the Railway Safety Act, we established the Advisory Council on Railway Safety in order to get the process of consultation started again and to consider future directions in railway safety, the development of rules, regulation, policies and other matters of concern. The advisory council is made up of representatives of the main stakeholder groups, including Transport Canada, railway companies such as CN, CP and VIA, short line and commuter rail companies, the Railway Association of Canada, shippers, suppliers, other levels of government, and unions. The council has met three or four times per year since it was established, in order to work collaboratively on the strategic matters of railway safety that were raised in the report.

Additionally, working with the railways and the major unions, Transport Canada has established a steering committee, made up of representatives of Transport Canada, the industry and the unions, to oversee the development of action plans for implementing the recommendations in the report on the Railway Safety Act review and the report on the study conducted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The committee has been supported by six technical working groups in addressing ways in which to implement the recommendations of concern not only to the regulatory body, but also to the industry and the unions, and in keeping the ACRS informed of their progress.

These joint technical working groups included teams devoted to the rule making process, safety management systems, information collection and analysis, proximity and operations, environment and new safety technologies. Together, those groups were assigned 24 recommendations by the steering committee. All of them have completed their work. Their recommendations have been, or are being, implemented. In addition to the work of these groups, Transport Canada implemented eight internal recommendations. Industry implemented three recommendations that pertained to the companies. The final 21 recommendations are related to legislative changes which we are discussing today. In short, these amendments to the Railway Safety Act are the final component of a well-orchestrated and well-funded drive to make our railways safer.

In budget 2009, the government affirmed its commitment to a safe, reliable transportation system by earmarking $72 million over five years to implement important rail safety measures and legislative initiatives. These amendments to the Railway Safety Act that we see before us today are the fruit of that commitment. This initiative also shows how important these amendments are to the government, and it reflects the government's commitment to seeing these amendments implemented as soon as possible so that Canada can reap the benefits from them immediately.

In March 2010, the government introduced Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act. It contained essentially the same range of changes as the bill before us today does. Bill C-33, which all the parties in the House supported, was considered in detail by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and then approved unanimously by all hon. members after some minor changes were made.

Unfortunately, Bill C-33 died on the order paper after many consultations, analyses and a very favourable reception, because the opposition chose an unnecessary election over the safety of Canadians. Knowing how important these essential amendments are with regard to safety, we reintroduced the same bill in the Senate, with the changes that everyone had agreed on.

Since then, a number of witnesses representing stakeholders have expressed their views and the bill has been reviewed and discussed at length in the standing committee of the other place. I am very pleased to say that the Senate committee, like ours, unanimously approved the bill with a slight change that was essentially administrative in nature.

There is clearly a lot of support for this bill from all parties. There have been thorough consultations over several years. The bill has been agreed upon in its various formats by all key industry stakeholders, as well as members of both the House and the other place. It is our responsibility to end this long debate and expedite the passage of this important legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. The safer railways act is acknowledged as the blueprint for the future of rail safety in this country. It would directly address the safety challenges that have been identified by two national reviews with innovative legislative solutions that would help make our railways and communities safer for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to highlight some of the key amendments included in Bill S-4. Each one is an important part of a comprehensive safety package.

In accordance with the recommendations arising from the Railway Safety Act review and the study by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the amendments under review will improve Transport Canada's oversight capacity by conferring on the Governor in Council the authority to require railway companies to obtain a railway operating certificate, attesting that they have met basic safety requirements, before commencing their activities.

The operating certificate, which will demonstrate that the company complies with baseline safety requirements, will apply to all railways under federal jurisdiction. Existing companies will have a two-year period from the coming into force of the amendments under review in which to meet the requirements for the certificate.

The amendments in Bill S-4 will also strengthen Transport Canada’s enforcement capacity in order to ensure better railway company compliance with safety rules and regulations. To that end, the department will apply monetary penalties to improve rail safety. The maximum amount of the penalties will be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation.

The new act will also strengthen Transport Canada’s enforcement powers by increasing fines to levels consistent with those for 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 a corporation and $25,000 for an individual.

One of the most important benefits of Bill S-4 is the increased focus on the importance of safety management systems. As members may know, a safety management system is a formal framework for integrating safety into day-to-day railway operations. During the Railway Safety Act review, stakeholders were supportive of the SMS approach to safety, but some felt that improvements were required before SMS could be considered fully implemented.

The amendments we are discussing today address those concerns. For example, under Bill S-4 all railway companies would be required to appoint an accountable executive responsible for all matters of safety. The legislation would also require all railway companies to implement whistleblower protection so that employees felt encouraged to report safety violations without fear of reprimand.

Railway companies would also be required, through the auditing process, to demonstrate that they continuously manage risks related to safety matters through the use of safety management systems. Changes like these would encourage the growth of a true culture of safety at both the corporate and operating levels of railway companies.

I noted earlier that the Senate committee had unanimously approved this bill with one minor change related to safety reporting. Although this bill originally called for the development of a new safety reporting process with the Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada, all parties agreed that a reporting system already exists—the Transportation Safety Board—so that clause was struck. The rest, as mentioned, was agreed on unchanged.

The Safer Railways Act is clearly a step forward in terms of oversight, enforcement and the implementation of a safety system in the industry. It also advances safety in the administrative area by clarifying the authority and responsibilities of the minister in respect of railway matters. For example, these amendments will clarify that the legislation applies to all companies operating on federal track and will ensure that those companies are subject to the same high safety standards.

Bill S-4 is about safety. It is also about protecting our environment. By expanding regulation-making authorities, this legislation will allow Transport Canada to request an environmental management plan from all railways for federal review.

It will also allow a requirement for increased environmental information collection and railway equipment labelling related to emissions. These amendments plus an additional amendment to provide regulatory authority to control and prevent fires on railway rights-of-way are critical to strengthening environmental protection in the industry.

And that is what the amendments to Bill S-4 are basically all about: better oversight tools to ensure safety; enhanced safety management systems to build a stronger rail safety culture; and additional authority to help protect our environment from unnecessary degradation.

It is hard to argue with the importance of these amendments. Railways are an integral part of our infrastructure now, and they will be so in the future. We need them to be strong. We need them to be dependable. And we need them to be safe. All Canadians can benefit from that.

We believe that these amendments to the Railway Safety Act are essential and timely. Bill S-4 modernizes the Railway Safety Act to reflect the requirements of a growing and increasingly complex rail industry, and I believe that we can all agree to the important safety amendments contained in this bill both quickly and unanimously.

The bill is a step forward for Canadians, for safety and for the rail industry. With the agreement of the members today, we can take these steps together today, for a safe, reliable and economically viable freight and passenger railway system in Canada. The bill has been extensively debated over several years and has received wide support. I recommend that it be submitted to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for further discussion.

I urge all hon. members to give this important bill their unanimous support.

Transportation Safety

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this has been discussed in the past, but as the member knows, that involves many partners, including unions and managers of rail companies, who will continue these discussions because it was tasked to have further discussions. We are very close to an agreement and to adopting a piece of legislation.

I would like to remind my colleague that for her party an opportunistic election was more important than ensuring the safety of hard-working Canadians. The previous version of Bill S-4, Bill C-33, died on the order paper on March 21, 2011. It went through first reading, second reading, committee stage and was reported to the House. We were so close.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

This amendment will give parliamentarians the authority to review the regulations created by Bill C-33 if needed. We had similar amendments done in this committee for Bill C-6 and also for Bill C-9.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome.

Saying that, we will move into clause-by-clause on Bill C-33.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed to the end.

We are now on clause 2. There are no proposed amendments for clause 2.

Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

We have several amendments on clause 4.

Monsieur Laframboise, do you have a point of order concerning this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome and good afternoon, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 55.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, are for an examination of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Joining us today as witnesses from the Department of Transport are Mr. Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety, and Carla White-Taylor, director of the rail safety secretariat.

Welcome.

I'm not sure.... You don't have a statement, but are just here to offer advice as we go through; is that the case?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Thank you, Minister Strahl, and my thanks to the committee for the opportunity to speak on some of these estimates. I want to encourage the committee to continue with Bill C-33. I follow your work closely and encourage you to have that clear very soon so that we can get it into law as quickly as possible, and I know that's the intent of the committee. So I encourage you to do that.

I want to talk a little bit about Marine Atlantic. Marine Atlantic is a line issue that is $4.4 million to the corporation. These funds are covered because of the changes in the specific vessel and the shore-based capital projects included in the 2010-11 budget right up to 2014-15. That's in the corporate plan.

MAI ferry service is a tremendously vital link to Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic region, and Canada as a whole, both for the businesses that work there and for the economic growth of the region. Marine Atlantic serves thousands of travellers each year and it carries over 50% of the goods entering Newfoundland and Labrador. The ferry service also supports the tourism industry in that area and will be able to do so in a much better way as we move forward.

The government has invested almost a billion dollars since 2007 in Marine Atlantic, revitalizing not only its vessels but also its onshore facilities. It will be flowed out over the next couple of years. We have had the opportunity to bring into service MV Blue Puttees, a brand new vessel, and the first of two. This is a tremendous vessel. I had the opportunity to visit and inspect it, and to talk to the individuals who work on the vessel. They're very proud of it, and rightfully so. It's two football fields in length. It's a massive vessel that will have over 40% more capacity than the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood and the MV Caribou, the vessels it is replacing. We also have the MV Highlanders, which is expected to be in operation on April 1 as well. I can tell you MV Blue Puttees is in operation for the first week this last week and is serving that area very well.

In fact, the most significant change in these supplementary estimates occurred because these vessels actually came in a little bit earlier, and that's why the money had to be advanced. Both are important and needed investments. It's important for Marine Atlantic to have the ability to supply the services to Newfoundland and Labrador. We're working closely with the Newfoundland and Labrador department of tourism, not only because of the increase in demand for capacity for vessels and passengers, but also for tourism in the area. With these new vessels, the opportunity for tourism in that area will greatly increase as we go into the summer.

So with that, we'd love to take any questions you might have on these estimates.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation to meet with you and the committee.

I'm pleased to be here with my colleague, Minister Rob Merrifield, to provide you with an update on the transport, infrastructure, and communities portfolio.

I'd also like to extend my thanks for the hard work you've done recently on Bill C-33, the Safer Railways Act; Bill C-42, the Strengthening Aviation Security Act; and Bill C-511, the Proactive Enforcement and Defect Accountability Legislation (PEDAL) Act.

With us today are Yaprak Baltacioglu, Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; John Forster, associate deputy minister of infrastructure; and André Morency, assistant deputy minister of corporate management and crown corporations governance at Transport Canada.

Committee members, at our previous appearance, in December, we provided you with an update on the portfolio. I spoke about the funds under my portfolio and how our infrastructure investments are benefiting communities across Canada, as well as our successful and productive partnerships with provinces, territories, and municipalities. I also spoke about aviation security and our borders and gateways.

Minister Merrifield spoke about Marine Atlantic Incorporated.

Today I'd like to update you on our accomplishments to date under the transport and infrastructure portfolio, as well as speak to you about what the future may bring.

In my December appearance, I spoke to you about the four funds that Infrastructure Canada manages under the economic action plan: the $4 billion infrastructure stimulus fund; the $1 billion green infrastructure fund; the $500 million top-up to the communities component of the Building Canada fund; and the $25 million for the National Trails Coalition.

As part of the economic action plan, the Government of Canada accelerated and streamlined existing funds under the $33 billion Building Canada plan announced in Budget 2007. We did this so that our partners could benefit from these funds earlier than originally scheduled.

Across all of its programs since January 2009, Infrastructure Canada has now committed over $10.75 billion toward more than 6,300 infrastructure projects as part of Canada's economic action plan. When combined with the contributions of our funding partners, this means that approximately $31 billion is being committed to infrastructure projects across the country.

Shortly before my last appearance before this committee, the Prime Minister announced an extension to four of the funds under the economic action plan and extending the deadline to October 31, 2011. This extension includes two of Infrastructure Canada's funds—the infrastructure stimulus fund and the top-up to the Building Canada fund's communities component.

We've also been encouraged to see that most projects are still on target to be completed by March 31 of this year. A recent example of a project that will be fully completed by the end of this month are the new sails at Canada Place, which the Prime Minister visited on February 21. It's great to see that project, one of many that will be completed on time and on budget.

Across the country work is progressing extremely well. I know that some proponents who would have completed their projects by the deadline are taking advantage of the extra time for construction, which in some cases is resulting in savings on project costs. This sustained stimulus to the economy is allowing Canada to maintain its strength as we emerge from the recession, while respecting the fragility of the global recovery and without increasing costs for the taxpayers. It's a good win-win-win.

As we move forward in our exit strategy for the economic action plan, it's important to note that infrastructure funding will continue to flow to municipalities across the country. Infrastructure Canada is continuing to play a significant role in delivering long-term funding under the $33 billion Building Canada plan, including the gas tax fund. The gas tax fund was doubled to $2 billion per year in 2009, and the government has announced this funding is permanent so that communities can continue to rely on stable, reliable funding for their important infrastructure projects.

I will turn to transport. We continue our efforts to provide a safe and secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible transportation system. We're proud of this system because it's among the best in the world, and with the input of Canadians, all orders of government, and private stakeholders, we're making it even better.

I am a firm believer that progress can only be made through partnership.

I guess all of us in government realize that these world-class transportation systems aren't built from the top down. They really require those partnerships to be serious. It requires that we listen to those partners, and it really requires all of us, whether we're in the private or public sector, to work together. It's why I've been travelling across the country, speaking with everyday Canadians and with industry groups, getting a sense of their transportation vision. These groups include, amongst many others, the Chamber of Marine Commerce, the Railway Association of Canada, and WESTAC—I had a meeting a week or so ago in B.C—to name just a few. We've heard great ideas and will continue to dialogue with them as we move forward through the new year.

Today is also about moving forward. I know in the supplementary estimates we're seeking $23.9 million to take action on initiatives that were not fully developed or known when the main estimates were prepared, initiatives such as $14 million in annual funding to support the regional and remote passenger rail services class contribution program. That program ensures safe and reliable access to passenger rail service and ensures that it's provided to certain regional and remote areas of the country by contributing to operating and capital requirements for these important rail services.

The estimates also include $7.4 million for operating requirements related to the ferry services contribution program. This program supports regional and remote ferry services in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. These services not only provide safe transportation to communities, but they support eastern Canada's regional economy and the transportation network.

This program supports regional and remote ferry services in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. These services not only provide safe transportation to communities, they support eastern Canada's regional economy and the transportation network.

Existing agreements for these various services are set to expire on March 31, but on November 30, 2010, the Government of Canada announced an investment of up to $44.7 million to support ferry operations and to maintain the ferry assets.

In previous appearances before this committee, I have discussed the importance of the government's gateways and corridors strategy, which positions Canada as an integrated, efficient, and reliable transportation route. I know there's interest in the committee about the gateways. We continue to make progress on the 47 infrastructure projects that are part of the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. We're moving forward with great interest and quite a bit of pride in how that has been rolled out. The next phase of the gateway will focus more on issues such as modernizing policy, regulatory issues, and legislative frameworks. This will improve efficiency and reliability through that partnership, which has been enhanced through this whole initiative, while boosting innovation.

I'm convinced it will also lever the benefits that both the private and public sectors gain from the Asia-Pacific initiative, and that's becoming more clear as we move through the process into phase two.

The line item noting the reprofiling of $17.1 million in funding for the Asia-Pacific gateway will help this process continue, and lessons that were learned on the Asia-Pacific gateway, which was first out of the gate, if I can use that phrase, will be applied to the Atlantic gateway and the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway.

You'll notice also, and this I think I should highlight, that within the estimates we're seeking to access $1 million from previously frozen allotments due to the reprofiling of funds for the acquisition of real property for the Detroit River international crossing, which is a key part of the continental gateway. We remain committed to the building of that new crossing. We continue to work closely with the State of Michigan and the United States government to make it a reality. We are monitoring the Michigan legislative process and continue to urge the Michigan legislature to authorize this project, which will benefit workers and industry on both sides of the border.

Now I will turn the microphone over to Minister Merrifield to speak on a specific line item.

Thank you.

[Karen Leibovici]

I think in this particular case it's the land usage issue if it lies within the provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

Just to go back to a point you made about the 300 metres, we don't have a problem with the notification. Whether it's 300 metres or 250 metres, that, I think again, will depend on what each jurisdiction requires and comes to as a result of the negotiations.

I haven't looked at the whole act, so I can't really reply to your question as to whether there are other items in the act that perhaps are under federal jurisdiction that involve municipalities. In fact there are lots of crossovers when we look at the issue of cellphone towers. We don't have much jurisdiction in that. That is within federal jurisdiction.

Again, with regard to Bill C-33, I can't say I know which pieces are within the federal jurisdiction and which are within the provincial-municipal, other than this particular piece we're talking about, which is the notification piece with regard to land use.

[Karen Leibovici, Second Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be able to present the municipal perspective on Bill C-33.

Our president, Hans Cunningham, asked me to share with you his greetings and also his regret that he could not be here with you today to speak to you.

Councillor Henderson is the co-chair of the FCM-RAC proximity steering committee and joins me today in this presentation.

FCM has been the voice of municipal government since 1901. We stand for more than 90% of the Canadian population, representing over 2,000 municipal governments across the country--large, small, rural, urban, northern, remote. We represent the interests of communities and cities on policy and program matters that fall within the federal jurisdiction.

Recently the FCM-RAC proximity steering committee heard from the Railway Association of Canada with respect to a number of recommendations pertaining to the Safer Railways Act. The Railway Association recommended that municipalities be required, under the Railway Safety Act, to notify railway companies with respect to proposed land use or bylaw amendments.

On behalf of Canada's municipal governments, I'm here today to reinforce our sector's opposition to the recommendations and to provide some information on why this opposition exists.

First, we have been made aware that the Railway Association of Canada has, subsequent to their appearance before this committee, submitted a letter clarifying their previous assertion that FCM had been notified or consulted prior to their appearance and that we were in agreement with the recommendation as presented. While we appreciate this gesture, we felt it was critical to appear today to deliver the message personally and to take the time to discuss this matter with you directly.

From the perspective of cities and communities across Canada, the proposed amendment would require such notification to railways if changes to land-use designations or bylaw amendments occurred within a 300-metre zone of the railway right-of-way. Municipalities agree that increased communication between us and railways can better inform land-use planning alongside these rights-of-way. However, as I indicated earlier, we cannot support the amendment as presented. FCM has long aimed to improve rail safety in populated areas. Railway operations impact daily on Canadian cities and communities. In recent years we have made submissions to the federal government on municipal railway issues. Our goal has included ensuring railway operators work with municipalities to provide safe rail crossings and develop appropriate separation buffers in populated areas.

Municipal land-use and zoning regulations are guided by and subject to provincial and territorial legislation. As you will recognize, this means that regulations differ from province to province and territory. The recommendation as presented by RAC will create a one-size-fits-all solution to a very diverse regulatory environment. As a result, red tape and delays will impact local land-use planning decisions.

Municipalities are the front-line public safety managers and continually consider the impact of land-use decisions on the safety of property owners. In many cases municipalities notify railways of land-use changes that may pose significant threats to railway safety. In the case of Ontario, these notifications are enshrined in provincial legislation. This process allows the adjacent property owner to use existing local public consultation and review processes to inform and influence municipal land-use decision-making. Thus, the proposed amendment requiring notification on land changes within 300 metres of the railway right-of-way would significantly increase municipal governments' administrative burden in the form of cost and time.

The same also applies to residents and businesses applying for land-use changes. For example, a 300-metre notification zone could easily encompass three to five city blocks in a medium- and large-size city, or, from a rural point of view, an entire municipality.

I mentioned Ontario's regulations. The 300-metre area cited in the RAC recommendation attempts to impose the Ontario case across Canada, because it's seen as ideal by the rail industry. The important point here is that the regulations in place in Ontario were the product of significant consultation and negotiation between the province and its municipal governments. Instead of calling for a national approach, which clearly impedes on provincial jurisdiction, a more productive way to promote this type of notification would be to seek a recommendation and encourage dialogue at the provincial level.

To improve communication on an understanding of municipal-railway interactions, FCM actively supported a memorandum of understanding with RAC in 2003. A joint working group on proximity issues was established to develop protocols, best practices, and guidelines to avoid and resolve precisely the types of issues we're talking about today. The tools were then communicated to our members. This approach allows a national dialogue to take place without impinging upon provincial jurisdiction.

As I indicated earlier, my colleague, Councillor Henderson, co-chair of this working group, has long been involved in seeking better communication between municipalities and private property owners. The working group has discussed designing a more streamlined way to notify property owners and others of land-use changes adjacent to railway rights-of-way. However, I would like to repeat that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. Our group's preferred approach is to develop and disseminate to municipalities and railway operators best practices around this issue to improve and continue to improve how these two groups work together on the ground.

In conclusion, for the reasons I have talked about, and in continuation of the work we have undertaken through our joint working group with RAC, FCM is urging this committee, on behalf of all municipalities across the country, not to adopt the proximity recommendation put forward by the Railway Association of Canada.

I would like to thank you and my colleague, Merrill Henderson, and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 52. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Joining us by video conference from Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, representing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, are Karen Leibovici, second vice-president, and Merrill Henderson, board member.

Welcome.

We will open the floor for you to make a presentation to the committee. Then we will move to questions from the committee. Whenever you're ready, please begin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Just for the information of the committee, we are asking that members submit their amendments to Bill C-33 by Monday, March 7, no later than midnight. We'll see you this afternoon at 3:30. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I don't think we can have any discussion until we see the motion, if it's there.

I just want to advise committee members that when we return on March 1, the first and the second meeting will be aviation safety and Bill C-511, and then we will continue on Thursday with Bill C-33.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Christine Collins, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees]

Thank you very much.

I welcome the opportunity to be here. With me is Michael Teeter, who is my technical advisor.

The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees is the national union for rail, aviation, marine, and road safety inspectors. All of our inspector members are Transport Canada and Transportation Safety Board employees.

For the past four years UCTE has been making the case to Transport Canada, to SCOTIC, and to other interested parties that as we increasingly move into a safety management system world, we require, to as great an extent as possible, a consistent set of principles that will apply for all modes of transport. We need this so everyone can better understand that the idea of having transport companies managing safety is a good thing and not a bad thing. A public understanding and confidence in the transportation safety system is critical for all modes of transportation, and especially for rail, given the rail safety performance over the last years.

The UCTE prescription for an enhanced public confidence in transportation safety as we increasingly move towards SMS involves the following principles:

In all transportation safety statutes, the government and the Minister of Transport are legally responsible, and this responsibility does not leave despite the delegation powers in transportation statutes. Therefore, any ministerial delegations should be very carefully applied, and they should be applied with considerable restraint.

We recommend that only fully trained government inspectors should be responsible for legislative and regulatory compliance and oversight. This inspection and compliance layer should be present and required in all SMS statutes.

Any delegation to non-government workers and organizations should be governed by a conflict of interest provision. Conflicts and perceived conflicts should never exist. Inspectors who are responsible for SMS certification and SMS operations should be different from those who are responsible for regulatory compliance and oversight.

There should be clear whistleblower protections and provisions for reporting to third parties, in all transportation safety statutes. These protections should also apply and be available to the government inspectorate.

The transportation statutes, including Bill C-33, should require the regulator to maintain the highest level of safety. This level should be clearly and unambiguously defined in either legislation or regulations, or both.

I will say that UCTE has an excellent relationship with Luc Bourdon, director general, and with his staff at rail safety. We support BillC-33 in principle, and like the other unions you have had before you, we do have some specific suggestions for change.

Let's face it, rail is a bit different from aviation or marine; there are fewer operators. SMS is not being certified and then handed off to the private sector. SMS is being implemented with regulations approved by the Governor in Council. The delegations in Bill C-33 are much more restrained than they are with either aviation or marine.

On balance, we are much more pleased with the rail safety regime than we are with either aviation or marine. We do have some amendments to propose, and comments on each.

We recommend that railway safety inspectors, enforcement officers, and screening officers be federal employees, with appropriate certifications and training. It is not explicit in the bill that these positions be government positions.

While there is a requirement that government inspectors be responsible for the oversight of federal-provincial agreements, there is no such clarification for the three positions specified in the bill. The bill seems to imply that the minister could delegate these powers to any individual. We would recommend that the statute specify that the people in these positions be government employees.

We should put these delegation and responsibility issues in context. Look what is happening in aviation and marine.

A recent B.C. Supreme Court decision has extended Transport Canada liability to the delegation of ministerial authority to a private contractor who was certifying the airworthiness of aircraft. Leaving aside the issue of the performance of that contractor, the contractor appeared to be in a clear conflict of interest, and people lost their lives because of it. We should never allow this to happen.

In the last year, on the basis of interventions by UCTE and others and a number of reports of the Transportation Safety Board, the Minister of Transport removed the ministerial delegations for the Canadian Business Aviation Association. Again, leaving aside the performance of the association, how could a trade association possibly be effective at the regulatory oversight and compliance of its own members?

We have a similar problem developing in marine, where there are proposals to delegate ministerial powers to organizations that are suppliers to the very companies they would be responsible to regulate. How could this possibly work in real life? We should never allow these same situations to arise with rail, even if that is not the government's intent at the time legislation is introduced and passed. When statutory delegations are not restrained, there is a tendency for regulators to broadly delegate in the interests of cost savings. We believe this is wrong and is not supported by the will of Parliament or the interests of the travelling public.

If Bill C-33 requires that the inspection positions be government employees, then this problem cannot exist.

We require a definition and standard for "highest level of safety", and make the system responsible to meet this standard.

We are very pleased that the bill makes reference to highest level of safety in proposed paragraph 47.1(1)(a). The reference is to risk management analysis and remedial actions only. Unfortunately, the term is not defined, nor does it apply across the board. We think it needs to, in the same manner and phrase as was proposed in the SCOTIC-amended Aeronautics Act that died on the order paper two elections ago. Simply make the whole railway safety system accountable to the "highest level of safety" and require that this be defined in the accompanying regulations.

We require third-party whistleblower protections.

The U.S. experience and whistleblower remedies are ones that we should all study. The United States aviation safety statute provides for an independent office for whistleblowers, both government inspectors and private sector employees. The fact is that even government inspectors are concerned about punitive actions that can be taken by government and private sector management, should those inspectors take a hard line against an operator. With today's fast-paced world, the pressures to operate quickly and on time are so great that many safety infractions can be overlooked for fear of the extra costs and reprisals associated with safety enforcement. We recommend that you put out the compliant process to a third party that is completely independent of commercial and political pressures.

Like the teamsters who appeared before you on February 10, we support the appeal to the SCOTIC provision that was inserted into the Aeronautics Act. We also support the explicit reference to the Canada Labour Code in the statute. We would also like to see these provisions added here.

In conclusion, like our brothers and sisters in other unions, we do not want this bill to die on the order paper and not be reintroduced. We need to give Transport Canada's rail safety program the tools this bill gives them to do their job better. We are not asking for significant and difficult changes to the bill. You could do these changes and still get this bill through the House and Senate quickly. We sincerely hope you will do this.

Thank you.

[Nancy Fréchette]

When we use federal railways, we have contractual agreements with the railway companies that require them to respect the Railway Safety Act Regulations. Therefore, based upon what we pay, we are certainly financing a portion of these tasks that serve to ensure that the railway companies are abiding by the regulations. If we are to carry out the same verification work, we will be responsible and accountable, as is presently set out in the bill.

This would mean that there would be an overlap between the management infrastructures. Unfortunately, such infrastructures come with a cost. Given that we are not a for-profit undertaking, a private enterprise, but a publicly-owned corporation, it is taxpayers who will be forced to pay for all of this.

There is also the matter of the value added through this. The act fulfils an objective. This objective will not be met if agencies like ours are included, because we achieve good results in the area of safety. We have a provincial act regarding railway safety. As for the federal laws we fall under, we respect them through contracts. This requirement would therefore be very costly.

You talked about the railway operator certificate, but the requirements pertaining to it are not defined. You mentioned that there might be consultations. As Mr. Kelsey stated, we would have liked there to have been consultations pertaining to Bill C-33, but there were none. Therefore, there is legislation and there are intentions, and we are going to work on what has been proposed.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Kelsey; that was you.

Transport Canada would need authority to do that. This bill provides that authority. Do you have any objection to that authority being established through Bill C-33? I mean, if you want them to come in and audit, they'd need the authority to do it by law.

[Gregory Percy]

Absolutely there are, and I would say the freight, the inter-city passenger train, and commuter train all take the high road and adhere to the higher standard because it's good business to do that. But they may vary across Canada; I can't really speak to that that well.

But I did just want to speak to the difference between provincial and federal. Certainly the Province of Ontario does not regulate railways itself. They actually have an agreement with Transport Canada to regulate on their behalf. That's specific to short lines and freight railways, and commuter as well.

Commuter is different. I'll give you an example. With GO Transit, GO actually owns, and in April will own 61% of its rail corridor, and is deemed unregulated. This Bill C-33 deals, for us, with the other 39%, which is where we run over CN or CP.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Kelsey, in Vancouver, what do you think of Bill C-33?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Do you believe that, with Bill C-33, the requirement on the part of provincial companies to adopt these standards will amount to duplication, bringing about useless additional costs which will in reality be passed on to taxpayers and users?

[Gregory Percy]

We would have no problem working with Transport Canada to create our own memorandum of understanding in terms of the rigour they feel is appropriate to manage safety with us. Again, we hold ourselves up to high standards. But we are more than pleased to work directly with them in a different set of circumstances from what is outlined in Bill C-33.

[Gregory Percy]

We would have no problem with Transport Canada contacting us directly. But I would add that the model today works. Again, our safety record is admirable.

You are correct, Transport Canada goes through the class one railways today. We'd be more than pleased if they came directly to us. Our view is that they should be able to do that, but we don't feel that Bill C-33 is the mechanism to enable that to happen.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank both of you and Mr. Kelsey, who is from my hometown, Surrey.

Federal crown corporations and provinces are exempt from monetary penalties under Bill C-33. Does that apply to the provincial crown corporations and local transit authorities as well, or should it?

[Gregory Percy, Vice-President, Operations, Greater Toronto Transit Authority; Urban Transit Authorities]

Thank you.

We are urban transit authorities, publicly owned and funded transit regulatory authorities, established under provincial law, with local and regional mandates and accountability. We are committed to safe operations, and our safety records and investments show this.

Bill C-33, as presently written, would impose inappropriate, inefficient, and expensive burdens and risks on urban transit authorities, burdens and risks that cannot be justified or fulfilled, in our view. The three largest UTAs representing commuters in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal--a total of more than 65 million riders annually--make this joint submission to this committee to ask that amendments be made to this legislation. We have shared interests and shared challenges, and we all serve the same public: the taxpayer.

In particular, we request that this honourable committee amend the definition of “company” and “local railway company”, which inappropriately but inevitably include UTAs, which already fall under provincial jurisdiction. We also ask that the committee exempt UTAs from the bill's requirement to apply for federal railway operating certificates.

The bill's definition of a local railway company expands the application and provisions regarding rules and all the proposed administrative and other compliance and filing measures in the Railway Safety Act. In our view, this is unjustified. Parliament has already acknowledged that the UTAs have a distinct and unique public nature. UTAs fall under provincial jurisdiction; each is subject to the special provincial legislation that created them and gives them authority.

We are governed by boards of directors that oversee and are responsible for the professional management of our commuters and other integrated operations. We are already subject to rigorous special checks and balances and taxpayer demands and public scrutiny, which differentiates us from commercial freight operators. UTAs are already publicly accountable, committed to safety, and committed to serving local taxpayers.

We encourage you to question the authority of Parliament to enact laws that impose new obligations and liabilities on provincial entities that are already responsible and accountable. You must question a bill that extends the reach of the federal minister to regulate and certify a provincial urban transit authority and to affect its local public mandate.

None of the urban transit authorities in Canada own all of their own railway lines. They operate on federally regulated host lines, which are owned by federally regulated railway companies. The UTAs enter into contracts with those same host companies to ensure the safe management of the railway. These agreements require the UTAs to undertake extensive and onerous responsibilities and to incur substantial liabilities for their passenger operations. These include the acquisition of insurance coverage, as required by the host railways, which agree to maintain their lines in conformity with existing federal laws and prevailing standards. In exchange, the host must offer a safe railway upon which to operate.

UTAs have no authority over the host railway to inspect or audit them. We cannot manage their infrastructure or staff or contractors. We cannot hold the host accountable if the host departs from required federal standards. It makes no sense, therefore, to require UTAs to be accountable for their hosts' actions as part of a federal certification requirement or as an extension of federal regulatory oversight.

Safety is at the heart of this legislation, and it's important to put on the record that TransLink, Metrolinx's Go Transit, and Agence métropolitaine de transport have operated and continue to operate among the safest railway operations in Canada. It cannot be said that Bill C-33 was introduced because of any safety concerns about passenger trains operated by UTAs in Canada. Transport Canada's representatives must concede and have in this committee conceded this.

The report of the rail safety review panel identified no pressing regulatory issue or concern in relation to UTAs. It did not find any need or justification for making a legislative change to sweep us unnecessarily under federal oversight, which would duplicate existing provisions and processes, would be neither flexible nor efficient, and would not really add to safety.

Bill C-33 is in error in attempting to hold provincial UTAs and their senior officers accountable for what they themselves cannot reasonably control or direct on the lines of federal railways.

The bill also contemplates extensive new obligations to keep and preserve records in order to comply with the federal minister's demand for information. This is another onerous, expensive, and totally unnecessary requirement to which UTAs should not be required to submit. We already have reporting and documentary obligations to our constituting authorities. Here again, Bill C-33 proposes another onerous, expensive, and totally unnecessary burden on UTAs.

All of these proposals in Bill C-33 represent considerable costs for UTAs. Unlike commercial freight railways, UTAs, by their very nature, have no means to recover all of their costs. Additional expenses caused by unnecessary and burdensome requirements will ultimately mean that either taxpayer and commuter support of UTAs will increase, or that necessary growth in urban transit will be constrained, or that service to the public will be reduced, all because of an unnecessarily broad definition of "company" or "local railway company".

For all these reasons, we, the urban transit authorities of Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, ask this honourable committee to amend the provisions in Bill C-33 to exempt urban transit authorities, already recognized and federally defined, from the scope and application of the bill. In particular, exempt UTAs from the newly defined terms "company" and "local railway company" and from the requirement to apply and qualify for a federal railway operating certificate.

We thank you for this opportunity to make these submissions. I'd be pleased to entertain any questions.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

On another note, and I'm going to go back to Mr. McCallum's question, because you diverted those to Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilson. I'm going to give you only one option. He met with the GO Train people this morning, and I have a similar authority, TransLink, in my part of the woods.

We all know that TransLink has an excellent record, and excellent accountability to the public as well, because it's another level of government. If I give you one option and ask you the question, would you support their recommendation for them to be exempted from Bill C-33? Would you support that?

[Glen Wilson]

CP is also a supporter of Bill C-33, and behind the submission you received is simply a desire to improve it further.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for appearing today in consideration of Bill C-33.

Mr. Miller, in one of your statements you said one accident is one too many. In 2009, according to the Transportation Safety Board, there were 1,038 rail accidents, including 68 main-track derailments. I'm going to submit that there's significantly more work to do, and our government believes, of course, that Bill C-33 goes a long way toward that. It was broadly consulted on. It responds to 56 recommendations made by the special expert panel doing a rail safety review, as well as 14 recommendations by this very committee.

Mr. Mackay, I hope I haven't discerned something more than is here, but I sense a subtle shift or an intention to shift the discussion to things like the government with respect to crossings, or municipalities with respect to municipal planning, when this bill responds to safety reviews about your member companies, CN, CP, and to a lesser extent VIA. When I say lesser extent, the expert panel had more favourable things to say about the safety culture at VIA than they did about the other two companies. So I'm hoping to talk about the bill.

We've had many witnesses here who have said, for example, that Bill C-33 is “the right thing to do”. I'm going to ask each of the companies, CP, CN, and VIA, whether they agree, broadly speaking, about Bill C-33, that it is in fact the right thing to do. Maybe we'll start with CN.

[Cliff Mackay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I start, I should say one thing. Unfortunately, I have some health issues, so I may have to leave the room for a very short period of time a couple of times. I would ask the committee's indulgence.

The only other thing I would say is that I think it's very appropriate that we're meeting in this committee room.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, let me thank you for the opportunity to appear today to comment on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

The Railway Association of Canada represents 52 freight, commuter, intercity, and tourism railways that make up about 99% of all of the railway operations in the country. The railway industry contributes nearly $11 billion annually to the Canadian economy, and our direct employment is around 35,000 people a year.

With me today, representing the industry, are: Mr. Paul Miller, chief safety and sustainability officer with CN; Mr. John Marginson, chief operating officer with VIA Rail; and Mr. Glen Wilson, vice-president, safety, environment and regulatory affairs, from CP.

Mr. Chairman, we had hoped to have one of our three board members representing short lines here today, but unfortunately, with the short notice, they were all out of the country at the moment, frankly. I'd be quite happy to speak for them, but we would have liked them to be here as well.

Let me begin by saying that I had the opportunity to read the comments made by members during the second reading debate of Bill C-33, and I was frankly very pleased to see that everyone was on the same page with regard to the most important element of this legislation, that is, improving rail safety.

From the outset, I'd like to say that safety is a very high priority for our industry. I would point out that the railways have worked closely with Transport Canada, labour organizations, and other interested stakeholders to develop the action plans and recommendations flowing out of the 2007 Railway Safety Act review and the committee's reports on the same subject.

We are very supportive of the proposed legislation, and, as explained in detail in our written submission, we believe that more can be done to improve safety, even beyond what is on the table at the moment.

Without overburdening you with statistics, I'm pleased to say that the railway safety record in Canada continues to improve. Our track record might not be perfect, but it's impressive. For example, safety performance as measured by accidents per million train miles in 2010 was superior to results in 2009, as well as results when measured against the five-year average. These results were achieved at the same time that there was growing freight and passenger traffic, and we had the continuing pressure from increased exposure from urban sprawl and heavy traffic on roads.

Increased proximity between rail operations and everyday life in our communities across Canada is a risk factor that must be addressed to improve rail safety. We believe that Bill C-33 can be strengthened in this area. At the centre of these concerns involving proximity between railway lands and municipal development is the wide variation that exists across Canada with respect to land use planning regulations.

In recommendation 34 of its report, the advisory panel recommended that the Railway Safety Act be amended to require developers and municipalities to engage in a process of consultation with railway companies prior to any decision respecting land use that may affect railway safety. Unfortunately, Bill C-33 is silent on this issue at this time.

We believe that one of the most efficient ways of improving railway safety in this area is to give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations respecting notices that should be given to railways regarding the establishment of a local plan of subdivision, or zoning by-law, or proposed amendments thereto, where the subject land is within 300 metres of a railway line or railway yard. We believe the 300 metres is a distance that makes sense from a safety point of view.

Further, we also believe, as is done in the Aeronautics Act today, that power should be given to the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the control or prohibition of any other activity in the vicinity of a land on which a line of railway is situated, to the extent that it could constitute a threat to safe railway operations.

Mr. Chair, we believe these two simple measures would go a great distance to reducing accidents and incidents involving railways and the general public.

Another simple measure suggested by the panel in its recommendation 35 is to limit to the extent practicable the opening of new level crossings in Canada. Bill C-33 does not currently address this issue. The current regime does not take safety into consideration in the decision to open new crossings. Presently the only criteria taken into consideration by the CTA when authorizing the opening of a crossing is the owner's enjoyment of the land in the case of private crossings. This does little to consider safety in the process. For that reason we would ask the committee to consider amending the Canadian Transportation Act via a consequential amendment to authorize the construction of crossings only when there is no other reasonable alternative and when the minister confirms that a formal safety risk assessment concludes that it would be safe to do so.

We hope you will agree with us that proximity and crossing issues require particular attention and consideration. Given the clear relationship that these issues forge between the railways and the public, the railways maintain that Bill C-33 will not result in sufficient improvement in rail safety without the inclusion of provisions addressing these issues. The railways believe that railway safety will be furthered as a result of these inclusions.

I should say, Mr. Chair, that these amendments have been consulted broadly. We have talked to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We've talked, of course, to the government, and we've talked to a number of other stakeholders and interested parties. While they are obviously our recommendations, we have not had negative pushback on these recommendations from other players.

In closing, I would say that if the proposed legislation did not go far enough, as the panel suggested, with respect to proximity in crossings, it went too far with respect to safety standards that railways should apply.

Recommendation 24 of the panel observed that improved safety management systems could be gained through better safety performance measures and increased focus on safety culture and a wide range of other recommendations. What it did not recommend or mention in any way was a particular measure for an acceptable safety standard.

That said, Bill C-33 extends beyond the panel's recommendation to introduce regulations that would force railways to implement, as a result of a risk management analysis, remedial actions required to maintain the highest level of safety. This proposed threshold creates a standard that may well be unattainable from a practical perspective. Put simply, it may hinder railways' ability to continue operating, a result that would create grave consequences, not just for the railways but also for the Canadian economy.

The question in our mind is, why reinvent the wheel? The question of a proper level of safety has been debated in the past, particularly during the development of the national transportation policy. I would refer you to section 5 of the CTA. In this instance, the legislation was wisely amended to include the highest practicable level of safety. The railways view a similar standard in the RSA context as both manageable and appropriate. This is one of our main recommendations.

We have other recommendations in our detailed brief that I will not go into today. I have spoken here to these three because we believe they are the three most important in advancing safety in our system.

Once again, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I'd like to thank the committee for their attention. We look forward to working with you to improve safety in the future.

Mr. Chair, we would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 48 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

In our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, we have Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Joining us today we have Mr. Cliff Mackay, president and chief executive officer of the Railway Association of Canada. I'll let him continue with the introductions.

We welcome you. You've been here before, and I know you know the routine. I'll turn it over to you and then we'll move to committee questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and we appreciate your comments and input. As we write this report, we'll be remembering what you've told us today. Thank you.

For the committee, we meet again today at 3:30, on Bill C-33, and I hope everybody will be there.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When we see that threat of dismissal. You brought in a good recommendation that we should probably make part of Bill C-33, that employees be able to report directly to Transport Canada. Do you think it would make a big difference?

Two, because you know how many complaints will be coming in, what cost in dollars will it create for Transport Canada?

[Rob Smith, National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Locomotive Engineers, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Phil and Bill.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak here today on behalf of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, the TCRC.

My name is Rob Smith, and I have been recently elected to the position of national legislative director for the TCRC. I am also a qualified locomotive engineer and have worked in that capacity at Canadian Pacific Railway.

The TCRC represents approximately 10,000 members, which include conductors, rail traffic controllers, shopcraft workers, motor coach operators, customer service ambassadors, and locomotive engineers across Canada.

We are here today to briefly discuss Bill C-33, proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act.

Our organization fully supports this bill as we feel it will address the safety and security concerns of our TCRC membership.

The TCRC welcomes the proposed bill as it will strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement powers to impose monetary penalties for safety and environmental contraventions by the railways. This is an essential element to ensure railway safety for all stakeholders.

The proposed bill also includes local railway companies that operate on federally regulated tracks governed under the rules of the Railway Safety Act. This also addresses an area of concern for our organization as we represent workers in these local railway companies.

The TCRC supports the proposed bill's addition of non-punitive internal reporting, the process for our membership, as well as additional accountability of the railways under the safety management systems.

In closing, I would like to again thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our TCRC union members, who, as previously mentioned, are in full support of this bill. We urge you to support our position and have this bill passed in the interest of rail safety and operations throughout.

[William Brehl, President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Phil.

Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, honoured guests, good afternoon.

This is not my strong suit, so bear with me. I'm a track monkey by trade, and public speaking isn't my strength.

My name is William Brehl, and I'm the elected national president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, the TCRCMWED. I'm also an active and participatory member of the Advisory Council on Rail Safety, better known as ACRS.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-33, and more importantly, to the safety of railway operations in Canada.

The TCRCMWED represents roughly 4,000 Canadian men and women who inspect, maintain, repair, and build the track and structures of Canadian Pacific as well as those on almost two dozen short lines, including three that are owned and operated by CN.

For this reason, we are positioned like no one else to truly appreciate the importance of rail safety in this country. We are on the ground—in the trenches, so to speak—working and fighting to ensure safe rail infrastructure. We see its failings, and we can properly recommend solutions. We fight for rail safety as if our lives depend on it, because often they do.

Here it is not even two months into 2011, and the Transportation Safety Board statistics show that over 106 derailments have been reported so far this year. At least 33 of them involved dangerous commodities. Thirty-one crossing accidents have been reported to the TSB over the last six weeks, and Canadian railway operating rule violations such as exceeding or operating without authority, which basically means that a train has entered into unprotected track—the leading cause of on-track collisions—number in excess of 20 reported.

Once you stop and actually look at the numbers, no matter what spin the railroads put on their safety records, you realize the potential for disaster that is lurking out there.

As Teamsters, as railroaders, and as Canadian citizens, we welcome any and all improvements to the regulations, which are designed to protect our membership and the country as a whole from the hazards of unsafe railway operations.

They can and they must run safe, profitable lines. We must ensure through proper regulations and enforced compliance that the railroads put safety as the first priority instead of simply depending on good luck and gravity to keep their trains on the track.

Therefore, we support Bill C-33. We have also submitted four amendments, which we see as enhancing the bill and allowing it to be more effective. One of them, non-punitive reporting, I would like to briefly speak on now.

To truly get a handle on the root cause of accidents or systemic failures, you need accurate, comprehensive data. Breakdowns in procedure, as well as trends, may not be recognized if the information is lacking. That's why the reporting of all incidents is a necessity.

Railroads have long fostered a climate of fear—which we've talked about in this room quite a bit today—amongst their workers. As a 30-year CP maintenance of way employee, I can attest that this is nothing new. Rules violations are disciplined heavily. One accidental rules violation could lead to your dismissal. But the fear within our membership is not only of reporting their own errors. Often it is of reporting other contraventions to anyone beyond their immediate supervisor, even if they believe that their supervisor is covering the contraventions up. The optics within our ranks are that if you report something the railroad doesn't want reported, you will be punished. Punishments can range from less than desirable work assignments right up to discipline and/or dismissal.

As long as that underlying fear is there, we do not believe that proposed subparagraph 47.1(1)(a)(iv) will achieve the policy objective. We firmly believe that more is needed. Not only is non-punitive reporting a necessity to ensure the violations are getting reported, but we must have confidential reporting as well to alleviate these fears of hidden reprisals. We believe we should add to proposed section 47.1 our amendment to allow complaints directly to Transport Canada Rail Safety.

In the end, there is no downside to confidential third-party reporting, especially when you look at the positive benefits. After all, if the goal is to gather information to assist in the enforcement of the regulations as well as for the identification of problems, then it just makes sense to remove all of the roadblocks.

Allow the real railroaders the freedom and the security to honestly speak without fear of punishment or reprisal. That alone will move the issue of rail safety miles closer to resolution.

I'd like to thank the committee for their work on our behalf, and also for allowing me the chance to voice the concerns of our membership.

Thank you.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

I would carry on with Mr. Trost's question. The review of the RSA recommended that the rail traffic controllers be required to be physically in Canada so they can be inspected. Would you like to see that provision in Bill C-33?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

My other question is about the planned changes in Bill C-33. There are highlights, but I don't understand them at all. Why amend the act? Are things really that bad? Why change the regulations? Are some of its components upsetting people?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

My questions are going to be focused only from the perspective of women and men, workers or employees.

I have heard many concerns from employees that they operate under a climate of fear, which would make them hesitant to use any non-punitive internal reporting. Shouldn't there be a clause or provisions in Bill C-33 to allow them to report, or make these non-punitive reports directly to Transport Canada?

[Luc Bourdon]

Mr. Guimond, I could say that they can do it now if they want, despite Bill C-33. Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could announce at any time that they are changing the contract made with the other and that this is how they are going to do it. The bill makes no provision for that.

[Luc Bourdon]

Sure. Shortlines under provincial jurisdiction that operate only on provincial tracks will be completely excluded from Bill C-33. They won't be affected.

[Luc Bourdon]

I have two things I can say. First, no railway under strictly federal jurisdiction that does not operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.

But your shortlines, which only operate on tracks under federal jurisdiction, will in no way be subject to it. Only railways under provincial jurisdiction that operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.

The reason they won't be exempted…

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

What would it protect? CP and CN are the ones that will maintain the tracks, and it's their responsibility to comply with Bill C-33. What protection does TransLink have if they try to manipulate that or try to monopolize the situation so that tomorrow the taxpayers and the commuters, particularly from the Mission area into the downtown core, will not be in jeopardy?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

You mentioned West Coast Express, so let me go to West Coast Express. They have 12 people who run their customer interface, like parking-related services. Today, if we look at their situation, the maintenance of the train is done by VIA Rail in that situation. The tracks are done by CP, and CP is also contracted to move trains. So to comply, we all know and you say they already have that provision in there that they can be exempted, but with this oversight in Bill C-33, where TransLink will have to hire more consultants, have you estimated how much it would additionally cost the taxpayers in British Columbia, and particularly in the--

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

But we have a proven record that these transit authorities, whether it's TransLink.... And they have accountability as well, on a different level of government, or a different order of government.

On the one hand, you are very happy with their past safety record. On the other hand, we know they're already accountable to government on a different order. So why would we again like to put them into a situation that would put more burden on them by bringing in Bill C-33?

[Luc Bourdon]

First of all, I'd like to say that the three urban transit authorities we're dealing with, which are currently under provincial jurisdiction, are very safe companies, and they're definitely not operating in an unsafe manner.

However, it all goes through the railway operating certificate. So you can't see that as a permit that each railway will need to obtain in order to operate on federal track. Most of what may be required in the railway operating certificate these commuter railways already have in place.

The second thing that is really important to note is that in Bill C-33, under proposed section 12, concerning the railway operating certificate, there is a provision under proposed paragraph 17.9(1)(c) that allows the Governor in Council to exempt some persons from the railway operating certificate. So there was already provision at the time we were going to do the regulation to exempt some class of persons.

I honestly would be pretty uncomfortable right now to decide who should or should not require an ROC based on their current safety record. I don't think that should be perceived as a reward, that if you have a good safety record you don't need an ROC.

The legislation, the way it is now, already has some provisions that would allow them to be exempt at the time we do the regulation.

[Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thanks to the members for having us here today again.

The minister, on Tuesday, touched on some of the key issues in the bill, and I'd like to take about four or five minutes to let you know what we've done with all the recommendations that were generated by the Railway Safety Act review panel—the 56 of them—and the 14 that were generated by SCOTIC.

We acted on them as soon as we got them, and the first thing that Rail Safety did was create an advisory council on railway safety with the companies, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Labour Congress. That was a recommendation of the Railway Safety Act review panel. So far we have had six meetings since that committee was put together, and that has proven to be very effective to communicate with all of our stakeholders. On the committee we have Transport Canada, the unions, the companies, the shippers, the suppliers, the provinces, the municipalities, as well as some observers.

We also created a Railway Safety Act review steering committee with the industry, Transport Canada, again, and the Canadian Labour Congress. The first thing we did was look at all the recommendations that did not require legislative amendments. They were divided among six working groups. All the working groups were also composed of union members from each of the railway unions, management, and the railway.

Just to give you an idea of what these committees have been able to achieve, one of the first committees we put together was on a safety management system. There have been several recommendations in the Railway Safety Act review and some recommendations as well done by SCOTIC. One of the recommendations that was provided by SCOTIC was to create a better tool to assist our stakeholders and Transport Canada to better manage rail safety. Carla has a copy of what has been published, which has been given to all our stakeholders. So we did publish some guidelines that are being used right now by all our stakeholders to help us with the implementation of a safety management system.

There were also some recommendations by SCOTIC for a non-punitive provision, which is in Bill C-33, as well as better employee involvement, which is also covered in the bill.

There is also one chapter dealing with information collection, analysis, and dissemination. We put together a working group, again, with unions, the railway, and Transport Canada, and it came up with some indicators that from now on will be shared between industry and the regulator through a data portal. We were fortunate to get about $2.3 million to enable the technology to get that done for us.

We also created a third working group—operation and proximity—that deals, among other topics, with fatigue, which was also a recommendation of SCOTIC . We recently published some fatigue guidelines to help train crews deal with fatigue-related issues. That was done, again, in cooperation with unions and management as well as with Dr. Patrick Sherry from the University of Denver, who helped us with this.

Also, a recommendation from SCOTIC was to enhance training. The industry has filed new rules with us for enhanced training for safety-sensitive positions.

Terms of closing crossings was also in the recommendations. We're dealing with industry to come up with a list of crossings that can be closed.

Regarding Operation Lifesaver, two of the members have raised some issues with respect to crossings and trespassing. We've added five engineers to deal with crossings, and $28 million was added to enhance crossings. We also added five outreach coordinators to assist us with education and awareness with respect to crossings and trespassing.

As for innovation and technology, there were a series of recommendations. Some came from the committee, others, from the panel. We created a new structure for managing these recommendations.

The working group, made up of transport company unions, has generated 25 new recommendations that have been scheduled to be carried out over the next few years. We were lucky to receive an additional $5.3 million to invest in technology. We also formed alliances with some universities and some other countries that share the same concerns as we do.

The fifth working group looked at environmental protection. Among other things, it focused on the best emergency measures for products that are not considered dangerous goods, but that may be dangerous for the environment. And the group made suggestions to us. Also, there are provisions in Bill C-33 that require railways to provide Transport Canada with environmental plans that will be checked.

The last working group focused on the process for establishing rules. Once again, these are the same stakeholders who are at the table, and they worked on creating a better methodology for establishing rules, a better participation of unions and better existing rules.

I came before this committee about three years ago and talked about some new technology we had acquired, the track assessment vehicle, that would help us enhance our capacity to do track inspection. We got two more of those vehicles. Right now we have up to five vehicles. So we're better equipped than we've ever been in the past to perform track inspection.

I just want to make sure you fully understand that all the recommendations in these two reports were not left on the shelf to collect dust. Most of the recommendations have been addressed.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize, on behalf of everybody in Rail Safety at Transport Canada, that we firmly believe that although we've received many tools to do a better job, Bill C-33 is probably the last one we would need in order to have a full tool kit.

On that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 46.

Before I go into the orders of the day, I just want to bring the committee up to speed about next Tuesday. We have secured the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. timeframe. You will be getting a notice, if you haven't already received it. We're waiting for a response from the minister on our request to appear. In the meantime, we have confirmed that we will proceed with the aviation safety and security aspect of our discussions. CATSA and CUPE have confirmed their attendance for that timeframe. You'll get a notice in the mail. We will proceed with normal business again at 3:30 that afternoon.

Also, just for the advice of the committee, joining us today we have a group from the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication. They're sitting at the back.

We welcome you, and hopefully you'll enjoy your day.

With that, we will move to the orders of the day pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

When we left the last meeting we had department officials and the minister. The department officials have been invited back. Joining us today is Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety, and Carla White-Taylor, director, rail safety secretariat.

I understand you have an opening comment you'd like to start with, and then we'll move to questions and answers.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for attending today.

In particular, I want to let you know, Minister, that all the committee members, including Mr. McCallum and Monsieur Guimond and Mr. Bevington, from all parties, have agreed to have extra meetings so we can make sure all regular meetings are going to be for Bill C-33 until it's put through. I want to let you know that all members have agreed to do that, so that we have extra sittings. I think that shows cooperation on the part of all parties.

I don't want to pick on anyone, but I understand the mayor of Pickering has approached you several times in relation to this particular bill. I understand other mayors around the GTA in particular are very interested in this bill. I was wondering if you could—not give us specifics on the conversations, because I understand some are in the hundreds or so, as far as the mayor of Pickering and the department are concerned—give us information on general terms, general information, general input by mayors in that region, particularly by politicians in the GTA and how they feel about this particular act.

[Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

In Bill C-33 we make reference to a regulation that will be developed that will determine the criteria for a railway operating certificate. At the time of developing the regulation we will fully involve all the stakeholders and take into consideration every aspect of their organization. When you're talking about commuter rail, a railway operating certificate will be required by GO Transit, AMT in Montreal, and West Coast Express while they're operating on federal tracks. If they're no longer on federal tracks at any time, they won't require an ROC.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Another issue has to do with Bill C-33, with local transit authorities operating light rail, subways, or streetcars--for example, GO Transit in Ontario. I understand that C-33 will apply to at least some of these. To the extent that's true, will this new legislation impose additional costs or regulatory burden on outfits like GO Transit? Is that being considered in this legislation?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

I appreciate that very much. I want to introduce Luc Bourdon and Carla White-Taylor from the department. They'll have answers to perhaps some of the technical questions, if we get that deep.

We're certainly pleased to see this piece of legislation move forward and to be able to get to committee.

It's interesting that we chose a day that is the 25th anniversary of a very serious accident that happened in my riding, as 23 passengers and crew died and 95 people were injured when a CN rail train collided with a VIA Rail train in Hinton, Alberta. It impacted the community and the riding a significant amount, so this is actually very fitting that we deal with some of the railway safety issues.

Significant improvements have been made since that time. I'm pleased to be here supporting this piece of legislation, which is Bill C-33. It's not the safety railways act; it's the Safer Railways Act. This new bill I hope will add or amend or make some of the changes that are necessary to be able to achieve a safer railway system. We believe the proposed amendments are essential, and not only essential but also timely. They respond directly to the recommendations of two different important studies on rail safety.

As members of the committee recall, a number of high-profile derailments happened between the years 2005 and 2006, another one in my riding actually, at Lake Wabamun, which I had some first-hand experience with. That was in Alberta. There was also in British Columbia the derailments at Lillooet and Cheakamus, and in Quebec there was one at Montmagny.

All of these raised some shortcomings in the safety system. As I said, I was a first-hand observer of the Wabamun incident. The last estimate was that CN's cleanup and compensation costs for that incident were over $130 million. When an accident happens on rail, it's very costly, in human costs, in financial costs, and very much potentially in environmental costs. So whatever we can do to mitigate these is where we want to go.

These incidents provided an impetus for the Minister of Transport to launch, back in 2006, a review of the Railway Safety Act. The objective was to identify possible gaps in the act and to make recommendations to further strengthen the regulatory regime. The Minister of Transport then tabled the review panel's final report in the House in March 2008, and that contained 56 recommendations to improve rail safety in Canada.

This committee, the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, began its own study on rail safety in 2006. It accepted the review panel's recommendation and then actually tabled its own report in the House in May 2008, with 14 recommendations that actually built on those of the Railway Safety Act review.

Both reports identified key areas for improvement and recommended increasing Transport Canada's resources to allow it to strengthen the oversight and enforcement capacity and to implement new safety initiatives. Transport Canada has taken action on those recommendations through a variety of government, industry, and union initiatives, and through the proposed legislative amendments that we're asking for here to the Railway Safety Act. The amendments contained in this bill will further improve railway safety and make it more consistent with legislation on other modes of transportation such as air and marine.

Four key components of the legislation are new powers to crack down on rule-breakers, with tough new monetary penalties as well as increased judicial penalties, to strengthen safety requirements for railway companies, to create whistleblower protection for employees who raise safety concerns, and to require each railway to have an executive legally responsible for safety.

Additionally, railway companies will be required to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate before they begin or continue to operate. The legislation includes a phased-in approach on the regulatory authority of the government to provide flexibility for smaller short-line railways to have a different risk profile than the large class A railways. And I think that's an important thing to note, not to be too hard on the short lines.

The amendments clarify the authority and the responsibility of the minister with respect to railway matters, stating that the act applies with respect to all railway matters within the legislative authority of Parliament. This will ensure that all companies operating on the federal tracks will be subject to the same high level of safety requirements.

Finally, to protect our natural heritage from potential harm, the importance of the environment and environmental management is also a good part of the emphasis of this piece of legislation. I know that full well when you saw what happened in Lake Wabamun, and let's hope that never happens again. While the amendments allow for the creation of more regulations, it's important to remember that an independent safety review panel recommended such amendments after very thorough research, very thorough consultation and consideration. The government agrees with their recommendations for the items that fall within federal jurisdiction because they will increase public safety of Canadians. It'll contribute to a stronger economy and cleaner environment. The rail industry is the backbone of our economy. Almost 70% of our goods and produce travel on rail. It's part of our historic legacy and should continue to serve Canadians well into the future.

I urge the committee to study the legislation very closely. If minor technical amendments can give more clarity, please bring them to my attention. Notwithstanding any minor amendments, I ask all parties to work together on this piece of legislation. It's really very much in the interests of all Canadians. It's got nothing to do with politics; this is all about safer railways and a culture of changing those safer railways. It's important that we get this piece of legislation through in a prudent manner. I hope the committee will give it its full attention and move it along quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, and welcome back, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, we are studying Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Joining us today we have the Honourable Rob Merrifield, Minister of State for Transport.

We welcome you, Minister. I know you've been here before, so you're familiar with the routine. I'll ask you to make your opening comments, and then we'll move to questions and answers.

Safer Railways Act

[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.

[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 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.

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.

[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—

[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.

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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with the opposition day motion by our friends from the New Democratic Party. Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the vote on the NDP motion will be deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday.

Tomorrow we will consider a great bill proposed by the Minister of Justice, Bill C-22, protecting children from online sexual exploitation. The Minister of Justice has another great bill, Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators, which we will then debate. We will then move to Bill C-33, the safer railways act, on which the Minister of State for Transport has done a lot of very good work. Next is Bill C-21, the standing up for victims of white collar crime act, which is another strong justice bill brought forward by the Attorney General of Canada.

Next week we will continue with business from Friday.

I am pleased to report that there are ongoing constructive, and even harmonious, discussions among the parties, so the list of business that I mentioned may change.

Next week, each and every day we will be debating great bills that will do great things for Canada.

Also I will return to the House at a later time to designate the last allotted day.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the hon. member's question, I want to say that at our House leaders meeting just two weeks ago, the government raised the issue of one of the Liberal members calling a minister of the Crown a “slime” five times.

The House leader for the Liberal Party is seeking to raise the decorum and the quality level of debate in this place. The member is a senior member of the Liberal shadow cabinet. Before I answer the normal Thursday question, I wonder if the member could update us on where we are on that.

The House leader of the official opposition has also been very passionate in wanting to reduce the amount of heckling in this place and yet we was rather egregiously heckling the Minister of Finance yesterday on Walkerton. I spoke with the member who represents that constituency and that community takes great offence at the continuing vilification of the name of their town. Maybe we will get that next week with the slime comment.

Today we will continue the opposition motion from the Bloc Québécois.

Friday we will debate Bill C-41, strengthening military justice, and Bill C-43, the RCMP labour modernization.

On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday of next week we will call Bill C-49, action on human smuggling; Bill C-47, sustaining Canada's economic recovery; Bill C-22, protecting children from online sexual exploitation; Bill C-29, safeguarding Canadians' personal information; Bill C-41, strengthening military justice; Bill C-43, the RCMP labour modernization; Bill C-54, child sexual offences; Bill C-33, safer railways act; Bill C-8, Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; and, Bill C-20, an action plan for the National Capital Commission.

Thursday will be an allotted day for our friends in the New Democratic Party.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

As I've said in the committee before, and Monsieur Guimond has agreed, my number one issue is that we continue on with committee business, legislation specifically, because we have three bills. Other than that, I'm prepared to sit whenever anybody wants. I think 3:30 p.m. is a great suggestion.

I am getting concerned about the infrastructure issue being a priority only because we have three pieces of legislation in front of us waiting to happen: Bill C-511, which is of course Mr. Volpe's PEDAL act, which the government has said it's open to look at; Bill C-42, which is before us now and for which we are under a time constraint; and Bill C-33, a railway review coming forward, which a lot of user groups I think are going to be rattling our doors very heavily on.

Originally, when we agreed to have the infrastructure motion and to have that study, it was suggested to have two meetings. Then I think it was a government amendment that said have up to four. We've had three or four already. If we're going to go into those meetings, I would prefer them not being a priority, and just doing them outside of regular meetings, certainly whenever you want to do so.

I think Mr. Guimond is correct in relation to the public participation act. I think we have to study that. That's an issue that's coming forward, and we might have to deal with it as a committee or as a government immediately, so it would be a good idea to get input on that.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the regular committee meetings are the legislation and we continue with the legislation as we're doing, I'm open to whichever priorities the opposition parties want to study.

Creating Canada's New National Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 Act

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-34, an act to create a national museum at Pier 21 in Halifax-Dartmouth. I am very pleased to give my personal support to this bill.

Before I continue, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for consent to split my time with the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

Safer Railways Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)