Mr. Speaker, back in 1989 the Conservative government originally introduced the safety board act and we opposed it. It was fundamentally flawed then and it is fundamentally flawed now.
The bill before us is to amend the act but does nothing to address the deficiencies in the Transportation Safety Board. The main idea underlying this act is supportable in principle. In 1989 this act brought a number of federal bodies responsible for investigating transportation safety under the same roof.
If the Conservative government had wanted to, it could have streamlined these operations, increased efficiency and saved money for the taxpayers without sacrificing public. Instead this act created a seriously deficient Transportation Safety Board, a board that was and still is unable to fulfil its mandate to safeguard the lives of Canadians.
Last year there were 2,159 train, marine, air and pipeline accidents reported in Canada. This is just the number of reported accidents and does not include any that went unreported. These accidents resulted in 127 deaths. Yet the safety board's nationwide investigative staff only consists of 135 people. These 135 people, field investigators, supervisors, laboratory personnel, forensic investigators have to cover all the accidents that occur in Canada. No wonder the safety board is plagued with a backlog.
In its annual report the board states its intention to reduce the amount of time it spends on each case so that it can reduce its backlog. Think about that. They are going to spend less time on each case so they can cut down the backlog. An investigation into an accident is not something that can be rushed. It is a matter of public safety and warrants a complete and thorough investigation, not a rush job.
The government has left the Transportation Safety Board understaffed and underfunded so much that the dedicated public servants who work there have little choice but to cope as they are doing. It should not be this way. This organization is supposed to advance transportation safety in Canada. It is what Canadians rely on to protect them and their environment from accidents on the rails and waterways and in the the skies and the pipelines of this country.
Canadians rely on the Transportation Safety Board but its resources are spread too thin. It was a good idea to streamline safety investigations under one roof, but for it to work we have to give the board the resources it needs to fulfil such a broad mandate. By nickeling and diming the Transportation Safety Board the government is putting the health and safety of Canadians at risk.
This is not something we can afford to cut corners on, but that is just what is happening. Apparently the government would rather save money than lives.
Fortunately the original act included a clause requiring a review of the Transportation Safety Board. This review was completed in 1994. By then we had a new government. The Liberals had replaced the Conservatives.
The Liberals have had a chance to fix the problems with the Transportation Safety Board to make a meaningful investment in transportation safety but they have chosen not to. They are just as indifferent to the health and safety of Canadians as their Conservative predecessors.
Instead the Liberals have given us the bill before us today, Bill S-2. Not only does this bill not deal with the deficiencies of the Transportation Safety Board, it actually makes them worse.
At present the board consists of four members. One of the amendments that the Liberals are proposing would allow them to turn some of these appointments from full time into part time positions. We are led to believe that this is a good thing because they will be able to spread themselves a lot further. I am sceptical. I am concerned that the board will have even fewer working hours to deal with the many important issues it is mandated to investigate. This is a big step in the wrong direction.
There are a few good amendments in this bill, but on the whole it makes a bad act even worse. One of the good amendments which I will touch on briefly is the extension of the privacy protections for those who give information to board investigators.
As an experienced labour activist I know the kind of pressure and intimidation employers are capable of using against workers. If employees have information that is of use to the safety board but may be damaging to their employer, they must be free to give this information.
However, they might not co-operate with investigators if they are afraid for their jobs and families. Thus it is vitally important that testimony given to the safety investigators be held in the strictest of confidence. This is necessary so that witnesses can be candid with investigators without fear of retribution.
The extension of confidentiality in the investigative process is a good amendment. It gives workers the freedom to co-operate with safety board investigators and protects them. It is surprising to see such an amendment in a Senate bill. That place is hardly an institution known for protecting workers. It has historically played the role of advocate for the privileged few. Not that the privileged few have ever needed this protection with the Liberal and the Conservatives in power.
Even John A. Macdonald acknowledged the other house's role as a defender of the privileged when he said a larger qualification should be necessary for membership of the upper house in order to represent the principle of property. The rights of the minority must be protected and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor.
This amendment protecting workers is quite out of character for that other house. In the context of the rest of the bill this one amendment is an anomaly. The amendments to this bill that I most strongly object to are the ones that reduce the independence and public accountability of the board. These are much more in character for that unelected and unaccountable institution.
Like the auditor general, this transportation safety board is expected to be independent of political and outside influences. That is the whole point. It is supposed to provide an independent neutral perspective on safety issues in Canada. Everyone acknowledges this. Yet the safety board act includes a ridiculous provision allowing ministers and other interested parties to review draft copies of the board's annual report and submit comments on it.
This is a glaring contradiction. What this does is allow parties with vested interests in the board's reports to attempt to influence these reports to their advantage. Even if the board members try their best to be neutral they will be undoubtedly influenced to some degree by these outside submissions. This is especially true in the case of submissions by ministers since the board members are appointed by the government. Thus the safety board is not independent like it should be. It is subject to undue political influence.
Comprising the board's independence and neutrality in this way is scandalous. It risks the health and safety of Canadians for the sake of politics. The safety board must be free of outside influences so it can focus exclusively on public safety.
Not only does this bill before us today not resolve the board's independence problem, it makes the problem's magnitude much worse. At least now when private interests comment to the board about the draft reports these comments are not secret. At least the public has a chance to scrutinize these comments and see how the board is being influenced.
The bill would make these submissions secret. Why is this? Why do the Liberals in the Senate not want the public to know what people are saying to the transportation safety board? It looks like they do not want Canadians to know what is going on at the board. They are covering it with a shroud of secrecy. It is bad enough that the current act allows private interests to influence the safety board. Now the Liberals are trying to hide this from the Canadian people. It is deceptive. It is patronizing. It is anti-democratic. It shows how out of touch the Liberals are with ordinary Canadians.
I am forced to wonder what the Liberals are trying to hide. If these private submissions they are trying to hide were not unduly influencing the safety board there would be no reason to hide them. By placing this shroud over the safety board they are shattering the illusion of independence.
Canadians expect the transportation safety board to be looking out for them so that when they travel for business or for pleasure they can feel safe. That is why they need a safety board that is independent, neutral and adequately funded. It must be adequately funded so it has the resources to properly carry out its mandate. It must be independent so it can focus on public safety without undue political or private influences diverting it from its purpose. To deny the board these essential necessities does a great disservice to Canadians.
As I indicated, there are beneficial aspects of the bill. We will be in a corner today weighing the benefits being enacted before the summer or delaying the bill with the hope of trying to convince the Liberals of the changes in the fall. It is apparent they have a majority and I am not convinced that delaying the bill will result in any changes but just a stalling of the inevitable.