Transport Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

It would appear, Mr. Chair, that we have three motions to think about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Would the committee agree to set aside an hour to discuss these three motions? That would limit us to an hour and a half with the railways. I take direction from the committee.

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

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I'm glad this is a transportation committee, because I'm getting motion sickness.

I think it's a good motion, but we're already dealing with it. I think it was the number one priority of the committee, quite frankly.

I'd put forward a friendly amendment. I think that crossing out British Columbia.... Indeed, what's less significant...the people at Wabamun? It's not mentioned in here. We are a national committee, not just a geographic one.

At this stage I would invite all members to participate in the vote tonight, especially the members on this side of the House. Could we take this home, look at it, see what the minister and the department have done? I think you'll be quite impressed if you haven't had the opportunity to read it. Just as a matter of record, I believe it's very obvious that this government is participating in a conciliatory and cooperative manner. We're providing this information at first blush. I would encourage the members to think about that when we work through this. Let's get to the work of the legislation and move forward on the issue of safety, which we already have before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try to address some of the things that are in my mind in point order.

First of all, I think the motion's very clear. It doesn't talk about exclusively CN Rail accidents in British Columbia and western Canada, it speaks about “particularly”, so it doesn't necessarily have limitation in geographic scope, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly, I just wanted to ask something. This document that was just tabled here in English and French, who wrote this? Is this a Transport Canada document?

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

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So can I ask why it's not on Transport Canada letterhead?

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

They're trying to save money.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is this from the minister's office or is this from the line department itself?

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

It's from the line department and was prepared for the committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay, I just wasn't sure who wrote this. There's no letterhead, no nothing, no indication. There's a date on it, Mr. Chairman, but it gives us no idea as to the source of this.

I think I actually want to go through a number of these bullet points, which are very interesting, because the more I read them, the more I believe Mr. Bell's call for an in-depth inquiry is justified. Obviously the department has taken some action, the details of which we have no knowledge. We have no knowledge, Mr. Chairman, of the targeted inspections listed under bullet point three. We have no knowledge of the four-week audit of CN's safety management systems under number four.

Obviously the Minister of Transport felt that rail safety was of such import that he met with the president and chief executive of CN. Clearly then, it must be a very important issue, which again I think justifies our committee looking at it.

Somebody made reference to earlier to an action plan, copies of which we have not seen. The committee hasn't seen a copy of the action plan that was just referred to; that's not in our possession.

Someone raised the question on the other side, on the government side, saying, what else could have been done? I thought that was exactly the import of this motion, to have the committee inquiry find out precisely what might have been done in response to a number of these accidents.

Of course, there is section 32--and I'm very cognizant of what Monsieur Laframboise said earlier about the fact that the minister came and testified and said he wasn't able to speak about this issue because it was now subject to appeal. It doesn't mean that we can't look at some of the grounds that were used to justify section 32, to my knowledge, and it certainly doesn't mean, Mr. Chairman, that we couldn't examine the grounds for appeal, of which we have no knowledge, put forward by CN to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

So I'm of the view that this is now a pretty important and front-of-mind issue for many Canadians, not just in western Canada. I would strongly support that we move in the subcommittee to define when we can get to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell, very briefly.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I just wanted to clarify that I'll consider as a friendly amendment adding the words “in Canada” on the second line, after the words “rail safety”, so that spells it out. I think it was implied, because I then said “and particularly”, which meant rail safety in general, but particularly in this area. The reason for the reference to CN and B.C. is because both in B.C. and Alberta is where the greatest spike in numbers occurred, and I think it was a result of the takeover of BC Rail. We may get some answers back on that, but that's the reason.

It's not meant to be exclusive, it's meant to be inclusive.

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

Shouldn't we include all of western Canada, not just Alberta?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, I made reference to that. I made reference to western Canada, and we can say “in Canada generally” after “rail safety”. The reason I wanted this is that I felt that if we had it on the record, and when it's acted on is in accordance.... I originally considered putting in “following the consideration of Bill C-11”, but I thought I would leave that up to the scheduling of the committee executive, Mr. Chairman.

To Mr. Laframboise's comment about the timing, it was that it would come at the appropriate moment, but it would be on the record and it would be there for us to act on in due time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I do take direction from the committee, and I sense that there might be a willingness to defer this until Thursday to allow for more debate. Would the committee grant that, or do you want to have the vote right now? I'm asking the committee if we'd like to defer this discussion until Thursday.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We'll discuss it at the next meeting, since we have no more time today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I do look to the committee for direction, if that's okay.

(Motion allowed to stand)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So we will defer this until Thursday. I will ask the subcommittee to meet or talk by phone before the meeting on Thursday to set up the final schedule of events.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.