Evidence of meeting #77 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lac-mégantic.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

We'll call our meeting to order.

Before my opening comments, I would like all of us to stand and take a moment of silence in recognition of the 50 deceased or missing.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you.

As everyone is aware, this is the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since the tragic accident, the train derailment, at Lac-Mégantic in Quebec.

I can tell you that being on site last Wednesday—I toured with the minister, and we were very well received—had a very profound effect on me. There were a number of different things. It's not something that I would want to witness every day, nor is it something that I think any of us would want to witness. Going forward, I think I speak for everyone on this committee and in government when I say we want to make sure this kind of thing never happens again.

I saw a number of things down there that will stick with me for a long time: from a row of burnt-out foundations with one little house standing in the middle of them—it was very surreal—to majestic oak trees that are nothing but blackened wood sticks sticking out of the ground. The heat was so intense that the rocks used for a breakwall down around the lake itself are ready to crumble. Any pavement that was in that area was totally burnt off, while any cement—sidewalks and what have you—is burnt to the point where, when you walk on it, it's more like walking on a thin layer of sand than actually walking on cement.

When you first look at the tank cars where the main derailment and explosions were—and this thought was echoed by one of the investigators there—you think there are 15 or 20 cars, until you start looking and really counting the mangled mess. There are 70 some there. I saw wheels off train cars sitting out in the middle of a parking lot or a vacant field. Those things weigh tonnes, and you have to imagine the force of the explosion that blew them there.

Going forward, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is fair to say that we never want to see this kind of thing again. If you get a chance to support anybody there, I would certainly think that would be welcomed. But at the same time, it was made very clear by different people—some business people, the mayor, the local MPP—that the last thing the people there want or need is for us to be interfering or taking the investigators away from doing their job down there.

I know, Mr. Rousseau, you're a neighbouring member of Parliament to the riding—and I did run into Mr. Rousseau down there—and it was good of you to be there and show your support.

That's the end of my comments.

I'm going to have a speaking list here, and I have Mr. Watson first of all.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members who are gathered here today.

Mr. Chair, just for purposes of guiding discussion, I'd like to move a motion, and we'll have discussion around that. I move “That, the committee conduct a study on rail safety when more findings of the TSB investigation into the disaster at Lac-Mégantic are available.”

I believe we have that in both official languages for the committee's benefit.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Could you give...?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

I can read it in French as well, if you'd like.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I do have a copy here. We should make sure that a copy, if possible, is distributed to all the members—or does everybody...? No?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Rather than having a general discussion, I felt it would be productive to have a motion to actually discuss.

Mr. Chair, should I continue?

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Continue.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Obviously, we are dealing with a very devastating situation here, a tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic. First of all, I think all of us at the table here express not only our condolences to the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones, but also our solidarity with the community as it comes to grips with what has happened and looks to the future, and what that can look like for the community. I think the government has, from the beginning, with the Prime Minister and other ministers who have been on-site, demonstrated that not only can we can act but that we will do so as emerging evidence supports it.

The question today, though, and why we've been called back, is whether we should commence a study immediately and continue through the summer and, presumably, into the fall and some period of time afterwards, and whether or not it is necessary to have that study at this particular time. I would point out by way of history of the committee—a committee that I've been on since 2007—that this standing committee has shown in the past not only its capacity but also its will to act when it comes to studying things that are important, including rail safety.

Mr. Chair, if you'll remember, in 2008 this committee undertook an important study and report into rail safety in Canada. The question that the committee had to grapple with, though, if you'll remember contextually, was the series of high-profile train derailments, several of them, in the years leading up to 2007. These involved fatalities. They involved damage to the environment. The government at the time, and Minister Cannon who was the transport minister then, appointed an independent panel to look into rail safety and to make recommendations to the government. This committee wanted to conduct its own study as well.

We made the decision—and at the time it was a minority Parliament, so it wasn't a government decision—that it would be best to wait until more evidence was in. The study then commenced and the committee produced a report, as I recall, that was not only firm in its recommendations and its findings about rail companies in the undertaking of their safety responsibilities, but also in regard to the regulator itself, Transport Canada. That committee report had significant buy-in.

Mr. Chair, as you know, in deciding whether to commence a study now, this committee should also be concerned whether that would draw important resources out of the field, where they belong. There are a number of separate investigations under way, many involving government officials from the Transportation Safety Board. The independent Transportation Safety Board is obviously leading the scientific investigation into the causes of the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic. By its account, Transport Canada is very actively involved on a daily basis with them.

Separate from the investigation by the Transportation Safety Board, Transport Canada itself is looking into questions of, and gathering evidence as to, whether the rail company has been compliant with existing regulations. As I understand it, Environment Canada may be doing the same. As we all know, when it comes to having hearings, government officials are always front and centre, and rightly so, in those investigations.

Right now, though, I think it's important, and I think we could all agree, that those resources are best deployed in the field in the short term. That doesn't keep politicians from speculating about the cause. I don't think speculation is fruitful at this particular point.

The Transportation Safety Board itself is saying, and I think in their press release they have said, they are going to follow the science in this, the evidence, and as Ms. Tadros said, be careful not to draw premature conclusions about the causes of that tragedy.

Notwithstanding that, they have produced two urgent safety advisories to the minister, who promised at the time that Transport Canada would undertake an expedited review of those matters. Today we understand that the government has taken some action in issuing some emergency directives around issues related to the TSB's letter.

Those interim measures will ensure that action is taken until such time as rules can be finalized around those regulatory issues. I think the government can and will continue to act in the interim, but I'm not sure that the committee at this particular time, without further findings from the Transportation Safety Board, should be undertaking the study at this point. That doesn't mean there won't be a study. I think the answer from this side of the table is not a “no”; it's a “not yet”. I think we have to let the evidence show us the way forward.

If I could crystallize this, Mr. Chair, I think these hearings are taking place, whether or not the opposition is backing away from that now, in the shadow of Lac-Mégantic. Is this committee going to be seized with letting an investigation take its course, one that would be based on evidence, or are we going to try Lac-Mégantic in front of a committee based on speculation? I think the latter would be a very disastrous course for anyone. If we're going to demonstrate the seriousness of this committee, Mr. Chair, then we should wait until we have more findings from the Transportation Safety Board investigation.

I'll leave it at that for now. That's why I'm moving the motion.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Ms. Chow.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

I have an amendment, that I will read out in full, to Mr. Watson's recommendation.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Just before you go, Ms. Chow, is everyone familiar with the main motion or do we need it read?

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

It has been circulated.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

You have that, okay.

Carry on.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

So I have an amendment to it.

Before I move my amendment, I just want to say two things.

I can't imagine the horror and the sadness that has descended upon that town—and thank you, Mr. Chair, for being there. We can do a lot to support the families there, whether it's through the Red Cross or by visiting them as tourists.

I also want to thank the first responders who have been on the ground and are working around the clock. I can't imagine it's an easy task; I imagine it's life-altering for some of them. They've perhaps even put their lives on the line to do what needs to be done. Of course, there are a lot of officials who are investigating.

I believe it is the responsibility of the government, and of course all elected members of Parliament, to make sure that the food we eat, the water we drink, and the trains that come through our communities are in fact safe. That's what a government is for—to make sure there are regulations in place that industry can follow.

I say this in the context of having looked at all the recommendations that have been made in the past from investigations of past derailments. I'm not talking about this specific derailment at Lac-Mégantic, but about other serious derailments, whether the one in Burlington, where three people died and some were seriously injured, and others slightly injured and traumatized, or other derailments large and small. There was one in Calgary, Alberta, where thank gosh that train didn't go into the Bow River. There have been other derailments too.

After the derailments, especially major ones, the Transportation Safety Board, which has experts on the ground, usually issues a report a year later with its recommendations. Recently, it came out with an annual report that highlighted previous recommendation on a watch list that have not been implemented by Transport Canada.

I don't think we need to wait till the investigation is finished. I believe we have enough information before us—and I will detail it in a few minutes' time—to begin to look at some previous recommendations, such as implementing additional backup safety defences to help ensure that signal indications are consistently recognized and followed, that there be voice recorders in locomotive cabs, that safety assessments be carried out at level crossings on high-speed passenger rail along the Quebec-Windsor corridor, and that positive train controls be in place, meaning automatic braking systems. These are the recommendations that the Transportation Safety Board has made over and over again through the years to improve rail safety.

Also, the Auditor General's office has a list of recommendations. When it did a study in 2001, it looked at the transportation of dangerous goods. It's a report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development from the Auditor General's office.

You have the key findings in front of you. Let me say that to date there is no quality assurance program, there is no clarity in terms of the roles and responsibility within Transportation Canada for dangerous goods inspections, and there is no system to measure and report on compliance with laws regulating the transportation of dangerous goods.

These three key things are critical to improving rail safety, and they have not been done.

Do they relate to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy? I don't know. We don't need to make that assumption, whether they do or do not. But it is our responsibility to make sure that the expert advice is followed now. We do not need to wait another six months or a year or however long the Lac-Mégantic investigation is going to take. I think we can do that work now.

That's why I move that in the recommendation in front of us, which reads “That, the committee conduct a study on rail safety”, etc., immediately after the word “safety”, I would like to insert a portion of my letter, which is in front of you, that first:

a) The Transportation Safety Board recommendations on rail safety that the agency has not deemed fully satisfactory in terms of the actions taken by Transport Canada[;] b) The December 2011 findings by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for the Office of the Auditor General on the transportation of dangerous goods; c) Examine if phasing out and replacement of unsafe tanker cars like the DOT-111/CTA-111A design is required.

And second:

that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities requests witnesses to appear in front of the committee from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the Office of the Auditor General, Transport Canada, rail companies and representatives of rail workers, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and as well the Honourable Minister of Transport.

Furthermore, that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request...copies of the following documents from Transport Canada—the General Operating Instructions and other Safety Management System and audit documents for all Transport Canada-licensed freight rail operators;

And that this Study be conducted throughout August and September of 2013, and a report of this study be prepared and reported to the House of Commons in October 2013.

Further, that when more findings of the TSB investigation into the disaster at Lac-Mégantic are available, the committee conduct the second part of this rail safety study, and report to the House of Commons its findings.

So effectively I've cut this rail safety study into two parts. The first part looks at what has been recommended in the past. When specific recommendations come to us from the TSB from the Lac-Mégantic investigation, we will then do the second part of the study. I see no reason to delay the first part, especially as we are hearing from mayors across Canada. Today, for instance, I saw another request from Vancouver. The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has been saying it wants to see precisely what the protocols are regarding the safety management systems, especially those under which MMA has been operating. They want to see all the documents. They want to make sure that these protocols are connected with the emergency crews in the municipalities, because when there is a derailment, guess what, it's the municipal workers who put their lives on the front line. The Calgary mayor said as much.

They deserve or have the right to know, as of now. We have the power to summon these copies. They have the right to know what is coming through their neighbourhoods, what kinds of dangerous goods are being shipped through their neighbourhoods. They have the right to know what protocol is in place and how they fit into that protocol. They have the right to be consulted, and that's what we should work toward. That's why we are asking for these documents.

As to the question of whether we will take people away from the investigation on the ground, absolutely not. I'm not asking the Safety Board staff on the ground investigating to come. Transport Canada should be implementing those previous recommendations. We want them to come and tell us what they are doing and how long will it take for these recommendations to get done.

Why won't Transport Canada wait until after the investigation is complete before issuing new directives? Today, two or three hours ago, Transport Canada issued new directives. They didn't wait. They issued emergency directives because they saw the need to do so. They saw the need to reverse the previous position, of having only one operator, back to having two.

Remember, Transport Canada gave the approval to move from two operators to one operator. They are now reversing it even though the Transportation Safety Board did not say they had to do that. Last Friday, they did not say that “thou shall” or “you should reverse it”. Transport Canada at 2:30 said they are reversing it. They are saying they need to have two operators. The New Democrats have been saying that for a few weeks now. They didn't wait until the investigation was over. They made that emergency directive because they knew what needed to be done and that's why they took action.

We have the road map, not from politicians; we have in front of us the Auditor General's report and the Transportation Safety Board annual report. We have the road map already. There's absolutely no reason for us to wait. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment and allow us to start to work now. We have the responsibility to tell Canadians that we are working together to improve rail safety.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

We're going to suspend. Ms. Chow, your amendment may exceed the scope of the motion, and we're in conference with the clerk. There would not be a problem with it as a motion itself, so if you would just bear with me for a second.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I would ask the members back.

In consultation with the clerk, I do have to rule the amendment out of order. There are three or four reasons, but one is that the main motion by Mr. Watson says “conduct a study on rail safety when more findings....are available”, whereas this amendment is totally contrary to that and says we should do it immediately. That would change the scope of the motion itself.

As I said, the amendment as a motion itself would be a different thing. To add it as an amendment here, I have to rule as out of order.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Chair, if you would allow me, rather than getting caught in....You don't want me to speak again to move my motion. If you would allow me, I will put what I have just done as a separate, stand-alone motion after we deal with this motion, of course.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

That's what I was going to say. I have to point out to you now that your motion would have to be with notice, meaning with 48 hours. With unanimous consent we can come back to that. In the meantime—

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Chair, Mr. Watson's motion did not have 48 hours either. I did not challenge it because you didn't raise it. If you want to raise it, I can raise it too. Neither of the motions had 48 hours. However, given that this meeting was called precisely to have a study, I move—if you want me to do that, to make it formal—that with unanimous consent both of these motions be allowed to stand, notwithstanding the 48-hour rule.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

We have a proposal for unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent to deal with the motions?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

I'm not even sure.... Could you what the motion is, Mr. Chair.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

My motion is to get unanimous consent to waive the 48-hour rule regarding Mr. Watson's motion, and my motion as well, because neither was given with 48 hours' notice. In other committees, normally when we call a meeting to deal with certain issues, motions moved during that time don't take 48 hours. But if the chair requires the 48 hours' notice, I move that we waive that rule, which will require unanimous consent, so that we can debate our motions and not have been called here for nothing and have to pack up and go home without debating anything.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Just to clarify, it wasn't a requirement of the chair. I was simply pointing out the wording there that was introducing the motion.

The clerk just passed on some information. We have to, because we Mr. Watson's motion. As for your motion to deal unanimously with it today, we have to deal with one motion at a time, and then we can deal with your motion after that.

Am I clear?

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

I see.

I move the motion to allow both motions to stand.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Mr. Holder.