Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether I'm on the fisheries committee, because I'm being asked to follow red herrings all over the place.
I have a lot of confidence in your ability to chair the committee.
I have two questions. The first one is on process and the second one is on substance. I think you have been unfairly attacked on substance—and I'll explain why in a second—but on process I think it's important for us to re-establish what everybody thought was the process by which we make decisions. It was unfortunate that the decision to change the agenda was made without consulting the other vice-chairs. If we can re-establish that process, I think we're well on our way to solving this, because that process has obviously led to very good relationships on this committee, in which people work collaboratively—all partisanship aside. So let's re-establish that.
The second thing is a question of substance. We're not here to discuss labour issues; the mandate for this particular session was supposed to be rail safety. I have more confidence in you, I think, than some of your colleagues. As chairman, you're going to keep everybody on the issue of rail safety, so we don't need a friendly amendment to put us in that direction. The chair can make sure that witnesses are respected and that questions are respectful.
I think we need to be able to address the issue of rail safety. The minister went on TV, and I think we all know which one, and said he couldn't release an audit because the company wouldn't allow him to do so. Well, here it is; all of us have it now. So for us, it's a question of trying to address all the problems that emanate from that audit. We have three witnesses. Yes, they represent the labour side of the business. In the instance of this witness, Mr. Rhodes, we have one of the survivors of a tragic accident. As for the other two, I guess one is still here, having come from the Sioux Lookout, which is not a quick ride to Ottawa, and the other one is in Montreal.
So I think we need to recognize that these people have come here, or agreed to come here, because they want to address rail safety. When you have 100 plus accidents per year—one every three days—nobody's confused about whether this is a labour or safety management issue.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should go back to what we were supposed to do, and that is to at least hear Mr. Rhodes and continue.
If CN and CP do not want to come before us, too bad. We have a more important issue than their economic bottom line: the safety of people and product going through their system, number one; and number two, the infrastructure of a network that keeps the country together. So we can't be distracted by someone who says perhaps this is going to be a labour-management issue that is under negotiation. Nobody has said we're going to be involved in negotiations.
And by the way, as I said about this being like a fisheries committee, how much more of a red herring can you get when we know that our colleague, the Minister of Labour, has just said he's going to introduce legislation to get people back to work? We knew that already. We knew it about three or four weeks ago, when he said that if they don't reach an agreement, he would be seeking the consent of all parties to introduce that legislation. That's not for discussion here; that's for discussion in the House. The discussion here is rail safety. We have an expert witness, a survivor—and we had others. We should have followed the process and the procedures accordingly, and we shouldn't deviate from doing this today.
There's no need for a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman.
And with all due respect, Mr. Jean, let him do his job. Let the chair do his job, and let's take the opportunity to hear what the witness has to say.