Debates of May 7th, 2015

Railway Safety Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being no amendment motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely honoured to open this third and final hour on my private member's bill, Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act regarding safety of persons and property.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to my bill, Bill C-627, and of course to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

As everyone knows, our government's priorities include transportation safety in general and rail transportation in particular.

My bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act that would help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. I am very grateful to all the members who have spoken to my private member's bill in the House and to all the members of the transport committee who have not only asked me all kinds of questions but have also gone through this bill clause by clause, line by line, word by word, and have sent it back to the House for this third and final reading.

I have heard loud and clear from my constituents that rail safety is an issue that matters to them, and as a servant of Winnipeg South Centre, I chose to use my private member's bill to achieve greater rail safety in my constituency. Although my focus was on my constituency, the happy consequence is that it would impact the entire country, and rail crossings would be safer and more secure because of this bill.

This is exactly the reason I am asking all of my colleagues in this House of Commons to support my bill. I see my colleagues from every party, representing every Canadian, and from each and every one, I seek their support.

The amendments I propose to the Railway Safety Act would give additional powers to the Minister of Transport to intervene, when required, to better ensure the safety of Canadian citizens, their property, and our communities. My proposed legislation seeks to empower railway safety inspectors so that they may quickly intervene to restrict the use of unsafe works and equipment and to forbid or restrict unsafe crossings and road crossings.

This is a very important issue to me, because in my riding, I have been receiving a number of calls from constituents about the condition of some rail crossings. This led me to take action.

I want our crossings to be safe for a child riding a bike, to be safe for a senior on a motorized wheelchair, and to be safe for a family out for a stroll or a bike ride together. I want our crossings to be safe for vehicles and not have, as has recently been the case, wood planks flying up and hitting vehicles as they drive by, even at low speeds.

Rail crossings crisscross my riding, and the safety of them can be enhanced. This bill is about prevention. The essence of the bill is to solve problems before they occur.

My private member's bill is designed to assist in expediting the quick resolution of safety issues encountered at crossings, all to ensure the safety of the public. This is always a number one priority, and it is certainly my number one priority: prevention.

I am very proud to be part of this government and to contribute to the service of this nation. I am equally proud of the work that has already been done by my government on rail safety, and I am happy to present this private member's bill to further enhance the safety of people in our communities.

I am asking my colleagues on all sides of this House for their support of my private member's bill, Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act for the safety of persons and property.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member who sponsored this bill. As she knows, the NDP will support the bill. Every member can vote as they wish, but we all support it.

However, in committee we proposed an amendment that was rejected. The member used a word we agree with, which is “environment”. It is mostly a matter of protecting persons and property, but the environment was mentioned in just one provision. We therefore asked to include environmental protections in all of the provisions, which was rejected.

Could the member tell us why her colleagues rejected this amendment? Why does the importance of the environment vary from one case to the next?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As everyone knows, rail safety in particular is one of our priorities.

The existing legislation does not allow either inspectors or the minister to shut down crossings that could pose a risk to the public. My bill would change that and would be in the best interests of everyone.

As for the specific wording, I must accept the decisions of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. That was their decision and not mine.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. As she talked about in her speech and in her response to the question from the member opposite, it is very important that we empower inspectors.

I would like if she could maybe take a minute just to describe what can happen without that empowerment. What is that normal process of how the issue of a level crossing gets addressed? What is the intervening period of time? What are some of the things that could happen? What is the impetus for this bill?

Obviously, the carriers, the railroads, are the owners and operators of these level crossings so it is important for them to take action. In many cases, a municipality is also one of the stakeholders in a level crossing and owns part of it. Why is there a need for an inspector to have that additional power to be able to act quickly?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, much to my surprise, the reality is that when there was an issue in my riding at a railway crossing I was incredulous to find that the minister did not have the power nor did her railway inspectors to solve the problem and to stop any accidents from happening.

Previously, it was a cumbersome process. This will expedite things. Through my consultations in the development of this bill I am very pleased to acknowledge in this House of Commons that the rail companies that I spoke with are very supportive of increased rail safety. The Teamsters union, which represents a great number of people who work for rail companies, is interested in supporting this bill. Certainly, the minister was very interested when I presented this because currently there is no remedy under our Rail Safety Act for her to shut down an unsafe situation. I have actually had a number of unsafe situations at rail crossings in my riding. This is a question that mattered greatly to my constituency and I am thrilled to hear from not only my colleague on this side but my colleague on the other side of the House that there will be support in general for this bill. It matters that we keep people in our communities safe.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing Bill C-627, which I will be talking about. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it underscores the gaps in existing regulations.

The NDP has long criticized the fact that companies are allowed to self-regulate and self-inspect. The objective is to provide powers to the minister and inspectors so they can intervene if there is a problem.

However, there are not enough inspectors. We have been looking at this issue for a long time in committee, and the problem has not necessarily been solved. Yes, we can grant more powers, but if there is nobody on the ground to ensure that rails and crossings are safe, that does not solve the problem. The Conservatives have cut the budget for rail inspection by 20% since 2010. The government is not investing in inspections.

I support the bill since it is a step in the right direction, even though it is a private member's bill and it conflicts somewhat with Bill C-52, which I talked about earlier. The fact that members have to fix government rail safety regulations shows that there are problems.

What is funny is that in committee, we examined Bill C-627, a private member's bill, before we examined Bill C-52, but we debated Bill C-52 first. Bill C-52 really should have contained mechanisms that referenced Bill C-627. It is a bit complicated and it shows that the government did not do its homework with regard to rail regulations. The government is rushing to fix things after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, and it is improvising quite a bit.

In short, I will support the bill because it is a step in the right direction. However, the government could do more in terms of rail safety.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Normally, at this time, we would invite the sponsor of the bill for her right of reply. It is my understanding that, the hon. member having just addressed the House, she has taken the occasion to waive that necessity for this evening.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:46 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.)