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.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Yes.
I would like to see the words “in Canada” added into that second line after the words “rail safety”, so it clarifies that we are talking of the pan-Canadian experience.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would oppose the addition of the word “Canada”, not because it is not important, but because we will run out of time.
We must look at what is going on. Mr. Bell's first motion had to do with problems in British Columbia and western Canada. I agree with that. If we are going to resolve what is going on in the west, we might as well add the problems with BC Rail and resolve this entire section.
I have concerns about safety at Montreal Airport and I am still waiting for some of their people to appear before the committee. Let us not draw it out by trying to resolve all the problems, or we will end up not solving anything. I am not against adding extra days for debate. I would be happy to take part.
It is fine with me that we are tackling the problem raised by Mr. Bell concerning western Canada. Which is why I oppose adding the word “Canada”. It is not that I do not agree. It is simply that, if we attempt to analyze all of Canada, we will have to drop what we are currently working on. I think Mr. Bell raised an important problem, so, let's resolve it. I agree with extending it to include British Columbia, in response to the requests made today.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Laframboise, the intention of the original motion was that it be Canada-wide. And if you'll notice, the phraseology said “into rail safety and particularly”, not “selectively” or “only.” But the words “in Canada” were simply to clarify that.
What I envisage is that we would gather statistics--we wouldn't do it, the statistics would be gathered for us--as to the experience, and we have some of it now in Ontario and other areas, in Quebec and the Maritimes. If there aren't problems beyond the ordinary, if there doesn't seem to have been a particular rise or the level appears to be okay in the other areas, that's one thing. But particularly in western Canada--and I have a list of incidents in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan--where the number seems to have risen. In one instance, it's suggested that there have been ten so far this year in Saskatchewan; in 2005 there were nine. So it does not seem to be dissipating. It may well be that the primary focus of the inquiry would be on the west. But I did not want to exclude the other parts of Canada that might think we were not interested in rail safety in those areas as well.
Certainly, it is not meant that this would queue-jump over some of the other work this committee is already proceeding with. The one mentioned is your concern about the airport. Originally, when I first drafted this motion, I made a reference that it would follow Bill C-11 and some of the other priorities of this committee. This would fit in with the priorities of the committee, and it's not meant to supercede them. It's meant to ensure that when we do this, we establish some baseline information that can be used in future, so that we can reference back to it. If we do the reference work now, it's there. Five years from now or two years from now, this committee can go back and say these were the facts in 2006--the history. It can then determine...because we've had statements from presenters who have said things are getting better, particularly the railways. I'd like to see how much better they are getting--or, as Mr. Gow and some of the others made reference to, they're getting better but they may not be getting better fast enough.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
I tend to agree with the last few speeches. There are some problems with railway safety in Quebec, and I think it would be unfortunate to overlook them. As for Mr. Laframboise's first motion, I think it is important that our chair follow up on that. Then there is Mr. Bell's motion. It is also possible to have a bill aimed specifically at work on railway safety.
In my opinion, it would be in our best interest to consider railway safety, including problems with railway safety in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I do not want to be misunderstood. It had already been determined, in the context of future work, that railway safety would be included in the work of our committee. However, if, because of a motion, we change the order in which we deal with the files, we run the risk of everyone presenting motions on specific files and then having to deal with them. For this reason, I would say that, if Mr. Bell believes that safety problems are worse in the west than in other areas, I am not opposed to dedicating one meeting to that issue and calling upon experts.
If I were told that this is one of the issues that the committee should study, I would reply that we should have a meeting on future work and make a clear decision. Do we want Bill C-11 to pass or do we want to talk about safety? If we talk about safety, we must set the bill aside, send it back, and give priority to safety issues.
I do not want a motion to divert the work of the committee. We already agreed to study safety issues. For me personally, Quebec is just as important, if not more so, than other regions, but if there are specific problems at this time in western Canada, as is the case in Montreal regarding air safety, I am prepared to support the cause and opt to study safety problems. If we want our committee to focus on studying safety, I would suggest to Mr. Bell that we hold a meeting on the committee's future work, that we organize ourselves accordingly and that we leave nothing out. I am not against proceeding in this manner. For now, however, I am having a hard time following.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
What I'm going to ask the clerk to do is to read the motion, with Mr. Bell's changes and also the amendment from Mr. Jean. We'll then make a decision on that.
I also have some information to address in regard to your motion, Mr. Laframboise.
Is that good with the committee?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, and I will have Mark read it. We can then vote on it accordingly.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
If I can make one final comment very briefly to Mr. Laframboise, I supported his motion on the airport study for that reason. It's a priority, and I'm suggesting that this wouldn't interfere with that. That's all I wanted to say.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, just on this, I'm a little bit taken aback that we have not had some reports from the subcommittee on agenda. I think I asked a few times ago that we would like to have a timetable of what our work is. We still don't have that.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I know we have a lot of things on the table, including Mr. Laframboise's motion and Mr. Bell's that is coming. We have the estimates that should be looked at sometime within the next week. All of these will have to be somehow built into our work.
When we vote on whatever comes out of Mr. Bell's motion, we're really acknowledging the need for that inquiry or study of railway safety. It's then up to the subcommittee to come back to our overall committee and determine how we're going to proceed with all of these. For example, when do we see the final date for Bill C-11? Somebody says that's next week, but it would be good to know, Mr. Chair.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may, you should have received the calendar that lays out the agenda for Bill C-11.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Has that been approved by the committee or by the subcommittee? Where did that come from?
October 31st, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I was given the direction by this group to deal with Bill C-11. What I did was arrange the witness list and dates. As of Thursday, we will have heard the last witnesses on Bill C-11, as is indicated on the schedule.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have it down here to discuss that, but I felt Mr. Bell's motion was on the floor and should be dealt with first.
I would ask the clerk to read the motion, with the amendment, and then we'll call the question.
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Mark D'Amore
The motion reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities conduct an in depth inquiry into rail safety in Canada and particularly recent CN rail accidents in British Columbia and Western Canada, including a derailement that caused a disasterous spill into Lake Wabamum, Alberta, and in British Columbia that caused an environmental catastrophe in the Cheakamus River, a locomotive accident that resulted in the deaths of two rail workers in 2006 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.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:20 p.m.
An hon. member
We just voted on the amendment.
