Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This comes to one of the most interesting meetings we had here, I think. If these transit authorities operated on 100% provincial track, this wouldn't be a matter considered under legislation.
We heard in testimony, I think, that the average of federal track usage was about 90%. I believe the witness from Quebec said they operate 95% on federal track. GO, I think, was the lowest we heard, at about 60% federal track use and 40% provincial.
So if I understand this correctly, they're only accountable to the province on provincial track, and not on federal track. On federal track when they're operating, they prefer to have their contractual relationship with CN and CP as their means of accountability rather than directly to the federal government.
I know that Mr. Laframboise was part of the review this committee did on rail safety, which was done simultaneously while the minister's rail safety review was being undertaken. That rail safety report ultimately came out from the expert panel. I think Mr. Laframboise will recall that CN, on their culture of safety, was rated one out of five, one being the worst and five being the best. CP was rated at two out of five.
Now, I don't know about Mr. Laframboise, but I don't feel comfortable with anybody preferring a contractual relationship with two railroads that don't rank better than a two out of five, instead of being directly accountable to Transport Canada.
The other curious argument raised by the transit authorities in their testimony was that they enjoy their relationship with Transport Canada, but somehow, when I asked why not just simply shorten the relationship and make it direct, well, they didn't really have a compelling argument; they just preferred that arrangement.
So if we're going to take a step forward with respect to safety...and quite frankly, if they already think they're compliant anyway through their contracts with CN and CP, I don't see why there's an issue with them directly coming under federal regulation. Compliance won't be an issue, or shouldn't be an issue.
There wasn't, in my estimation, any compelling testimony given why they should not; they just seemed to have a preference for not being regulated additionally by the federal government.
As I think Mr. Bourdon has said, if an issue occurs on a federal track, I think the public will ask why the transit authority wasn't directly accountable to Transport Canada. They're going to look to the federal government and say, “What happened?” So I think the responsible step forward is the way the legislation has been presented here in the bill to bring them under that authority.
That's just a bit of background commentary on what happened at the particular meeting.