Transport Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Hopefully, yes. And that may be part of the problem, as Mr. Jean said, just getting two people together in the same room.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Early on, when we talked in this committee about some of our priorities, one of those was safety--air, water, and rail safety. Going back, we did have CN here, talking about the particular increases they had had in derailments and accidents, particularly in 2005. They indicated that they had taken steps to reduce those in 2006--year to date, so far. Going back and looking at what happened with the number of derailments, particularly in British Columbia--although there were some in Alberta as well--with the change of ownership from BC Rail to CN, there were an inordinate number of derailments, in particular, and accidents in 2005 and in 2006.

One of the notable ones was where a chemical derailment occurred in the Cheakamus River in B.C. and resulted in a substantial negative environmental impact--a huge fish kill, for example, that has affected the run on that river drastically, devastatingly. Subsequently, a locomotive accident resulted in the death of two rail workers in 2006, when the locomotive left the tracks and two rail workers died.

The purpose of this motion is to suggest that we need to have an inquiry that spells this out. We heard they're down. We heard they rose, particularly in 2005. I think if we have a proper inquiry, we would have a baseline in the future to judge the actions of the railways as we go forward. I think we need to have this inquiry that would go back and spell out exactly the increase. Then if there has been a decrease, as they state, we can be aware of that and of what steps are being taken. We have a responsibility for the passengers, we have a responsibility for the public, we have a responsibility for the railway workers, and we have a responsibility for the environment. I think in line with our priority of rail safety, this would be appropriate.

I'm recognizing, in terms of timing, that at a committee meeting I wasn't able to attend, there was a suggestion, when another request for information came up--not on rail safety, but on another matter--that there was the desire for this committee to move ahead with Bill C-11 and to finish Bill C-11 before we moved on to other issues. I'm not suggesting that this jump in priority. Safety, of course, is the top priority, but I'm suggesting that if we start to put the wheels in motion or get this on track--no pun intended--that we at least will have the ball rolling and we can then move into this in a timely manner.

I was provided with some information that you're going to table, Mr. Jean. Perhaps I could make reference to it, Mr. Jean. Can I indirectly...?

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

No.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

All right, I'll paraphrase it, then.

Last year, in 2005, particularly at the time of the Cheakamus spill in August, there were a number of things ordered by Minister Lapierre and the transport department, in the previous government, and there was a series of targeted inspections as a result of that. Following that, there were some other incidents. There was a specific order from the minister in September or October, I think it was, for a four-week audit of CN safety management systems, which occurred between November and December last year. The commitment was that this audit would be made public when it was received.

At that time, there was an order from the minister, as well, limiting the length of trains as one of the issues of the difference in the management systems between CN and BC Rail, as well as perhaps the unfamiliarity with the unique B.C. conditions--the curvature of the track, the difference in elevations. That report was to be made public, and I gather it was received by the new government somewhere in the spring, in April or May, and I note that there were meetings. Minister Cannon apparently met with the railways, CN in particular, in May of this year. The audit was not made public.

Subsequent to that, there was a unique, first time ever, section 32 order by the minister in July, after the railway deaths on the locomotive. And that order was not made public. We discussed that. It was raised at this committee in terms of the fact that we wanted to know what the detail of the audit was and what the order was, why there was this unique section 32 order to address the deficiencies and the safety management program.

I understand that CN had appealed the Transport order, and I now understand that CN has submitted a plan, as recently as a week ago, to come into compliance with that order, the minister's order. I congratulate the minister on having taken the action to bring this order in, except that I don't know what the order is. But if it's going to result in safer rail, that's the purpose.

I understand that CN retains the right, once the department determines if CN has in fact complied with the order, to appeal. My concern is that we need to know what the audit said, and it should be a public record, because we're dealing with public safety. We should know what the order was and why and how they've complied. Generally--not to pick on CN, but CN is the particular railway that's in question here now--there were other derailments by other railroads, and we need to look into that issue of rail safety.

We said at the beginning of this term that this was going to be a priority of this committee. I would like to have an action motion on file indicating that we're going to do this and do this as soon as it fits appropriately into our time schedule.

Therefore, the motion I submitted was that this committee conduct an in-depth inquiry into rail safety, and in particular, the recent CN accidents in British Columbia and western Canada, including a derailment that caused an environmental catastrophe in the Cheakamus River and a locomotive accident that resulted in the deaths of two rail workers in June 2006.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Bell.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much.

I would like to table, first of all, in both official languages, a copy that I provided earlier to Mr. Bell and actually to Mr. Laframboise. Those were the only members I saw, so I provided copies to them.

So I will table that document. One has been made for each committee member, so you can have an opportunity to read it. It goes into quite a lot of detail. We've tried to summarize as much as possible, but certainly I think—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

What is the document?

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

You're going to see very soon, sir. It's a summary of what's taken place since some of the accidents. Certainly 2005 was what you would call less than a banner year in relation to what took place with CN and just generally with railway safety.

Less than a month after the British Columbia derailment, in which two crew members, unfortunately, were killed as a result of the accident, the minister took it upon himself to issue, for the first time ever, a ministerial order, under section 32, to make CN come into compliance with some of the other.... I think there were something along the lines of 59 enforcement actions.

Of course, there has been an action plan, as Mr. Bell said, put forward, as of October 18. Indeed, you'll see, since some of the actions were taken by this government and the previous government, that industry-wide accidents are down by 14%, and derailments are down by 30%. Obviously the corrective actions did do something.

Notwithstanding all of that, Mr. Bell, with respect—and I was born in British Columbia, and it has a place in my heart and always will—we are a national committee, and we have a responsibility, I think, to all Canadians. Certainly, I think, the people in Alberta who suffered the response from Wabamun would like to be part of any kind of study. As has been said by all members here, rail safety, airline safety, and all safety issues are a number one priority of this committee and a number one priority, quite frankly, of this government.

So I think we're being a little bit premature in doing, first of all, a study just of British Columbia, and I would like to encourage all members of this committee to include all of Canada and all Canadians in any rail safety study that's done by the committee.

Quite frankly, I would invite the members to read what took place and what has happened with this government and the previous government, and then address one particular question: what else could have been done? I don't think anything further could have been done, except to stop all the railroads across Canada. And I don't think anybody wants that to happen. Certainly the minister, within 28 days of the final episode in B.C., issued a ministerial order, and as I said, that has never been done before.

I would invite the members to read this report and come back with any suggestions. But the reality is that we have a very busy agenda. The first thing after Bill C-11 is safety of the transportation sector across Canada.

Quite frankly, I don't want to just study British Columbia. All geographic areas of this country place certain challenges before us, and we have to study rail safety across the board and across Canada to do justice to all Canadians.

I would recommend, though--and I think Mr. Bell has brought up a good point--that the safety study should not just include what we were going to study, but should have a specific emphasis on employees, on people who are users of the rail line, and on the environment. So a particular emphasis on those would be appropriate--not in this particular motion, but certainly, if it be the will of the committee, we should study them at great length, as far as safety goes.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Can I clarify the motion, in response to Mr. Jean?

As a friendly amendment, we can certainly add the words “in Canada” on the third line, after “into rail safety”. That was implied. I wasn't talking about just British Columbia. I said, “and particularly the recent rail accidents in British Columbia and western Canada”. The inference was that it's to conduct an in-depth inquiry into rail safety in Canada, and I meant that in the broader sense.

I'm happy to add “in Canada” as a friendly amendment, if that responds to your concern, Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, isn't that what we've already decided to do as a committee?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

This motion would put some action to that intention. That's all I'm saying.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would normally be inclined to support this motion, given the fact that we've discussed safety on a number of occasions at this committee. But I believe it's premature for a number of reasons that Mr. Jean has mentioned, plus I'm concerned that we would embark upon a costly process when this committee is in fact already committed to addressing the issue of safety in the months to come.

We know the minister is taking a number of concrete steps. We now have an action plan in our possession. Presumably we will find out what the results of that action are going to be, so I'd hate to commit this committee to a cost that perhaps could be avoided. The parliamentary secretary can correct me if I'm wrong, but it does appear that CN understands that we, as a government, take some of these infractions seriously, and hopefully they are moving to fulfill their action plan.

I'm not opposed to the motion, just the timing of it. If there was no further action and we were at the same place two months from now, I'd probably support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to recognize Mr. Julian, but if I remember correctly, during the discussion we had not only with this committee but with the subcommittee, it was my understanding that the Transportation Safety Board is doing a safety evaluation. We had talked about waiting until they provide us with that assessment.

I'm going from memory rather than actual fact, but I thought that when we discussed the safety issue, that was one of the things we were waiting on. That way, we wouldn't repeat the same process, but develop the extra processes.

Mr. Julian, I'll look to you to confirm that or not.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I don't believe so, Mr. Chair. I know we have raised this issue a number of times since we started this parliamentary session.

I support the motion, particularly with the clarification that Mr. Bell has just added, which is that we are looking at it on a nation-wide level. It's very relevant, given that we are dealing with SMS within the rail system, and with Bill C-6 we might be looking at the SMS in the airline industry.

So it's very relevant to be looking at this issue. I think it's important that we not lose sight of other priorities, like the one Mr. Laframboise mentioned and which we have already adopted. As long as we're not losing sight of those other priorities that we have previously adopted, I feel this is an important issue for us to tackle as a committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

There are two interesting things in Mr. Bell's motion.

It's curious, because, personally, I would have liked to know the details of the matter. I like what the minister has done — I'm saying that in a nice way — intervening under section 32 of the act. However, I would have liked to invite Transport Canada representatives to appear very briefly in order to determine what happened in this matter.

My problem is that a review application has been filed by CN. If there is a review application and the matter is before the courts or I don't know where, can we discuss it or not? There are factors that escape me. I also would have liked to see the action plan that the company submitted before we make this decision. Is it possible to see it, even though that took place in camera or in another context?

We've already decided to consider the matter of railway safety, and I'd be in favour of that. However, my problem is that Bill C-11 must be examined first. I'm going to support this question, provided we examine Bill C-11 beforehand.

In this specific matter, I'd like to know whether it's possible to have a meeting with Transport Canada and CN representatives so that they can come and explain themselves and give us details. I like the way the minister has proceeded. However, can we get these documents if the matter is before the courts? That's a problem that's preventing me from making a decision today.

So I ask Mr. Bell to wait until the next meeting, because I want more information. Is that possible or not? I'd like Mr. Jean to tell us. I would have liked to examine this matter because I find the solution an interesting one. If we can examine these ways of doing things, that will help us in our own matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I think it's very significant to get started with this, but it would be good to see a timetable of what we're going to do from now until the Christmas break. We'd like to get the bill disposed of as soon as possible, and I'm not sure how many days that will take. Maybe at our next meeting, we could have a timetable and see if we could fit this in. It would be better than to vote tonight on something we can't do.

The other legislation that you have, Brian, is it being pushed? Where does it sit?

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

[Inaudible—Editor]...to push them all, Mr. Hubbard?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Yes, but I don't see much evidence. I hear a lot of talk, but not much evidence.

As for Bill C-11, you'd like to spend how much longer with that? Would it be a couple more days?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I know we're close to the end of our witnesses, and I would be prepared to bring a list forward as to the time roll-out. It depends on the committee's debate after that point, but I think we're maybe two more meetings from dealing with all the witnesses on the list. Then we go to clause-by-clause.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So we have probably three more meetings, and then we have Mr. Laframboise's motion to deal with, and Don's. Are there other items too?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I know that Bill C-6 is in second reading, and we have another motion for Thursday that we've been given notice of today.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

With your steering committee, could you project a timetable for when we could try to dispose of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On Thursday we have RAC, the Railway Association of Canada, and either CP or CN. I think we would like to dedicate as much of that meeting to them as possible, but I am prepared to take direction.