Stan Dromisky

[Highways, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have a definite position regarding toll highways. It has already been clearly announced in the House that as far as the government is concerned, for any highway designated as part of the Trans-Canada Highway, if tolls are to be considered, it must be in conjunction with the Minister of Transport. The final decision regarding that would be made by the Minister of Transport.

The highways are within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, but whenever moneys go from the federal coffers to the provincial coffers for that purpose, that is for the building of the Trans-Canada Highway—

[Swissair Flight 111, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can jump to conclusions here and stipulate that as a member of a team, everyone will contribute in their own way.

I would like to point out that Swissair has been most generous with many of the families of the victims. It has contributed quite a few million dollars to this entire enterprise.

As far as the United States is concerned, we do not have any final decisions yet regarding its contribution toward the rental of vast amounts of equipment and technology.

[Swissair Flight 111, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the interesting question.

I would like to point out to the listening public that Canada has an international agreement. We are totally responsible for the costs that are incurred for any safety transportation investigation within the parameters of our domain.

As a result, yes, a tremendous amount of dollars has been devoted to this investigation and there will probably be more. This government has committed itself to keep on, within the realms of human ability and technology, to determine the cause of this terrible tragedy.

[Competition Act, 1998, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address some of the concerns that have been with raised with respect to the port advisory committee process in Halifax. These comments are directly related to the comments made by the member from the opposition.

The role of the port advisory committee was to develop a user nomination process in response to the requirement in the Canada Marine Act to consult with users on certain board appointments. This nomination process has been reflected in the letters patent. The purpose of this process was to solicit names for user representatives to Canada port authority boards and to forward nominations to the Minister of Transport for consideration.

Port advisory committee members will not be appointing directors to the Halifax port authority. The authority is an agent of the crown and the majority of directors are appointed by governor in council. In addition, the province and the municipality each appoint a board member.

To ensure the process was inclusive, port managers were asked to contact users and invite them to attend a nomination meeting. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper advising of the port advisory committee nomination meeting.

With respect to the composition of the port advisory committee, a broad cross-section of port users was represented, including members of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and the Halifax Shipping Association. The list provided by the port advisory committee was used by the minister in making his recommendations to the governor in council.

As with the provincial and municipal appointees to the Halifax port authority board, each user representative will serve the board with a view to the needs of the Halifax port authority as a whole. I am sure that at no time will these competent individuals lose sight of some of the concerns mentioned by the hon. member from the opposition.

[Immigration, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are pleased with the recently proposed amendments to our citizenship and immigration legislation.

These amendments aim to improve the efficiency of Canada's refugee system while preserving Canada's humanitarian tradition.

One of the proposed amendments will involve streamlining the Immigration and Refugee Board's three existing layers of refugee decision making into one.

Some individuals in the multimillion dollar immigration legal industry are opposed to eliminating the inefficiencies inherent in the current system, but change must occur. We must have a well balanced system protecting the safety of Canadians and preserving precious taxpayer dollars while at the same time protecting genuine refugees.

[Holidays Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that Transport Canada recognized the recruitment and retention problem with the technical inspector community. In October 1997 it commissioned the Price Waterhouse review to help in resolving it.

Similar independent reviews are now under way of both the civil aviation pilot inspector and the aircraft certification engineering communities. It is also important to note that Transport Canada has never downsized its number of aviation inspectors. The number of positions has continually been growing. The department has added 179 safety inspector positions in the last five years.

Transport Canada has initiated a comprehensive program to deal with identified problems through training, new recruitment methods and reclassification. Approximately 66% of civil aviation technical inspectors were reclassified after retraining.

Canada was one of the first developed countries to be assessed under the International Civil Aviation Organization safety oversight program in mid-October. We were in receipt of an interim report and the results were very positive.

The interim report concludes that the civil aviation organization of Transport Canada has established a very sound structure for safety oversight. The staff has the proper qualifications, is provided with appropriate training and has at its disposal the proper tools to discharge its duties.

The interim report also notes that Transport Canada has launched a number of initiatives to address recruitment and retention issues including commissioning the Price Waterhouse review.

I look forward to making the final report public in the near future—

[Railway Safety Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, regarding the presentation made by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands he stated correctly that railway property is private property. Therefore anyone trespassing can be arrested if there is an officer of the railway or someone representing the law enforcing body of the railway as it was possibly in that case.

However, I would like to point out to the member and to members of the House that this bill is presenting a dynamic innovation in the whole area of railway safety. In the past rules and regulations were made and they were carved in stone. They remained that way for a great number of years. The tools, the processes and the regulations that were imposed in this bill will provide a dynamic model which means that it will continually grow based on concerns and input from all the parties concerned, not only municipalities, not only victims of accidents on the railway but all parties.

Safety will be number one throughout this entire process. Changes will be in essence ongoing because this is a very dynamic model with all parties concerned. I thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest for his comments with regard to the harbour. That issue has not yet been resolved because the Halifax harbour has not been chosen. That issue will be dealt with at the community, municipal and provincial levels before we are notified of any decision. We certainly cannot step into the picture and make declarations. In other words, we only deal with the facts.

I thank the hon. member for Churchill for her comments pertaining to the process we were all involved in devising this bill. I will take into consideration and pass on to the government the kind of concern raised by the member at the very end of her presentation regarding health management problems.

[Railway Safety Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak in support of Bill C-58 which has received consideration by the Standing Committee on Transport last November and has been finally referred back to the House for third reading. I commend my colleagues for their diligent work on this significant piece of legislation.

Two in depth reviews have been conducted to date by independent and departmental safety experts on the Railway Safety Act. One was in 1994 and more recently another in 1997. These reviews confirm the validity of the underlying principles of the act. In both cases the overall excellent safety record of the Canadian rail industry was clearly acknowledged, and we are very proud of that.

However these reviews also identified opportunities to further enhance the legislation aimed at building and improving on this effective safety framework. The amendments proposed in the legislation were prepared following a thorough consultative process with the railway industry, railway unions, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Safety Council, Transport 2000, provincial officials and other interested parties, and there was a great number of them.

Consultations were held as late as October of last year. These sessions provided stakeholders with an opportunity to reach a consensus on the intent of these proposed Railway Safety Act amendments which reflect best practices used in safety regimes from other modes of transportation.

The benefits of full consultation were amply demonstrated by our stakeholder success in seeing their views integrated into the improved legislative package. As a result they expressed to the standing committee their high level of comfort with the bill.

I am pleased to inform the House that the proposed legislative changes in Bill C-58 as approved by the Standing Committee on Transport will enhance our ability to give assurance to Canadians of the continuing health of railway safety in the country.

Some of the most important changes in the bill have been made in order to make our railway system much safer. Among other things these changes include a new policy statement; authority to require railways to implement safety management systems with an auditing process; authority to require railways to report safety critical information, an absolute must; a new safety compliance order targeted at safety management system deficiencies; increased authority for railway safety inspectors which is lacking at the present time; and an improved consultative process with all partners concerned.

We believe that these and other measures proposed in the bill will benefit Canadians greatly through the continuous improvement of all elements of the railway system.

I can assure the House that Transport Canada considers railway safety to be of utmost importance. As the Transportation Safety Board has noted, Canada enjoys a commendable rail safety record. To maintain this record departmental rail safety inspectors will continue to monitor all railway company safety performance across Canada.

Transport Canada will also continue to take action to attend to any safety deficiencies that may arise to ensure that the safety of the Canadian transportation system is not compromised.

The history of this act is characterized by co-operation among concerned parties. Railways and unions, provinces and municipalities and professional associations have all contributed to the development of this act over time.

At the Standing Committee on Transport last year many witnesses came forward to voice their support of what they felt to be a good piece of legislation. Stakeholders, industry and labour commended the process by which the legislation had been developed. In particular, they appreciated the opportunity to fully voice their concerns and to see these concerns being addressed.

For example, as a result of comments made by stakeholders to the Standing Committee on Transport the government was very pleased to add a new section to the bill, section 26.2, which states that railway equipment has the right of way at highway crossings. This provision has the wide support of stakeholders and was satisfactory to concerned parties.

It may seem obvious that railway equipment has the right of way when one considers the mass of a train compared to that of a measly motor vehicle. However, setting this out in clear language may help Canadians to realize that railway vehicles, unlike motor vehicles, require long distances to come to a stop. This section will therefore help in raising public awareness and advancing crossing safety.

Technical amendments put forward by members of the standing committee have also been incorporated into the bill. The Standing Committee on Transport has helped through its considerable efforts to improve an already sound piece of legislation.

The bill contains a very innovative approach to the problem of train whistles in our communities. The whistle signals the approach of a train to a crossing. This very simple device has historically been an effective safety warning. Yet it can be very disruptive to people who live close to the railway line, especially if the whistles are blowing at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. Over the years railways have ceased whistling at crossings in a number of communities. This was initiated following strict guidelines established by Transport Canada.

The scheme set out in the bill, which was endorsed by municipal representatives and in particular by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, will require railways to stop whistling where a local government has passed a motion approving whistle cessation and if the location meets Transport Canada's standards as set out in legislation. We believe this will foster a co-operative approach to solving problems between railways and communities.

To conclude, Transport Canada's first priority is the safety of the transportation system in Canada. I believe these amendments to the Railway Safety Act will strengthen the regulatory framework governing safety in this critical mode of transportation and will provide the means to ensure that Canada's railways will continue to improve their safety performance as we head into the 21st century.

I urge all hon. members of the House to give quick passage to the legislation so that it can be considered by the other house.

[Aviation Safety, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to my honoured colleague, members of the House of Commons and to all Canadian citizens, we can guarantee that there is no threat to the safety of Canadians by the policies being implemented by this government.

Safety is top priority. I would like to point out to the House that the International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations just finished an oversight safety program and has declared in its interim report that Canada has one of the top, safest aviation programs in the world.

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today in response to the motion to have a new section in this bill that would require railways to fund provincial or local government costs. We are not able to support these proposed changes for a number of reasons.

Subsection 24(3) proposed by the hon. member of the third party seeks to make railways responsible for reimbursing governments for any cost they may incur in complying with requirements established under subsection 24(1) of the Railway Safety Act. We should consider what this truly implies and particularly how this motion would improve safety.

The requirements under subsection 24(1) of the act could conclude control or prohibition of a variety of land uses adjacent to railway property to the extent that they may constitute a threat to safe railway operations. This might mean buildings or other structures, mining operations, drainage systems, storage of materials on adjacent property, and fencing to name a few. Bill C-58 adds to this list by proposing that safety requirements could be established for road approaches, an important provision that I will touch on later.

It is important to remember that section 24 of the act does not address who will pay for meeting safety requirements, except where the owner, lessee or occupier of the land suffers a loss. In that case the act wisely provides that the railway company will pay such losses as are agreed to between the parties. It also provides that where there is a dispute, the Canadian Transportation Agency may make a determination. This appeal process is specifically intended to ensure that any economic considerations are resolved through an independent body.

There is the question of the costs of meeting any regulations established under this section. All government regulations are developed in consultation with affected parties so that both the cost of complying with the requirements and the safety benefits are established. Each specific regulation must also identify which party is responsible for meeting the requirements.

For example, a regulation may specify that a drainage system meet certain standards for the purpose of railway safety. It would normally be the responsibility of the owner of the drainage system to design and build it in compliance with the law. It would be their responsibility to pay for it. This is the very same situation for the railway company today that must pay the cost of meeting requirements for safety of rail equipment, or manufacturers of motor vehicles that must meet safety standards.

On the third point, subsection 24(1) applies widely and not just to provincial, local or municipal governments. Many of the owners or occupiers of land are private industries or individuals. Even if we supported the intent of this motion, which we do not, it would not help anyone other than governments.

I would like to turn for a moment to the intent of clause 19 of the bill as presently written. It adds two sections aimed at improving the safety at railway crossings, an important issue for all Canadians and a major priority for the Department of Transport.

Every year in Canada people are needlessly killed and injured in accidents at crossings and while trespassing on railroad property. While the number of accidents has come down, initiatives proposed in the bill will help to reduce it even further.

This will ensure that Canada maintains its commendable rail safety record as was noticed by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport.

The intent of the bill is to improve the safety of Canada's rail transportation system. The act recognizes that a number of parties are involved in meeting this objective and has the necessary authority to ensure the respective obligations are met.

The proposed motion does not in any way lead to a possible improvement in this regard, since it addresses economic issues only. It would also conflict with government regulatory policy by making only one party bear the cost when in many cases others have responsibility to do so also.

The act already provides adequate protection where there are economic disputes. This motion is not, in our opinion, necessary for that purpose. Therefore the government is unable to support the proposed amendment by the hon. member. The Railway Safety Act has already led the way in ensuring that our nation's railways operate in an extremely safe manner.

The review of this legislation has shown that our system meets high safety standards. Bill C-58 will ensure that we continue to build on this well established safety base.

I strongly urge all hon. members to give quick passage to this legislation when put forward for third and final reading.