Madam Speaker, on December 7, 1998 Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, was passed unanimously at report stage. Because the intent and general terms of the bill are beneficial, my Reform colleagues and I held our noses, gritted our teeth and voted for a bill that had been pushed forward with indecent haste and had not received full and proper consideration in committee.
Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has just said, there were stakeholders who were unable to be heard. Moreover, I am unaware of any amendments proposed by the opposition parties having been even seriously debated in committee, much less passed.
If the practice of adapting the committee's schedule to the convenience of the minister's office is the shape of things to come, I can assure the minister and the House that the official opposition will be less indulgent in the future.
Tonight I bring to the attention of the House a deficiency in the Canada Transportation Act which came to my attention as a result of an alleged breach of safety relating to a level crossing.
In August 1997 Ms. Linda Meyer and a companion were walking across a private railway crossing known locally as the Donatelli Crossing near Mission, B.C. I have seen photographs of the location. The right of way is not fenced and the crossing is marked with a stop sign. From a safety standpoint the amount of brush along the approach is certainly unacceptable, but that is not the issue I wish to raise right now.
The couple were stopped on the crossing by a Canadian Pacific Railway police constable dressed in civilian clothes and driving an unmarked van. They state that the officer informed them without warning or preamble that they were under arrest for trespassing. They further claim that when they protested Ms. Meyer's companion was pepper-sprayed and she was restrained with such force that she required medical attention.
When I heard this story my initial reaction was to wonder if the Prime Minister had been moonlighting as a railway policeman. However, the incident took place a few weeks prior to the APEC summit and it is therefore extremely unlikely that he would have been in western Canada at that time.
The trespassing charges are still before the courts and I understand that criminal charges against the constable are pending. This legal escalation need not have occurred if section 158 of the Canada Transportation Act contained a provision for an independent tribunal to review complaints against railway police officers.
As it stands, citizen complaints are only dealt with internally by other railway employees. In an age where almost every public police force in Canada is subject to some sort of civilian overview, it is an aberration in my view that a private force is exempt from control or is exempt from external scrutiny. Even the RCMP is subject to its actions being reviewed by the allegedly impartial public complaints commission. It is unconscionable that the security force of a private corporation does not have this type of public accountability.
When Ms. Meyer's complaint was not dealt with to her satisfaction by the railway company she appealed to government and found herself in a Kafkaesque runaround where nobody seems to be responsible for anything.
The Minister of Transport initially passed the book to the Canada Transportation Agency. The Canada Transportation Agency and the Minister of Justice both directed her to the solicitor general who in turn directed her, correctly I believe, back to the Minister of Transport where the matter rests.
As an aside, I gather from the response by the Minister of Justice that she is not even aware that trespassing on railway property is a breach of federal law under the Railway Safety Act, but nobody is perfect.
In summary, I urge the Minister of Transport to introduce legislation to amend section 158 of the Canada Transportation Act to establish an independent commission to review and adjudicate complaints against railway police constables.
Further, although we are now in the process of passing what is supposed to be the be all and the end all of railway safety, I suggest that the rather nebulous section 26.1 of the Railway Safety Act be further amended in accordance with last year's recommendation by the Transport Canada project team that “the responsibilities of all concerned parties with respect to crossings and trespassing be clarified”. This is less important to me than the issue of lack of accountability of the railways for actions of their constables, but it is nevertheless a matter of public interest.
I would add that the potential, no matter how slim, for a trespasser on a railway track to be charged with an indictable offence pursuant to section 41 is overkill which should be addressed in conjunction with the review of section 26.1 of the Railway Safety Act.
If the minister would bring forward the necessary legislation to address the inequities in the Railway Safety Act and in the Canada Transportation Act to which I have drawn the attention of the House, my colleagues and I would be very happy to support the initiative.