Evidence of meeting #22 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was noise.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
And in that last sentence, just take out the period and add in the other 23 words.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Certainly. Shall I repeat it one more time, Mr. Chair?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Right now we're talking about Mr. Bell's motion as it currently sits, not as he has suggested it be amended.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I will read:
...in the deaths of two rail workers in June 2006....
— then take out the period and add—
...and whether there is any correlation to the increase in rail accidents as a result of the transfer of the BC Rail line to CN.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, I think I have it, Mr. Chair.
I support the amendment. I don't understand why Mr. Jean is not offering as well the amendment that Mr. Bell had suggested, because in this case, if we're looking at the deaths in the Fraser Canyon of the rail workers, it was not a BC Rail track, so it's not as if Lake Wabamun would be excluding definitively BC Rail track.
I think Mr. Bell's amendment should be accepted by this committee, and I would support this amendment as well. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. In fact, they reinforce each other.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Absolutely, Mr. Julian. I have no problem with it, but I wasn't the one putting forward that friendly amendment. If it's the will of the committee, then it would stand as is.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to get the import of the additional sentence. Can I get some indication of what the motivation is behind the additional sentence, and that it isn't the fact that this would be an in-depth inquiry into rail safety?
Wouldn't this necessarily look at questions with respect to BC Rail? What is the import of this additional sentence?
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Jean's amendment proposed that Mr. Bell's new request be included and that Mr. Jean's text be added. Were you willing to accept it? Personally, I am OK with it. We might as well, it is not a problem. If that is what everyone wants, we should analyze it and do it. I agree with Mr. Bell's amendment and with Mr. Jean's.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If only for clarification, Mr. Jean is suggesting that the motion that was put forward, without any amendment from Mr. Bell—the motion that we read, without any changes, plus Mr. Jean's....
Is that what I am to interpret you to be saying?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I am saying that, Mr. Chair, but with respect, Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Julian would like it to include Lake Wabamun, and I have no difficulty with that. But that would be on motion from them, sir.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
In answer to Mr. McGuinty's question, if you look at them, the first two lines of the motion are general in scope. It was Mr. Bell who specifically requested that it become more particular, in terms of CN Rail accidents in B.C. and western Canada. Since the motion is becoming a little more specific—because most of these accidents are in western Canada and have been somewhat grave in their consequences—we want to make sure, especially given that today Mr. Gow raised the whole issue of the sale of BC Rail to CN as resulting in the consequence that we had safety issues that weren't addressed properly.... He made that very clear, and there's an acknowledgement in the industry generally that it is the case. That's why it is so important that we include this in the motion, so that it doesn't slip through the cracks.
We want to make sure we have a representative here as a witness who can shed some light on that whole transfer.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I appreciate the clarification, but I'm simply referring to Mr. Secord's--from the transportation union--listing of only Ontario derailment history. I'm trying to clarify here. Is the government side trying to indicate that this inquiry would be limited to the British Columbian or western Canadian scene, or will this inquiry actually examine rail safety across the country?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, since the motion came from Mr. Bell and he did focus his initial motion on British Columbia, surely he can shed some more light on it. What I'm saying is that since we became somewhat more specific--
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That's correct. Again, we're focusing on something that is to be included in a greater discussion of railway safety across Canada.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you.
When we discussed this at the last meeting, I in fact indicated--and I forgot to reference it this time--that on the second line, after the word “rail safety”, I would add “in Canada”. That was in response I think to Mr. Fast's question about whether I was talking Canada-wide. Yes, I am. I'm not saying only western Canada or only B.C. I don't have a problem with the amendment, because, as I understand it, you want that included. I don't know whether it's BC Rail's sale--or the acquisition by CN of BC Rail, is maybe a better way of putting it. The reason I say that is because it sounds as though it's a BC Rail problem, and it wasn't a BC Rail problem; it was after CN acquired BC Rail that we started to have the problems.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
