Bill C-627 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act (safety of persons and property)

This enactment amends the Railway Safety Act to improve public safety by providing authority to issue orders if a railway work or a railway operation poses a threat to the safety of persons or property.

[Phil Benson]

Yes, I agree with your comments. In fact, notwithstanding our comments about not supporting private members' bills, as Mr. Ashley said, we support any improvement. We thought even Bill C-627 as written was an improvement.

But there's a question on crossings accidents. I think one thing that's a little misleading about crossings accidents and just putting a number and total to them, is that really the largest subsection of deaths are suicides. I don't know how we're going to prevent that. Second, I think Mr. Bourque would agree, is trespassers. There are people who are wilfully trespassing. It isn't a problem with the crossing grading.

Sometimes when we look at these issues, if we understand that there's a whole chunk of them that we are not going to solve ever—

[Michael Bourque]

The reason that in my remarks today I went beyond Bill C-627 is precisely because I think there are a number of proactive steps that legislators can take with respect to crossing safety. There are a number of very important changes that need to be made if we're going to improve crossing safety in this country. The TSB has already pointed out that we have not reduced the amount of accidents at crossings over the last 10 years. We have essentially plateaued. If we're going to make those kinds of safety improvements, we have to look at closing crossings, at changing the governance on opening and closing, and so on.

[Michael Bourque]

For our part, I don't disagree with what you've said. Our position is essentially that the act already provides that authority. If the government believes that this authority is not strong enough and they want to strengthen the language in the new act, which is going to supersede this private member's bill, then there's probably a good reason for it. We're not going to object. We do think that the way it's written in Bill C-627 causes a little bit of confusion because we already believe, as I mentioned, that under section 31 railway safety inspectors on behalf of the minister currently have the power to order a rail line to be closed or the use of equipment to be stopped if there is an imminent threat to safety. That's our interpretation of the bill.

[Michael Bourque, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Thank you.

I want to begin by saying that safety is of the utmost importance to the railway industry. Our members are committed to safety and are constantly looking for ways to improve their performance whether it's through training, risk assessment, infrastructure investments, or technology.

Our industry aIso believes in working collaboratively with government, labour groups, municipalities, and other stakeholders on improving our safety performance. ln the last 20 months especially, we've seen new train securement and operating practices, new tank car standards, and many other measures introduced, all of which will contribute to improving safety.

Crossing safety, which member of Parliament, Joyce Bateman, identified as the motivation behind Bill C-627, is aIso a pressing issue for our industry. There are currently more than 31,000 federally regulated grade crossings in Canada, and crossing accidents account for nearly 20% of all rail incidents in Canada. Sadly, a third of those incidents result in death or serious injury.

Crossing safety is an important issue, but I'm not sure Bill C-627 is the best way to tackle it. In fact, I'm questioning why we're discussing it today. As a number of committee members pointed out earlier this week, Bill C-52 will repeal key sections of this bill.

Our primary concern with Bill C-627 is that it may be redundant and it could create confusion. Section 4 of the current Railway Safety Act already states that “regard shall be had not only to the safety of persons and property transported by railways but also to the safety of other persons and other property” in determining whether railway operations are safe, or whether something constitutes a threat to safety.

ln addition, under section 31 of the current Railway Safety Act, railway safety inspectors, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, already have the power to order a rail line or crossing to be closed, or the use of railway equipment to be stopped, if they deem it to be a threat to safety. However, it may well be that improvements to the act are required, and we certainly appreciate many of the crossing safety concerns that Ms. Bateman raised before this committee.

As a result of urban growth around railway operations, traffic has increased at existing crossings and additional crossings have been built to relieve road congestion across the country. Communities and city planners need to think about alternatives to creating new grade crossings, and what upgrades can be made to improve safety at existing crossings.

Although not specifically aimed at crossings, we're making some progress through our joint proximity initiative with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and we recently saw Montreal adopt our Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations as part its long-term development plan. Montreal was the first major urban centre to adopt the guidelines and we're hopeful that other cities will follow suit.

But more can be done. I'll read you a quote. I'm sorry, it's a little bit long, but bear with me.

ln its report, the advisory panel for the Railway Safety Act review recommended that the 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.

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.

These comments were made by my predecessor, Cliff Mackay, to this committee during its review of the Railway Safety Act in 2012, and this is still our position today. Railways are required by law to notify municipalities of any proposed work. We would like to see the Railway Safety Act amended to require developers and municipalities to consult with railway companies prior to making decisions about land use that could affect railway safety.

Another way that we can tackle the issue of crossing safety is to review the existing regulatory approach for opening and closing rail crossings in Canada. Under the existing regime, Transport Canada has the authority to close grade crossings after completing a risk analysis. Meanwhile, the Canadian Transportation Agency has the authority to open new crossings without having to assess public safety. This dichotomy of authority has jeopardized public safety and led to some counterproductive outcomes. In one case, the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered a railway to open a crossing after Transport Canada had ordered it permanently closed for safety reasons.

Furthermore, the number of crossing-related accidents has not decreased over the last decade. Since 2003, there have been more than 2,300 crossing-related accidents and 670 serious injuries and/or fatalities. As I mentioned earlier, 30% of the crossing-related accidents over the last five years have resulted in serious injury or fatality. The increasing number of level crossings, the increase in traffic moved by freight and passenger rail, as well as truck and automobile traffic suggest that crossing-related injuries and fatalities will continue to be a problem in the future if action is not taken. Recent government efforts to improve safety at grade crossings will help, but the best way to improve safety is to close more crossings.

Canada's grade crossings regulations came into effect last December 17. These regulations outline a series of improvements that must be made to grade crossings, including private crossings. Short line railways alone expect that they will invest somewhere in the order of $85 million to meet these regulatory requirements, and the estimate at the time of regulation was a cost of about half a billion dollars to the industry to meet these regulations.

There is also the issue of private crossings. We have many instances where private roads crossing over rail lines are used by one or more landowners, and where there is no crossing agreement. In these situations, railways advise users of the crossing of the need for a crossing agreement, setting out terms of use for construction and maintenance. But in many cases, users are unwilling to enter into these agreements, especially when crossing upgrades are necessary.

Section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act deals with the situation in which the railway company and the landowner adjoining the railway disagree on the suitability or maintenance of a private crossing. Currently, section 103 only permits the landowner to apply to the agency for the resolution of a dispute. There is no comparable right given to the railway company. We believe that, in the interest of safety, railways should have the equal right to apply to the agency under section 103.

The government aIso recently made changes to its grade crossing improvement program. Transport Canada has considerably reduced the amount that it will contribute towards grade crossing improvements. Transport Canada used to cover 80% of the cost of a grade crossing and now only covers 50%. Under the current funding formula, railways are expected to absorb almost 40% of the cost of these upgrades. Furthermore, we are told that compliance with the new regulations will not be an accepted reason for applying for funds under the grade crossing improvement program, and that these funds are not available to provincially regulated railways, which must nevertheless comply with the regulations.

When Joyce Bateman was testifying to this committee the other day, I noticed that what started as an issue of safety quickly morphed into an issue of convenience. I understand it is difficult when constituents call and complain about waiting at a railway crossing for 15 or 20 minutes, but let's consider the alternative.

Earlier this week, Jim Vena, from CN, mentioned that it's not unusual to have trains that are over 150 cars long. One hundred and fifty railcars is the equivalent of about 375 tractor trailers that would otherwise be on our roads. Without rail service, we would have more congestion, more pollution, less safety, and more greenhouse gases. Rail is about 20 times more efficient than trucks in terms of greenhouse gas emissions' intensity, and let's not forget about the economic argument. Railways need to maintain velocity and fluidity on their tracks in order to deliver high levels of service to their customers. When an accident occurs, the whole network gets clogged.

The rail industry is currently operating under a quota for grain. Last year's enormous grain crop was 20 million metric tonnes larger than the average crop. This 20 million metric tonnes required around 2,000 trains, each with 100 cars, to move it to port; then they had to return.

We need rail to move the economy, so before we start making small steps that we think may solve a specific problem, let's make sure we are not further hindering our ability to enable the competitiveness of our customers and the economy in this globally competitive world.

Thank you very much.

[Pauline Quinlan, Co-Chair, National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group, Mayor, City of Bromont, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chair, for your introduction. Thank you to the committee members for extending an invitation to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to participate in your study of Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, safety of persons and property. FCM last appeared before the committee in May 2014, as part of your study on safety management systems and the transportation of dangerous goods, and we are pleased to be here again.

I am the mayor of the City of Bromont, Quebec, and chair of the Quebec caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I am happy to be here today to represent the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as the co-chair of the FCM's National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group.

The National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group, which I co-chair, was created in the wake of the catastrophe that devastated the town of Lac-Mégantic in 2013.

The group's work is guided by the following three principles: equipping and supporting municipal first responders to rail emergencies, ensuring that federal and industry policies and regulations address the rail safety concerns of municipalities, and preventing the downloading of rail safety and emergency response costs to municipal taxpayers.

I am joined today by Daniel Rubinstein, Manager of Policy and Research at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. He also handles issues related to rail safety.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represents 90% of Canada's population and about 2,000 municipalities from across the country. Our mission is to promote and protect the interests of all communities—small or big, urban or rural, central or remote—on issues related to policies and programs that fall under federal jurisdiction.

The federation raises various issues related to rail safety and actively participates in many rail safety initiatives. We are a member of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods General Policy Advisory Council, the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, as well as the emergency response task force. We are also working closely with Minister Raitt and Transport Canada officials on all those issues.

Before speaking about Bill C-627, I want to reiterate for committee members that FCM and the national municipal rail safety working group are guided by essential work undertaken by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

The TSB serves a critical function in terms of making safety recommendations to the federal government, and at FCM we believe the standard for progress is full implementation of TSB safety recommendations. My colleagues and I at FCM are pleased that the government's response to the TSB report into the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic has indeed been fulsome. We expect the same type of response once the TSB has had the opportunity to fully investigate the recent derailments in northern Ontario and make additional recommendations to government.

In terms of the focus of today's meeting, let me say a few words about Bill C-627. FCM fully supports any legislative measure that clarifies or enhances the ability of the Minister of Transport and Transport Canada officials to conduct robust oversight and enforcement of safety on Canada’s federal railways. Bill C-627 does that just by clarifying that safe railway operations also includes the “safety of persons and property”.

As was discussed at the committee's last meeting this past Tuesday, these provisions complement the enhanced oversight and enforcement powers contained in Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, which was introduced by Minister Raitt last month.

Related to Bill C-627 is the issue of safety standards at railway-roadway level crossings, otherwise known as grade crossings. FCM is fully supportive of Transport Canada’s new grade crossing regulations, which for the first time establish standards for sightlines, warning systems, and other key safety components at both new and existing crossings. These regulations respond to a long-standing recommendation from the TSB.

Over the next seven years, all existing grade crossings in Canada will need to be upgraded to the basic standards laid out in the regulations. Our members and federal railways are in the very early stages of sharing information with each other about existing crossings, which is the first step laid under the regulations. Information sharing must be completed by the end of 2016.

You can expect to hear more from the FCM about the need for additional federal funding for grade crossing improvements once we are able to assess the cost impact of meeting the new grade crossing regulations at existing crossings.

Shifting from rail safety to emergency planning and response, the national municipal rail safety working group has also been vocal about the need for shipments of flammable liquids to require detailed emergency response assistance plans, or ERAPs. ERAPs play a critical function in assisting local first responders in the event of a serious incident involving dangerous goods.

In April 2014 Transport Canada responded favourably to FCM’s request, by expanding Transport Canada’s ERAP requirements to shipments of crude oil, ethanol, gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel. This regulatory change has provided municipalities with certainty that shippers of flammable liquids will provide specialized assistance when major incidents take place involving these products.

Also in April 2014 Minister Raitt established an emergency response task force with participation from key stakeholders, including FCM, to strengthen nationwide emergency response planning and training. The ERTF has a mandate to submit its recommendations later this year.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, in February Minister Raitt announced new legislation, Bill C-52, to improve rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada. Key elements of Bill C-52 respond directly to concerns related to insurance and liability, information sharing, and Transport Canada’s oversight of federal railways that were raised by FCM at our last appearance in May 2014.

These are a few examples of policy areas where proactive and ongoing collaboration between FCM and the federal government has resulted in concrete reforms that will improve the safety of Canada’s railways and Canada's population.

That said, unfortunately our work is not yet done as derailments continue to occur. Again, we look to the TSB to provide Canadians with an analysis of the causes of recent derailments and recommendations to further improve rail safety. We look to the government, the railway industry, and Parliament through this committee, to ensure that any recommendations are implemented in full.

In closing, FCM welcomes new measures to clarify and expand the oversight and enforcement powers of the minister and railway safety inspectors, including the amendments to the Railway Safety Act proposed in Bill C-627.

I want to thank the committee once again for giving us an opportunity to share our point of view.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome to the 50th meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We are considering Bill C-627, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act (safety of persons and property).

From the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we have with us Pauline Quinlan and Daniel Rubinstein.

We also have with us, from the Railway Association of Canada, Michael Bourque, and from Teamsters Canada, Phil Benson.

The witnesses will have 10 minutes for their presentations.

I give the floor to Ms. Quinlan, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ms. Bateman.

Bill C-627 is so important, especially around municipalities where we have children playing and using the crossing to go back and forth to school or home, or wherever it may be.

What kind of feedback did you get from municipalities regarding your bill?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Ms. Bateman, I want to say thank you so much for being here today and for presenting your bill to this committee.

As you noted in your opening comments, it was the tragic accident at Lac-Mégantic that has moved this Minister of Transport, the government, and this committee to study the safety of rail safety across Canada. I know we have all been working very hard to this end.

It's wonderful to have you here presenting your private member's bill, Bill C-627, another aspect to making our railway system even more safe. I'm very impressed that you've undertaken to do this.

I want to note some important facts and figures. It's noted here that of the 23,000 grade crossings under federal jurisdiction, 18% of all rail accidents in Canada are at grade crossings. That's a substantive number; 18% is almost one-fifth of all accidents at grade crossings. Again, I think your bill is very timely. It obviously speaks to the point and that is safety for Canadians and for rail.

In your consideration of this bill, which I think is quite comprehensive, you talk about railway safety, safety of persons, and the safety of property. There are obviously some gaps in previous legislation, which is why you proposed your bill.

Can you speak to why you felt you wanted to separate out those three aspects and why your bill will fix the gaps?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Does it mention C-627?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today.

I hope to answer any questions that you may have regarding my private member's bill, Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, safety of persons and property.

Mr. Chair, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to you today about my bill, Bill C-627, and of course, to answer the questions of the members of the committee.

As you know, the security of transportation in general and rail safety in particular is one of the priorities of our government.

The recent catastrophe of Lac-Mégantic and the recent tragedy in northern Ontario underlines and reminds us one more time of the necessity to have a secure and safe rail system and to improve the supervision and control of the rail operations as a whole.

As I was saying, the recent catastrophes underline and remind us one more time of the necessity to have a secure and safe rail system and to improve the supervision and control of rail operations.

I would like to highlight the excellent work of your committee, Mr. Chair, and the leadership of the Minister of Transport, Minister Raitt, who reacted in such an efficient and effective way to gaps identified in the system.

I have found another gap that I would like to fill.

Indeed, the current legislation does not allow the minister or rail crossing inspectors to close a rail crossing when it presents a risk for pedestrians, cyclists, persons in wheelchairs, or vehicles.

My private member's bill will improve that situation for the entire population.

I have heard loud and clear from my constituents that rail safety is an issue that matters to them. As a servant of Winnipeg South Centre, I share in this vision of wanting to see our crossings safe, whether for a child riding a bike, a senior in a wheelchair, or any vehicle.

Rail crossings criss-cross my riding and the safety of them can be enhanced. That's why I chose to use my private member's bill to achieve greater rail safety in my constituency with a happy consequence that all Canadians across this great country will be safer and more secure because of my bill.

My bill is about prevention and proposes to enhance the Railway Safety Act by seeking to give additional powers to the Minister of Transport, so she may intervene when required in order to better ensure the safety of citizens, property, and communities. Additionally, this proposed legislation seeks to empower railway safety inspectors, so they may quickly intervene to restrict the use of unsafe works and equipment, and to forbid or restrict the use of unsafe crossing works and road crossings.

My bill is about prevention and its objective is to solve problems before they occur. The notification provisions propose to improve the Railway Safety Act by seeking to give additional powers to the Minister of Transport, so that she may intervene when required in order to better ensure the safety of citizens, property and communities.

Additionally, this proposed legislation seeks to empower inspectors to quickly intervene to stop the use of unsafe crossing works and equipment, and to forbid or restrict the use of unsafe crossing works and road crossings.

I'm sure we will go into a discussion about the details later, but what I propose is that the minister and her inspectors have the power to shut down a railway crossing, if necessary, if the safety and security of any Canadian is at risk.

I hope all parties support me on this bill.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your kind attention and it will now be my pleasure to answer any questions you and your colleagues may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Our meeting today is split up into two segments.

In the first segment we have Ms. Bateman, MP, to answer questions and explain a little bit about her private member's bill, Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, safety of persons and property.

Ms. Bateman, welcome to the committee and thanks for being here.

Railway Safety Act

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to speak in the House of Commons as a member of Parliament representing Winnipeg South Centre. Today it is a double honour, and indeed a great pleasure, to have the opportunity to thank all of my colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons for their support and interest in my private member's bill, Bill C-627.

My private member's bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act that would help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. I am thrilled that after I identified a specific legislative gap regarding remediation at rail crossings, which is very helpful for rail safety in urban settings, I have been joined by so many of my colleagues in filling that gap to better protect Canadians.

The amendments I proposed to the Railway Safety Act would give additional powers to the Minister of Transport to intervene when required on an issue of safety and would help ensure the safety of Canadian citizens and our communities. Additionally, this proposed legislation seeks to empower railway safety inspectors so that they may quickly intervene to restrict the use of unsafe work and equipment and to forbid or restrict the use of unsafe crossing work or road crossings. I believe this bill is part of the continuing evolution and improvement of rail safety standards that we all value.

Our government takes the safety of Canadians and the Canadian rail system very seriously. It is committed to ensuring that appropriate levels of safety are always maintained. As members are well aware, our record as a government on rail safety is impressive, and I would really like to single out the hon. Minister of Transport for her leadership as well as her very hard-working parliamentary secretary. This is a vast responsibility that touches the life of every Canadian and the well-being of every Canadian family. I am very grateful to contribute to enhancing our record of rail safety for Canadians with the content of my private member's bill, Bill C-627.

I thank all of my colleagues for their support and I truly appreciate the response I have received to the various communications on my bill that I have sent to every member of the House of Commons.

As my colleagues, the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo and the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, noted in their remarks, there is no greater privilege than to serve the needs of our constituencies. With this bill, I have enhanced the safety of my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre and, happily, also the safety of every Canadian.

I thank the members of the House of Commons and ask each one of them for their support for Bill C-627.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak to private member's Bill C-627. I also want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg South Centre on a bill that really reflects the needs that she saw in her own riding. It is very interesting. As we look at this particular bill and speak to it, we are all looking at our ridings and what the impact might be on them. We heard from different members about having a lot of rail running through their ridings. I myself represent Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, which is 45,000 square kilometres. We have CN, which runs from the Alberta border down through Edmonton to Vancouver, and we have CP, which goes through the Calgary route. When I heard the number of crossings mentioned by the previous member, I was thinking that perhaps the bill would have an extraordinarily higher effect in my riding, because out of those 18,000 or 23,000 crossings, the riding I represent has quite a number of them.

When I was first heading into the election campaign of 2008, I certainly remember going across one of the highways in the region. We were suddenly warned to slow down and go very slowly, because this was a very hazardous crossing. In this way I was first introduced to a very hazardous crossing very early in my election campaign. Of course, I am very pleased to see that there have been improvements.

It is important to reflect that the vast majority of the crossings in our country are well maintained, but there are instances and circumstances that make this particular bill both appropriate and necessary.

As a government, we are committed to the safety and the security of Canadian communities. I think we all agree that ensuring a safe, dependable, and modern transportation system is essential to supporting the continuing advancement and prosperity of this country. It is for that reason that I am very proud, as I mentioned earlier, to support Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act (safety of persons and property).

Many of us have spoken about the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. Members will recall that Transport Canada took immediate action to further improve railway safety and transportation of dangerous goods. I want to quickly itemize some of them: classification testing for shipments of crude oil; increased information-sharing with municipalities to facilitate emergency planning; and the removal of the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service.

I have had conversations with a number of the members of the FCM who were at the rail transportation safety committee. They have been very pleased with their conversations with our minister in terms of her responsiveness to the concerns they identified.

To build on these actions, Transport Canada responded to the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations by issuing an emergency directive that requires railway companies to meet standardized minimum requirements for handbrake application and to implement additional securement measures.

Transport Canada is also in the process of recruiting additional staff to carry out more frequent audits, recruiting additional staff with engineering and scientific expertise to oversee the transportation of dangerous goods, creating new processes to increase information-sharing with municipalities, and conducting additional research on the hazards of Canadian crude oil.

In addition to these departmental actions, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has launched a comprehensive review of the state of railway safety in this country. Among other things, this review specifically targets the issues of railway safety, management systems, and the transportation of dangerous goods. It will further increase our understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to rail safety.

Since its introduction, the Railway Safety Act has been amended twice. It was first amended in 1999 in order to provide for a fully modern framework for Canada's rail transportation system. This framework was truly progressive, making railways more responsible for managing their operations safely.

More recently, the act was amended on May 1, 2013, in order to further improve rail safety and to reflect the industry's evolution. To keep pace with industry changes, the amendments further strengthened the department's oversight and enforcement capacity, enhanced the implementation of safety management systems, increased the importance of environmental management, and clarified ministerial authority and responsibilities.

This bill, which would enhance the power of the minister and inspectors to intervene when people and property are at risk, is the next step towards an even stronger piece of legislation and a stronger legislative framework, putting even more emphasis on pre-emptive prevention and the protection of Canada's most important resource: its people.

Approval of this bill would be an important step in supporting a comprehensive railway safety program that would further strengthen the safety and protection of the public. Without a doubt, modernizing the Rail Safety Act to reflect the increasing requirements for public and railway safety is timely.

These are changes that few Canadians can argue about. In listening to the debate so far this evening, it appears that few parliamentarians can argue against them either. Without a doubt, modernizing the Railway Safety Act to reflect the increasing requirements for public and railway safety is timely, and these changes Canadians can agree with.

In closing, many ridings throughout this country have rail lines running through them, and we all recognize the critical importance of the rail system in transportation. I understand that almost 60% of what is transported by rail is destined for export markets, which is a critical part of our economy. Obviously, it is of great importance to match or balance our support for prosperity and jobs with making sure that it is as safe as possible.

I congratulate the member for Winnipeg South Centre on a very positive and important measure.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this evening to speak in support of Bill C-627.

I want to begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for putting forward such an excellent bill, for representing the interests and concerns of her constituents so effectively, and for coming to Ottawa to make a positive change. Her constituents should be very proud of her.

Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act (safety of persons and property), aims to provide greater protection to persons and property from risks inherent in railway operations.

The amendments proposed in this bill would emphasize the authority of the Minister of Transport and railway safety inspectors to intervene when required in the interests of the safety of Canadians and for the protection of property and the environment. It would be a step forward in supporting a comprehensive railway safety program and strong railway safety rules and regulations already in place to further strengthen the safety and protection of the public.

Before I describe this initiative further, I will highlight some of the important history of Canadian railway safety legislation.

For many years, the safety of Canada's federal railways was regulated under the Railway Act, originating at the turn of the 19th century when Canada's railway system was rapidly expanding. The Railway Act was designed for a bygone era. At that time, much of the national rail system was under construction to open new territory across this great land and to encourage settlement.

Let us fast-forward to 1989 when the Railway Act was replaced by the Railway Safety Act, which was designed to achieve the objectives of 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 the years leading up to the changes. 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 grow and 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, railway safety regulation continues to be governed by the Railway Safety Act, which was developed in a spirit of co-operation between industry and government. The act moved away from a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach to one that set objectives in rules and encouraged the responsibility of railway companies to target these rules toward their own unique safety and operational conditions.

Transport Canada undertakes its responsibility to maintain a safe national rail system through policy and regulatory development, through outreach and education, and through oversight and enforcement of the rules and regulations it implements under the authority of the Railway Safety Act. As I mentioned, the Railway Safety Act was developed in a spirit of co-operation between industry and government. To facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory regime that will ensure the continuing enhancement of railway safety, the act provides for detailed safety requirements to be developed either by the government in the form of regulations or developed by industry in the form of rules. The act provides the minister with the ultimate authority to approve or reject industry proposals on the grounds that they are or are not conducive to safe railway operations.

Once approved, all rules have the force of law, and Transport Canada has broad powers to require a rule, a rule change, or development of its own regulation in areas laid out in the act. In the interests of railway and public safety, the Minister of Transport can order a company to formulate or revise a rule. If the industry refuses to comply, the minister can independently establish the rules.

Fundamentally, the legislative framework recognizes the responsibility of railway companies, like any other companies, for the safety of their own operations, and the federal government, through Transport Canada, retains the responsibility and the power to protect people, property, and the environment by ensuring that the railway companies operate safely within the national legislative framework.

There are currently l6 rules and seven engineering standards under the Railway Safety Act. The main rules cover rail operations, freight car safety, and track safety. These distinctions make Canada's railway system strong, and concrete action has been taken throughout the years to make it even stronger.

Since its introduction, the act has been amended twice, the first time in 1999 to fully modernize the legislative and regulatory framework of Canada's rail transportation system and to make railway companies more responsible for managing their operations safely. It also gave the general public and interested parties greater input into issues of rail safety.

On May 1, 2013, the act was amended again to further improve railway safety, reflect changes in the industry, and make the act consistent with legislation for other modes of transport. The amendments increased safety and consistency by strengthening the department's oversight and enforcement capacity, enhancing the implementation of safety management systems, increasing the importance of environmental management, and clarifying the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters.

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

Over the past 20 years, we have seen significant changes in the rail industry, including industry restructuring, the privatization of CN, the proliferation of short lines, and the rapid growth in freight, passenger, and commuter rail services. Rail traffic between Canada and the U.S. has grown, and expanding trade with Asia has increased international container traffic through west coast ports.

As my brief outline illustrates, rail safety legislation has greatly evolved over the years to keep up with the expanding population, economic growth, and emerging technologies. This bill is the next step toward an even stronger legislative framework, putting even more emphasis on protecting the safety of Canada's most important resource, our people.

Bill C-627 proposes to amend the Railway Safety Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the express authority to disregard objections received for proposed railway work if the work is in the public interest; to expand railway safety inspectors' authority to restrict a railway's operations when its operations pose a threat to safety, including when the threat impacts the safety of a person or property; and finally, to add a new ministerial order to allow the Minister of Transport to direct a company to take specified corrective measures if railway operations pose a significant threat to persons, property, or the environment.

To summarize, the proposed amendments in the bill would increase the safety of Canadians, enhance the safety of our communities, and contribute to a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure, and a cleaner environment by providing the Minister of Transport with additional enforcement authority to further protect Canadians' property and the environment.

They align with the objective in the Railway Safety Act to “promote and provide for the safety and security of the public and personnel, and the property and the environment, in railway operations.”

We believe that these proposed amendments are timely. We are once again modernizing the Railway Safety Act to reflect the verifiably increasing requirements for public and railway safety, and these are changes all Canadians can agree upon.

In our 2013 Speech from the Throne, we included a commitment that the government would take targeted action to increase the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods. The bill is yet another testament that we intend to deliver on the commitment we made to Canadians.

In the interest of all Canadians, I urge all hon. members to give the bill their unanimous support.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the residents of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on a matter as important as railway safety. I have met with them on numerous occasions to hear what they had to say about this issue. I can say that they are very worried and they are calling for more stringent regulations to be put in place and, most importantly, to be enforced.

It is true that additional safety measures have been taken since the terrible accident in Lac-Mégantic in July 2013 in relation to the transportation of dangerous goods, but we can do more and we have to do better.

Bill C-627, which we are debating today, would give the Minister of Transport and railway safety inspectors the power to order a railway company or the owners of a crossing to do certain work, not only where railway safety is threatened, but also where the safety of persons and property is threatened. For example, the bill would allow the minister to issue an order requiring that a company take corrective measures in a case where barriers continued to malfunction on a track.

As a result, if I am interpreting this bill correctly, this implies that the minister is going to have each section of track inspected and that she could require the companies to take measures to improve safety.

On paper, this bill would meet the expectations of the people calling for more pedestrian crossings and more investment in making those crossings safe. However, it does not answer all the essential questions, such as how frequently these inspections will be done, and with what resources.

The railway safety budget was cut by $5 million between 2012 and last year. This means that every year, there is a reduction in the railway safety budget. In addition, this bill talks about level crossings. The government already has a program for level crossings, but the money allocated to it is not being spent. There is apparently $3 million intended for improving level crossings left over.

My colleague from Brossard—La Prairie went to meet with the people of Verchères, next to my riding. The municipal councillors told him about something interesting. The municipality of Verchères applied for a grant from the grade crossing improvement program in 2010, to put up a safety barrier. Well, to date, it is still on a waiting list.

Now, they would have us believe that this bill will change things, and starting today, the Conservative government is going to listen to Canadians and provide them with safe level crossings? The government had money to invest in level crossings, but it has still done nothing. They must think we are fools.

The second clause of the bill caught my attention. The bill would give railway inspectors the power to forbid the use of railway works or equipment if it poses a threat to the safety of persons or property.

The Auditor General and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada have clearly said that the department does not have enough resources. The department itself is refusing to say how many qualified inspectors can conduct these audits.

We know that Transport Canada’s Rail Safety Directorate is underfunded. It does not have enough staff and the employees it does have do not have enough training.

According to the Auditor General's fall 2013 report, Transport Canada needs about 20 system inspectors to audit each of the federal railway companies every three years. Right now, the department does not have that many qualified inspectors to conduct those audits. That is not very reassuring in terms of enforcing this bill.

There are still too many deaths and serious accidents at level crossings. Protecting the public and the environment basic government responsibilities. Self-regulation and self-inspection are not working. The government must address the lack of oversight and inadequate audits. In 2009, there were 19 deaths related to level crossing accidents. In 2013, that number rose to 31.

In my riding, there was a serious accident in 2013 because there was no pedestrian crossing. How many similar cases are there in other ridings?

The NDP has long called for the federal government to tighten the grade crossing regulations and implement the TSB’s recommendations. The private member’s bill contains some good elements. The government—and I do in fact mean the government—must undertake a complete review of the railway safety regulations and how they are enforced and find ways to improve them, rather than depending on private members’ bills.

Obviously, I intend to vote in favour of measures that can improve level crossing safety or railway safety in general, but the government cannot shirk its duties. It has to take full responsibility for railway safety. A rigorous evaluation of the state of railway safety in the country is needed and we need to make that happen.