Debates of March 13th, 2012

Safer Railways Act

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I was a minister in another government and the important thing is to be pragmatic and find a way to put some teeth in the regulations.

My colleague asked some good questions. They are the types of questions we can ask the minister and all the stakeholders directly in committee in order to make the bill effective. This is not just lip service. We want to reduce the red tape and have the necessary tools to ensure greater safety, including environmental safety.

Earlier I was talking about municipal zoning. We have to respect the jurisdictions. These are the types of questions we can ask in order to assess the feasibility of this bill and ensure that it is not just wishful thinking, that it could indeed work. Given the work that has already been done in the other place and all the amendments that were proposed and approved regarding the previous Bill C-33, this is a good bill, but there is always room for improvement. We will ask questions, but not to the detriment of passing this bill.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his excellent speech. I have a question for him. I was under the impression that the minister might accept amendments, but the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina suggested otherwise.

It is true that in the previous parliament, a minority government at the time, the transport committee accepted a number of amendments. Given the diversity of views on the likelihood of the majority government now accepting amendments, is my colleague leaning on the side of optimism or pessimism with respect to the question?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great existential question. Are we optimists or pessimists? I know the minister well enough to know that he does not play with safety and that he is open-minded. I like trusting people. I do not want to indulge in crass partisanship like certain NDP members who are saying that he is not open-minded and that he will not accept amendments. He has proven in the past that he can listen. This is a truly non-partisan issue. I am going to be fairly optimistic and realistic. I do not see why I would doubt the integrity of one of our colleagues. It would be unparliamentary.

Given that he has already said that he is open to discussion and amendments, we should believe him. The work that has been done, mainly in the other chamber, shows without a shadow of a doubt that they listened to us. At the time of Bill C-33, the Liberal Party and my colleague proposed amendments that were accepted. I do not think that this is a matter of minority or majority, but of doing what is necessary to help Canadians.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think as we are discussing this today that you were just at the Little Native Hockey League in Sudbury. I am glad that you were there supporting them. I think that it is really important we support them.

There is a train service that goes from Sudbury to Toronto and, eventually, to Ottawa and Montreal. I cannot help but think if it were faster, how much of an imprint that would have on the environment and how much the tourism would mean to our economy. I know that I would the take train more often if it were faster.

As my colleague knows, the bill was actually tabled in the House in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-33. I wonder whether he wants to comment on the amendments which made it possible to have the bill before the House again. I am sure that he would agree with me that my colleague, the member for the Western Arctic, was instrumental in having that amendment tabled.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over old territory and say that one member was better than another in the previous Parliament. I am not sure whether the Sudbury team would get ahead faster in a faster train. This is an old issue; it goes back 30 years. A high-speed train was discussed and many studies were done. There are economic considerations. In the Liberal Party, we feel that we should have more of a railway culture. Canada's vision and the connection between the east and the west were possible because of the railway. So we must work accordingly.

Having said that, we want a high-speed train, but do we want this bill to pass at high speed? We have to do things right. We will be here to make sure that the bill works properly.

I said from the outset that I support the work done by the other chamber. Our committee is not too partisan. When they go too far, we call them to order. But I think we have a good transport committee and we can get things done very quickly. Our respective leaders will then be able to work together to ensure we move on to something else, since it is about time to pass this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to western Canada. Many individuals in western Canada would welcome the opportunity to be able to ride a train, recognizing that there are many deficiencies in services provided. We like to think that in the future, as the west continues to develop, especially at today's rapid pace, we will eventually see more VIA Rail services so that one could take a train from Winnipeg to Regina, for example.

Would the member comment about whether in the future it would be good to see VIA Rail enhanced to provide more service to areas that do not have as much as service as the Ontario-Quebec region?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question and I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for asking it.

I am one of those people who thinks that we should change the transportation culture in this country and that it should definitely be built around the railway. This is a vast country. Napoleon said that geography dictates politics.

If we want to ensure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast feel like first-class citizens, we have to provide proper services. Is it an essential service? What is the government's role in that area? I truly believe that we should invest. It is not an expense.

We spoke about Quebec-Windsor. I heard we also spoke about Calgary-Edmonton. However, we have to look at all of those communities, including the small communities. We spoke about the Arctic. We spoke about western Canada. It is imperative, if we want to ensure that this country has first-class citizens everywhere, that we provide all the tools to ensure that we can reach them. It is not just a social matter. It is also a matter of economics. The basic economy starts with infrastructure. I believe that through the rail strategy we can ensure that everybody, no matter where in this country, feels at home.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is best to start our remarks in the House of Commons on this or any subject by addressing first principles.

I believe the first principle is the government should only do what only government can do. Public safety is one of those areas that the citizen or the enterprise cannot simply manage all by themselves. As a result, protecting the security and the safety of the individual is a primary responsibility of government. Thus, we have Bill S-4, which deals in particular with railway safety and the statute assigned to that goal.

I will go into the history of this statute and the framework of legislation that has existed and continues to do so. Before I do that though, I will state my full support for the bill. It is a bill to amend the Railway Safety Act. It furthers our government's agenda to ensure a safe, reliable and economically viable freight and passenger railway system.

The amendments proposed in the bill will increase the public safety of Canadians, enhance the safety of our communities, and contribute to a stronger economy, a modern infrastructure and a cleaner environment.

The Railway Safety Act came into force in 1989 during a period of significant transformation in the Canadian rail industry. It was a time of privatization and restructuring, supported by a new federal policy that separated economic and safety legislation to provide the railway companies with flexibility so that they could grow and prosper.

I should mention in passing that Conservative and Liberal governments in the last two and a half decades have moved toward greater privatization and less government control in all areas of transportation, including ports, railways, airports, airlines and a whole series of other specific areas within the country's transportation system. That decision by both Liberals and Conservatives to move toward privatization has been a resounding and unmitigated success for Canada and for Canadians.

Today, economic regulation of the rail industry is guided by the Canada Transportation Act, which provides an overall framework to ensure a national transportation system that is competitive, economic and efficient. The act, which came into effect in 1996, also established the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is responsible for dispute resolution and economic regulation of all modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction, including rail.

Rail safety regulation on the other hand is governed by the Railway Safety Act, which was developed in the spirit of co-operation between industry and government. This act moved away from a fully prescriptive regulatory approach to one that recognized the responsibility of railway companies for the safety of their own operations.

At the same time, the federal government through Transport Canada retained the responsibility and the power to protect people, property and the environment by ensuring that the railway companies operate safely within that national framework. Once again, we liberated the market to find the best ways to achieve safety, but we created a legal framework to ensure that people and property and the environment are protected as the industry does its work.

Transport Canada undertakes its responsibility to maintain a safe national rail system through a policy and regulatory development, through outreach and education, through oversight and enforcement of the rules and regulations it implements under the Railway Safety Act.

Applied in tandem, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act have successfully guided the growth of Canada's rail sector since the 1990s, but there are issues and challenges. As it stands today, the interrelationship of these two acts has created a notable gap in railway safety oversight that must be addressed if we are to ensure the continuing safety of our national railway system.

Currently under the Canada Transportation Act a new railway company is allowed to begin operations immediately upon receiving a certificate of fitness from the Canadian Transportation Agency. This certificate indicates that the railway is under federal jurisdiction, has sufficient financial capacity to operate, and has obtained appropriate third party liability insurance coverage. This is in keeping with the economic mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is not, however, fully in keeping with the national safety mandate of the Railway Safety Act.

In accordance with the Railway Safety Act, a new railway must comply with all safety regulations in force at the time it begins operations. It is important to recognize that there are no regulated requirements in the Canada Transportation Act to verify the safety capacity of the company before a certificate of fitness is issued and the company's operations begin.

As the Railway Safety Act does not currently specify minimum baseline safety requirements for a new railway company either, a gap in oversight is created and a new railway could theoretically operate for a year or more before the effectiveness of its safety systems was formally verified. This is an important safety issue which the government is striving to correct through these amendments.

The introduction of a railway operating certificate is a key component of this bill, and will continue to resolve this long-standing safety issue in our railway system. The amendment represents an important step in the right direction to strengthen the safety of our vital rail industry. Anyone who likes to eat food, consume retail goods, drive a car, basically perform any function as part of a modern society requires the use of goods that are brought by rail. We cannot underestimate the importance of this industry to the operation of the Canadian economy.

When the Minister of Transport appointed the independent advisory panel to lead the Railway Safety Act review in 2007, he provided them with a clear mandate to identify steps in the Railway Safety Act and make recommendations to strengthen the regulatory regime to ensure the changing nature of the railway industry and its operations were protected.

Following extensive consultation with stakeholders and careful consideration of these consultations during the year-long course of review, the advisory panel specifically recommended in its final report in 2008:

A railway should be required to obtain a Rail Operating Certificate (ROC ) as a precondition to obtaining a Certificate of Fitness (from the Canadian Transportation Agency) and to commencing or continuing operations.

The intent of this recommendation is clear. This government emphatically agrees that the implementation of railway operating certificates is an optimal solution to improve regulatory oversight and ensure that new railways have met clearly defined baseline safety requirements before they begin operations anywhere in the country.

Bill S-4, the safer railways act which we are discussing today, will give the Governor in Council, that is the cabinet, the authority to require railway companies to apply for and receive a railway operating certificate. Bill S-4 will also give Transport Canada the power to establish the baseline safety requirements for the certificate by regulation. Establishing these requirements by regulation will provide Transport Canada with the authority to undertake a comprehensive safety review for every new railway to determine whether it complies with the regulatory framework proposed.

Once the regulator is satisfied that all baseline safety requirements have been met, an operating certificate will be issued. It is important to note that this requirement for railway operating certificates will apply to all railways under federal jurisdiction, including those already in operation, such as CN, CP, VIA Rail and numerous other short lines. It is obviously impractical and economically unviable for these companies to cease operations until a certificate can be issued. As such, existing railways will have a grace period of two years from the coming into force of the new regulations to meet the requirement for the certificate.

Should there be instances where the railway operating certificate is refused, suspended or cancelled, the applicant will have the right to appeal by requesting a review by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. That being said, it is critical to add that this government is committed to ensuring that the introduction of railway operating certificates will be developed and implemented in the same spirit of co-operation between government and all stakeholders which guided the creation of the Railway Safety Act nearly two decades ago. Once this bill is passed, Transport Canada will consult stakeholders on the development of regulations that relate to this important new initiative to improve railway safety in this country.

In summary, I will say that the safety benefits of this proposal for the introduction of a railway operating certificate are clearly evident. An important regulatory gap will be effectively and efficiently addressed. Transport Canada's railway safety oversight powers will be enhanced to meet the changing nature of the industry over the long term. Canadians from coast to coast will reap the personal and economic advantages of a safer and more secure Canadian rail system.

When the Minister of Transport launched the Railway Safety Act review, Canada had recently suffered a series of devastating train derailments. These derailments caused the death of loved ones, the disruption of businesses and the serious pollution of trackside lakes, rivers and communities. During the course of extensive inspections and audits undertaken by Transport Canada following these incidents, the regulator identified numerous deficiencies that contributed to the decreased safety levels, including non-compliance by the railway companies with various safety requirements.

There was a general concern with the level of the railways' compliance with the regulations. Accordingly, the terms of reference for the Railway Safety Act review specifically directed the independent panel to examine the adequacy of Transport Canada's enforcement powers and to consider whether administrative monetary penalties should be added to the range of enforcement powers available to the department. Upon examination, it became clear that Transport Canada's enforcement powers under the Railway Safety Act needed to be strengthened to encourage better regulatory compliance, increased safety and help to prevent further incidents like those that originally triggered the review.

The independent panel's final recommendation on the issue, as detailed in its report of March 2008, plainly stated that an administrative monetary penalty scheme should be included in the Railway Safety Act as an additional compliance tool to enhance safety in the rail industry. This government fully agrees with the panel's assessment, and the introduction of a scheme for administrative penalties has been included as an important and integral part of this plan.

Administrative monetary penalties are certainly not new in the transportation sector. They were successfully introduced in the air industry back in 1986 and were subsequently introduced in the marine sector in 1991.

Penalties of this nature have been introduced in the transportation industry because they work. In the simplest terms, administrative monetary penalties are similar to traffic tickets for car drivers. When a company or individuals break the rules or do not comply with the regulations, the department can impose a pre-established administrative monetary penalty or fine to help encourage compliance in the future.

Administrative monetary penalties have other safety benefits as well. With these penalties in place, there is a perception of fairness because the operator knows in advance the cost of non-compliance and it is applied uniformly. Penalties can also be applied more uniformly as there is less discretion for giving warnings and therefore less opportunity for inconsistency.

Under the current Railway Safety Act, Transport Canada's options for enforcing non-compliance are very limited. When a violation is found during the course of an inspection or audit, an inspector will normally issue a letter of non-compliance and follow-up in a given time frame to confirm that corrective action has been taken. If the situation has not been corrected, the regulator has only one option, prosecution, which is both costly and time consuming. Therefore, it is ineffective for a large number of violations. This is a significant weakness in the current enforcement scheme of the act.

We believe administrative penalties should be implemented as an additional enforcement tool under the act to provide an efficient, effective and less costly alternative to prosecution, particularly in the cases of persistent non-compliance with the act and its safety requirements. This is consistent with the principle of minimizing the regulatory burden for Canadians, while at the same time promoting regulatory certainty and compliance.

In the interest of fairness for all parties, the proposed administrative penalty scheme will allow for a review of the regulator's penalty decisions by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. This scheme will also include provisions related to the minister's decision to impose a penalty, the due process to be followed, the review of the decisions by the appeal tribunal and the level of fines to be paid for non-compliance and infractions. Maximum levels for administrative monetary penalties will be $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation.

In addition to the implementation of an administrative penalty to improve railway safety, we propose, through these amendments, to raise existing judicial penalty levels, which were established 20 years ago and are no longer consistent with other modes of transportation. Maximum judicial fines for convictions on indictment for a contravention of the act would increase from $200,000 to $1 million for corporations and $10,000 to $50,000 for individuals. Maximum fines on summary conviction for a contravention will increase from $100,000 to $250,000 for corporations and $5,000 to $25,000 for an individual.

Implementing these penalties, as proposed in the bill, is clearly an important step in the development of an effective railway safety regime with sufficient scope and strength to ensure that our railways are safe and that they remain safe for the long term as the rail industry continues to evolve and to grow.

I began today with basic principles: that government should only do what only government can do. Public safety is an example of one of the things that only government can enforce. That is why we are creating a legislative framework in which free enterprise can operate in a manner that is safe, efficient and fair for the Canadian people.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean--Carleton was not in the House the last time when I spoke about the fact that I worked for the railway for nine years. He talked about the privatization of CNR and the outcomes. One of the outcomes of privatization, when companies start chasing profit, is that safety is pushed aside in many instances. Therefore, I have to commend the government, which is not something I do on very many occasions, for this legislation, primarily because the government took into account labour and the company and the legislative requirements of both. This is an example that could be used in many other areas.

It is crucially important that people understand that rail safety has such a tremendous impact on Canadians. If we think in terms of rail crossings, where pedestrians and vehicles pass in front of trains, if people in charge of those trains are in any way not following the rules, we can imagine the kinds of catastrophes that could happen. Again, I commend the government on this move forward and I hope it will use this template in other places.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that the New Democrats will be supporting the bill.

We all agree that the bill has undergone enormous consultation and a great deal of study. The review panel has done its homework. Industry, labour and the public have contributed and we now have an excellent product that largely implements the recommendations of the review panel. Everyone wants the bill to happen. The goal should be to pass it as quickly as possible. Let us undertake all the steps that we can, right here right now, to get the bill through the House so it can become law and Canadians can be safer.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit in on most of the review that was undertaken by the committee. The government obviously recognized the support of all the parties and all the people involved, from labour to the industry itself.

Could the parliamentary secretary comment further on the urgency to get this done, with all the discussion that has taken place and the encouragement of other parties to support the bill for the sake of safety?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the bill, when all is said and done, all that needs to be said has been said. Now it is time to get it done.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a former environmental enforcer, I commend the government for increasing the penalties and its show of concern for public safety and toward strict enforcement of a potentially dangerous industry.

Past governments have tabled enforcement compliance policies at the same time that they have tabled a bill calling for stricter enforcement to show good faith that they intend to show clear criteria on how they will enforce. Could the parliamentary secretary advise if in the coming budget there will be an increase in dollars for railway inspection? Could he also inform the House if the government is also changing gears and going to move toward having the rail safety officers inspecting and enforcing, not the railway company itself?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the budget, what I can say is not interesting and what is interesting I cannot say.

On the member's specific question about increased funding, I would point out that the goal is not to spend more money; the goal is to make people safer. We should not judge our success around this place by how much money we can expend. Even on worthy causes, it is not an achievement to be more expensive. The achievement is the result. We have put forward legislation that will deliver results. I encourage the member and her party to support its swift passage.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his very interesting speech. We are certainly going to support the bill, which we feel is an excellent one.

On several occasions, both sides of the House have supported motions or bills that have been followed only by spoken and written words, but not by action.

This time, will there really be some action? The safety of Canadians is of concern to us all from east to west. As I said earlier today, historically, our railway system has united Canada. It is extremely important to make the development of our railway system a priority.

Can the parliamentary secretary assure me that the government will move from words to actions?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary stated in his speech that the passage of the legislation would provide for a cleaner environment. Could he give us some detail as to how we would get a cleaner environment from the passage of this legislation?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important never to underestimate the linkages between public safety and the environment, the air we breathe, the communities we live in and the environment in which our children grow up. It is as much an ecological question as it is a public safety question.

Through the review panel process on the Railway Safety Act, the government has again considered all these varied questions related to safety, including environment, and has come forward with a very solid package, honouring over 80% of the review panel's recommendations, to produce an excellent bill that is unanimously supported by parliamentarians. I hope we will pass it quickly.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for York South—Weston.

First, I am very happy to see this bill before this House, but it is a pity that it has not been a priority of this government in this 41st Parliament. On a number of occasions, the government has boasted that it champions the safety of our fellow Canadians, but let it try to say that to the families of the victims of the derailment in Burlington or to the families who lost their houses in Saint-Charles-de-Bellechasse in 2010. I know very well that the government is going to say that I am playing politics by bringing up a tragedy. We know the government never does that.

The safety of Canadians is important, and this bill is needed in order to protect railway workers, passengers in the trains and people who live near railway lines.

The government, the minister and his parliamentary secretary in particular like to advocate for smaller government, for getting the government out of everyone's business. Large rail companies, shippers that use the rail lines and citizens who live near the railways see that the government does have a role to play. It has a role to play as a regulator, as a protector. All the groups I mentioned want to see this involvement.

Unfortunately, in the ideological zeal of the government, safety and well-being are often left to free market forces to decide. When bad things happen, such as rail accidents and conflicts between land users and railways, we see that the government likes to sweep under the carpet its role when the industry has not regulated itself.

There are examples where the industry does not regulate itself, but as my time for debate is limited, I would like to focus on some propositions we have made since the bill was introduced.

The first proposition from our party is that the government should not cut safety from its budget. The upcoming budget will cut money that could go toward safety. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the amount of money we spend on something should not be the measure of how effective it is. People who enforce these regulations and develop new systems need to be paid. They need to be remunerated for their work. It is not work that anybody can do. It takes experts to do the work and we have to pay them. We cannot shortchange experts, nor can we cut corners. When corners are cut on safety, we see the results. People working in the transport sector say that when corners are cut, it jeopardizes safety. The government cannot say it defends safety on one hand and then cut it on the other.

We have also asked that the proposed cuts of $200 million to VIA Rail be reversed. VIA Rail has challenges and it needs to implement certain systems. The NDP would like positive train control implemented in Canada. It was done in the United States. In California there was a very tragic accident in 2008 and the leaders decided that positive train control should become part of the system. There are positive benefits to implementing it. Yes, it is costly, but there are companies in Canada that contribute to this technology. Investing in this technology to improve safety would also improve our economy. It would stimulate the innovators who are contributing to positive train control and other technologies that make our railways safer.

We would also like to see voice recorders in locomotives. This would help to find out what happened when things go wrong, when an accident happens. It is in the interests of everyone to find out the full story of what happened during a rail accident so that things can be improved in the future. A key benchmark to improve safety is to figure out what went wrong, to understand what went wrong and to improve things. It is common sense.

There were five amendments submitted to the Senate, two of which were taken off the table. Those two amendments had to do with land use consultations and exemptions to conduct testing. The government's argument is that railways are a federal jurisdiction, but municipalities are the creatures of the province. I agree. I understand the constitutionality of it. However, the government has a role to play in facilitating the communication between a municipality and the rail companies and those parties involved in the railways. An analogous situation would be waterways which are federal entities whereas riparian corridors are provincial entities. It would be in the best interests of everyone to ensure the health of the water system in this case, the rail system in the other, that the two parties have increased communication and that a mechanism is provided for the two parties to communicate.

There is a citizen in the town of Saint-Lazare who lives close to the railway. Her house vibrates whenever a train goes by. People who live near a railway know that their houses will probably vibrate. She is very frustrated that she cannot find a public entity to whom she can complain. She has gone to the private entity and the public entity, but there is no real mechanism to sort out these problems and nip them in the bud once they occur. The problems tend to get larger and larger. Citizens feel helpless. They feel that they cannot do anything about the problem.

We have to invest in railway safety. We have to put our money where our mouth is. The parliamentary secretary said that we can get improved results from spending less money. I would challenge him to cut his salary by $110,000 and try to do his job on $40,000 a year. I would like to see how happy he would be about that. If he thinks he would be just as efficient, why does he not save the taxpayers some money and cut his own salary?

This is an important bill for the NDP. We will support it. We believe it is time the government brought this legislation forward. We would have preferred to see it earlier. We do not think that Canadians should have waited so long for the government to bring these important safety measures to the House. We have a lot of work to do. This is just the beginning.

I have heard from members on the government side that they are interested in safety. I hope their vision of safety includes not only the safety of citizens and people living near railways but also the safety of railway employees. Their safety will be increased through the measures in the bill. We also think that individuals will be protected when they report wrongdoings on the part of their superiors.

The other aspect we are glad to see is with respect to the safety of passengers and motorists, of citizens travelling on the trains, on the roads, and in the surrounding areas. Railway crossings will be enhanced by the higher operational safety standards laid out in the bill.

I hope we can work together with the government to ensure that Canadians are safe when using the railway system as well as in the communities surrounding the rail lines.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we are having on this very important bill.

The original version of the bill left many recommendations for an in-depth inquiry into railway accidents unaddressed. I want to thank the member for Western Arctic for having tabled amendments to former Bill C-33. I congratulate the other place in tabling Bill S-4 with those NDP amendments.

The bill is about safety. The Conservative government ignored repeated calls by the Transportation Safety Board for safety measures such as voice recorders and positive train control. In 2001 and 2003, the Liberal government ignored calls from the Transportation Safety Board for additional rail safety measures. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on the need not only to pass this legislation quickly but also to implement it.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these things tend to be more complex than we paint them. We cannot just make a law and spend money. We have to implement an entire system to improve the safety of the people using it. We cannot just say the words without taking action. Not only do we make laws, but we have to put the money where our mouth is. We have to make sure that the laws are implemented.

When we talk to people in the railway industry, not the people who work on the trains, but the people higher up in the railway industry, they would like to be involved more. We hear a lot about how government should get out of everyone's hair, but a major corporation is asking the government to get involved and to implement these measures to make their lives easier.

When we say the government should not get involved in this, that it does not have a role to play, when accidents happen, when people are put in peril, they lose trust in the system and that does not help the economy at all.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his excellent speech and on the great work he does as deputy critic for transport.

I would like him to talk about the relevance of moving from talk to action. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, Canada's railway system has been left completely abandoned for 25 years. Fortunately, the authors of the new bill included environmental measures. Today, people want to take better care of the environment and they want to use rail transportation. Why is it important to move from talk to action? What does the hon. member think about the NDP's plan to make rail transportation a priority for all Canadians, from east to west, in urban and rural areas?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

We are of the opinion that investments must be made in the railway industry, whether it be for passenger or cargo services. We cannot simply say that a crown corporation or private companies must manage themselves and that the government does not have a role to play. If we demonstrate leadership, we have a role to play. Even the railway industry believes that governments should have a role. We often hear the members opposite say that the private sector wants the government to mind its own business, but that is completely untrue. There are times when the private sector wants the government to invest in its industry, make decisions and demonstrate leadership.

For example, the industry would like to be consulted about decisions that affect the municipalities. This falls under provincial jurisdiction, but since railways are federally regulated, the two parties should be communicating, and that is not happening right now.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is long due for its amendments and I am glad we are doing this.

However, I want to give some historical context of how these kinds of things have come about. I was witness to the Mississauga train derailment in November 1979, and saw out the front window of my house rail cars rising 200 feet in the air as they exploded, three of them, and then fall back to the ground. I was also part of the largest peace-time evacuation anywhere in the world, as the community of Mississauga was evacuated for fear that a whole railcar of chlorine was going to escape into the community.

I raise this because some of the safety regimens that we now have in place were created as a result of horrific accidents, rather than the other way around. Rather than preventing horrific accidents with safety regulations, we wait until there is one and then we bring in regulations. I think that is a little backwards.

The other piece of this puzzle that was created as a result of the Mississauga train derailment was the question of why we were transporting huge quantities of very dangerous goods through residential neighbourhoods. We should not have been doing that. Therefore, the Liberal government of the time put forward something called the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, and suggested that the government would help railroads move their operations out of heavily built-up areas and into more rural areas. In fact there was a lot of money spent by that Liberal government moving CN Rail's big yards out of the city of Toronto and into an area quite a ways north, whose surrounding area is now completely devoid of housing.

However, the Conservative government of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney then withdrew the funding. The act is still on the books; there is just no money attached to it.

We have this notion that it may be a bad idea to have freight trains running through densely populated areas, but we are not prepared to do anything about it. As the recent derailment of the VIA train shows, anyone or anything that was anywhere near that set of rail cars as they collided into buildings was in grave danger. That is still the case. Even after we pass this railway safety act, we still have the spectre of huge, two-mile long freight trains rumbling through cities like Toronto, and right through our communities and neighbourhoods. In my neighbourhood, it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

The GO Transit folks are building an underpass under a couple of roads for their trains. Their trains are right next door to a CP Rail corridor. In order to protect their trains from a possible CP Rail derailment, they are building a crash barrier wall between the two sets of tracks. Now the houses are closer, but no one is thinking of putting a crash barrier wall anywhere along the corridor between the rail cars and the houses. The view is that we have to protect our infrastructure, this little trench that we are building. GO Transit has to protect that by building a crash barrier wall.

That makes the residents of my neighbourhood realize just how dangerous it is when a big company like GO Transit says it has to protect its investment by building a wall to keep freight trains from hitting its own trains. However, those people who live right alongside that corridor, whose land was expropriated in order to put the corridor closer to their homes, are now quite reasonably worried. They worry about their personal well-being and safety, the safety of their children and their houses.

A couple of years ago a train from Montreal derailed, and that train actually levelled a house. Luckily, no one was in it and no one was injured. However, we are not actually pretending that we are going to pass any regulations in this bill to protect people from that consequence.

This bill actually gives the government considerable power to pass regulations, and those regulations are in fact what will determine how safe our railroads are. The bill actually does some very good things in determining how those regulations will be put into place. However, it is the regulations themselves that we must hold the government's feet to the fire on, to make sure that these regulations are actually effective and administered properly by the government.

I will give the example of the recent derailment of the VIA Rail train in Burlington. Had there been a positive train control system on that train, that accident would not have happened because the train would have been slowed automatically if the driver or the driver's assistant had not paid attention to the signals. That system is in full use in Europe now and is how all trains are managed there.

It is being implemented in the United States starting in 2015, but the operators have been given notice since 2009 that this is coming. As of 2015 all rail systems, particular passenger rail systems that share space with freight, must have positive train control.

CP and CN travel into the U.S., as does VIA Rail. Are they going to have to retrofit their vehicles to be capable of positive train control because they are operating in the U.S.? Therefore, why are we not doing it here in Canada? It makes no sense. That is available through regulation; the government could in fact pass that regulation.

I will cite the bill. The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting “the implementation, as a result of a risk management analysis, of the remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety”.

Well, the highest level of safety is positive train control. The highest level of safety is what we should be striving for. We should not be striving for something below the highest level of safety. Worldwide, that level of safety is what has become standard. We are the outlier; we are not at the highest level of safety. As was proven unfortunately by the deaths of three VIA Rail employees two weeks ago, that highest level of safety does not apply to Canada. The consequences were tragic.

The parliamentary secretary commented on the fact that rail companies have to get a certificate before they can actually operate. I am aware of at least one rail company starting up in Canada that was given an exemption by the Canadian transportation authority and will not require a certificate and not therefore be bound by this legislation. That is the air-rail link being built from Pearson Airport to Union Station. Why it was given an exemption from having to have a certificate, I really cannot answer, because the Canadian Transportation Agency sometimes acts in mysterious ways. It is a private company. Again, the parliamentary suggested that private companies should be free to run their businesses. However, as a public duty, we have to make sure that we implement safety regulations that protect the public. One cannot do that if one gives them exemptions. If one exempts them from being a railroad under the Canadian Transportation Agency, who then provides the safety? How does that happen?

The other piece of the puzzle, of course, is voice recorders in train cabs. They are not a piece of safety equipment per se but are an effective way of determining exactly what happened so that we can make the system safer later.

The train cabs currently have speed control recorders. In the conversations I have had with drivers they all know that those recorders are there and that drivers can be fired for violating the effective speed control on the pieces of track they are on. It is clear that their bosses can figure out exactly how fast they were going at any given time, so they pay close attention to what their speed should be as a result of there being a speed recorder.

The same would be true of a voice recorder. They would pay much closer attention to what is said and done in the cab and focus on their job more.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely an important bill as it deals with rail safety. This is certainly not the first time we have seen a version of this bill in front of Parliament.

I listened to my colleague and his earlier colleague speak about funding for rail safety. I think the NDP has a very checkered past in supporting rail safety. I point out that in 2009 our government had included a $71 million increase for safety in the budget, but the NDP voted against that and now we have a bill in front of Parliament.

I am glad to hear that the NDP supports this bill. What I want is confirmation that it does, indeed, support this bill and that it will not delay its passage.