Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one important clarification: it was the Harper as opposed to Martin government.
With respect to the friendly subamended amendment—I don't know if we can call it that or what terminology would apply to it—I think it's actually a step forward with respect to worker safety. I think the consensus emerging around the table, for the benefit of course of our witnesses who are here today, embodies the fact that there's little confidence yet that there's been a measurable improvement in the safety culture with respect to some rail companies, the same lack of confidence in those same companies that was expressed in the expert panels review and by this committee at an earlier point.
To correct Mr. Jean on one other thing, these aren't complaints that have been registered at the companies; these are grievances more specifically. We heard that at CN it was more than 6,000 grievances that have been unresolved. At CP it was more than 400 unresolved grievances. The CP number was actually confirmed by CP. CN did not refute. Although it had opportunity to refute the number, it didn't.
Leaving this simply to CN and CP to resolve at this particular point I don't think is workable. I support the concept of safety management systems as that additional layer of safety. Perhaps that will evolve a little further at some point when CN and CP show measurable improvement in their safety culture. You may see the committee willing to accept that at some future point, if this is ever reviewed again by the committee. But as it stands right now, I'm not sure, in good conscience, I could simply leave it to the safety management system at this point.
That's why I'm supporting the sort of “friendly amended amendment”.