Transport Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[Michael Teeter]

If I recall, Teamsters was asking for the ability to appeal to SCOTIC if you had issues--the same as the Aeronautics Act amendment. No one specified what that would mean. In other words, all regulations wouldn't come here, for example. I don't think that's what people are saying. I think we're just saying put the appeal in there and let people use it for what they want to use it for.

Frankly, if we had parliamentary oversight of all regulations, the system could really get bogged down and be difficult to administer.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I understand that, but I'd like to get the perspective on this issue, because that was considered to be important by the Teamsters.

[Michael Teeter]

We support it. It's in Christine's comments that we support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have 30 seconds.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I'll move on, then. Go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro is next, for seven minutes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

At the outset, I want to thank you for your support for the bill, for the recommendations you've made, and for your support, obviously, for a very safe, effective, and efficient Canadian railway sector. I think Canadians well understand the importance, and this government certainly understands the importance, of the railway sector to our long-term economic opportunity and health. I think making sure that it operates as safely as it possibly can is obviously critically important.

Ms. Collins, you made a remark about an amendment you would like to see with respect to the highest level of safety and what that might mean. The government is in fact moving an amendment on that. We support you on that. We're bringing an amendment that defines what we mean by highest level of safety by indicating that it means the lowest acceptable level of risk, as demonstrated by a risk management analysis.

Does that satisfy your concerns?

[Christine Collins]

Could you just repeat the last part again, please?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Sure, I'd be happy to.

It defines highest level of safety as the lowest acceptable level of risk as demonstrated by a risk management analysis. So we're going to the lowest possible level of risk we can have.

[Christine Collins]

That sounds very good. It certainly defines lowest level of risk, which is exactly what I would like to see. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay, that's wonderful.

You raised concerns about the inspection of the inspectors. I think that is what you said. Your concerns are kind of related to the inspection of the inspectors when it comes to who's actually inspecting the railways.

One of the things I think is very important to note with respect to derailments specifically is that they're hugely expensive. They're not just expensive in terms of what it costs to clean them up. They're hugely expensive in terms of goodwill, as well. And the railways really need positive stakeholder relations with communities, municipalities, provincial governments, federal governments, and shippers, frankly, to really achieve their potential.

To what extent to do you think that will work with this regulation? It certainly seems that CP and CN are supportive of this bill. Do you think it works well in collaboration with everything else that's in the bill and that it will lead to overall safer railway operations in Canada?

[Christine Collins]

Yes, I certainly do.

That's the second reference to the inspectors inspecting the inspectors. Perhaps it was the choice of words I used. I guess the reference I was trying to make was about the inspectors going in and inspecting their co-workers. How do you whistleblow on a co-worker? It was in reference to having an independent, separate....

[Michael Teeter]

On the issue of the rail lines reaching out and being more responsive to communities and so on, I think it should happen. It's happening now. The principle of SMS is certainly designed to achieve that in all modes. We've always said that as long as there's sufficient oversight, and as long as the regulatory framework is clear and is enforced by Transport Canada inspectors, SMS is a good thing. Where it's a bad thing is when SMS becomes a replacement for inspection, a replacement for oversight. Unfortunately, in some cases that does occur.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

We heard from a couple of groups earlier, principally the urban transit authorities, about perhaps some additional costs they might have, although they couldn't actually quantify them, for doing essentially what they're already doing, which is ensuring the highest level of safety. That's how it sounded to me. It seemed to me that when they're operating on the federal railways, where the federal government actually very clearly has jurisdiction, the federal government should want to ensure.... As far as I'm concerned, everything's great until there's an incident, and then somebody is left holding the bag. To me it would seem almost irresponsible of the federal government not to include those operations under this act.

Would you agree with that?

[Christine Collins]

I agree with that, probably 500%, because when they're using the federal lines they need to ensure their equipment or things like their wheels, etc., meet the highest standards. Therefore, I totally disagreed with their perspective. I believe Transport Canada rail safety has the tools in order to be responsible and it should be the entity that is responsible.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I agree. It just seemed to me that when they were talking about how they work directly with Transport Canada every day and there are already some inspections taking place, one thing that kind of concerned me was a comment that said they have no access to any of the information that tells them any of the operational information on their tracks. That could be interpreted that they don't know if the tracks are safe or not, right? Isn't that another way of saying the same thing?

I assume that they are. Obviously the class ones are regulated federally, but I would think they'd want to know that.

[Christine Collins]

If they didn't know that the tracks were safe, one would think they wouldn't put the train on the track.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

One would think.

Thank you so very much for your testimony today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

With that, I will thank our guests for being here today. I appreciate your patience with us. We look forward to a final outcome that meets all requirements. So thank you very much.

We're going to take a minute's recess while our guests excuse themselves from the table. We have some pretty serious committee business to deal with, so I would ask that members be ready to go in one minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back.

Mr. Jean.

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

There are two matters of business I need to advise the committee on, and one is in relation to the ministers' attendance on the tenth.

I'll just wait for Mr. McCallum, because it obviously is very important.

Mr. McCallum, I was just saying I have two things in particular. One is that both ministers are not available for estimates on the tenth, but they are available on the eighth, two days earlier. I thought that would be fine, but I wanted to make sure it was okay with all the committee members. That is two days earlier, and both ministers will be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask the committee. Are you comfortable with that? That will be to do estimates on the eighth with the minister and officials. Okay?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

The other matter, Mr. Chair, is that we had a vote last night in relation to Bill C-511 and I drafted a motion that I would like to move now, Mr. Chair. I do think we might have some agreement in relation to this particular motion. According to the rules I'm able to do that now.

Mr. Chair, I would move that in accordance with the order of the House that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities conclude the study of Bill C-511, an act respecting the reporting of motor vehicle information and to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (improving public safety) by March 3, 2011, this committee immediately begin study of the bill on Tuesday, March 1, at 11 a.m. and that the committee report the bill to the House on Wednesday, March 3, 2011.

Now, Mr. Chair—