Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 136 - 150 of 150000
View Larry Miller Profile
CPC (ON)
View David McGuinty Profile
Lib. (ON)
—could I ask a question of clarification through you to Mr. Watson?
The Chair: Certainly.
Mr. David McGuinty: It speaks to the question of timing that Mr. Holder raised a few times.
Can you give us some idea of the parameter of “when” is? When are more findings of a TSB investigation likely to be released? Is he looking at the possibility? Is there an interim report to be released by the TSB, and what does he think might constitute sufficient findings to trigger the study going forward? That would be helpful for all of us to get a better idea of what's implied in the motion.
View Larry Miller Profile
CPC (ON)
View Jeff Watson Profile
CPC (ON)
View Jeff Watson Profile
2013-07-23 17:15
Thank you to our colleague on that.
Mr. Chair, as you know, the motion itself does not state that we have to wait for final findings from the Transportation Safety Board. It's simply that there would be more findings. Obviously, we will be meeting again when Parliament resumes in the fall. I think at that point we're going to be able to have a good look. I suspect we'll have...although I don't know for sure, as I can't climb inside the TSB's mind at this particular point on the specific timing of additional findings. But they have made a commitment to make them known as quickly as possible from my reading of their July 19 press release, I think it was. Or, certainly, in one of the letters they sent to the minister, they stated that they would be making everything immediately known as soon as they have it in terms of significant urgent safety findings. I think that's what we're looking at.
View Larry Miller Profile
CPC (ON)
If I could, Mr. McGuinty, based on that, I think it would be prudent for me to point out—and I think the date was last Friday, July 19—that the TSB normally would probably wait and have a report at the end of it, but they did issue some, if I could call them, “interim suggestions”. I think that probably led to some of the changes that were announced by Transport Canada today.
I would probably hope, and I would presume we all would too, that should the TSB have more suggestions or rulings like this, they will probably come out with them, due if anything to the expanse of the tragedy that happened down there.
With no other comments I'm now going to call the question.
All those in favour of the motion? Opposed?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Carried unanimously.
Ms. Chow.
View Olivia Chow Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Chair, I don't need to repeat what I said earlier. I will move my motion again. It's in front of you. I don't need to read it out again.
I do, though, want to highlight a few areas, one of which is examining whether the phasing out and replacement of tanker cars like those of the DOT-111 design is required. I want to point out that several times the Transportation Safety Board has highlighted problems with these kinds of cars, once in Cornwall, once in Maxville, and another time in a derailment in Saint-Romuald, Quebec. A train was bound for Montreal and it derailed. They said very clearly that because these kinds of trains were used, that is, these tanker cars, there was a significant spill of hydrocarbons when the tank shells and the heads were breached, even though the derailment happened in a marshy area where the surrounding terrain was particularly soft. The TSB has also investigated and reviewed other instances of the vulnerability of this type of car being punctured even in low-speed accidents.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board's findings were echoed by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. It also recommended, after reviewing six or seven derailments, that there should be “modification of bottom outlet valves on DOT-111 tank cars used to transport hazardous materials”, etc., and that had that been done “the release of hazardous materials likely would have been significantly reduced, mitigating the severity of the accident.” I point that out to say that whether it's now or later, I think Transport Canada needs to grapple with how to phase out the use of these DOT-111 cars.
The Transportation Safety Board further has said, looking at other recommendations, that it needs to “coordinate with the appropriate provincial authorities to require that tank trucks placarded for the transport of dangerous goods stop at all public crossings before proceeding.” It had asked for “locomotive data recorders to include on board voice recording systems”, and these requests have been ongoing since 1999. It also has asked for “other recommendations, including those on grade crossing regulations... ground hazard research...non-pressurized tank car construction standards”, etc., one of which said that Transport Canada “has deferred railway crossing safety assessments of the Quebec-Windsor corridor to rail companies.”
There are substantive recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board in front of us. They have said several times, in studying different derailments, that these things need to be done in order to improve rail safety.
I've already talked about the Auditor General's report. It is just not acceptable to my mind that we not see any results of the Auditor General's recommendations until April 2014, even though the deadline was supposed to be April 2013.
Whether it's having a quality assurance program, clarifying the rules and responsibilities regarding dangerous goods inspection, or developing a system to measure and report laws, all of these things need to be done now. So I am urging my colleagues to put aside their talking points and look at the recommendations in front of us and take the time.
In summer we do have some time. When the transport committee resumes at the end of September, if there's no prorogation, it will be looking at an infrastructure study. We do have some time between now and September 16 to consider some of these recommendations, which have been in front of us for several years now, and to ask Transport Canada what their timeline is to get these things done. It does not take people away from the front line, contrary to what my colleagues have said. It does not require any number of Transportation Safety Board investigators or police officers. We don't need police officers or any number of people in front of us who are investigating what is happening in Lac-Mégantic. That's not what we're talking about. I just want to say that over and over again. Let's not confuse what I'm proposing now...that we want this to be investigated in Lac-Mégantic. That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the road map provided to us by the experts who are already in front of us, and we should work together to get it done.
I do hope that my Conservative and Liberal colleagues will come to the conclusion to support these recommendations.
View Larry Miller Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Ms. Chow.
Mr. Watson.
View Jeff Watson Profile
CPC (ON)
View Jeff Watson Profile
2013-07-23 17:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee for adopting our previous motion.
I think much of this can be discussed in the context of a railway safety study.
I do want to point out, with respect to the motion that Ms. Chow has moved, that she would be calling members from the Transportation Safety Board to appear before this committee, and that Transport Canada appear in front of this committee. Further, documentation would have to be pulled by Transport officials and provided to the committee. To argue there's no diversion of resources, or that it wouldn't require a split focus, if you will, with Transport Canada or TSB rail experts I think is disingenuous. The question of resources in the interim, through the summer, is I think a pertinent question, even with Ms. Chow's motion.
Secondly, I think it has to be said that not only is the railway company being considered by the Transportation Safety Board, but the regulator itself is under investigation, or it is being examined. I point to the July 19 news release by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, where it talks about issuing two safety advisory letters. Under “Regulatory oversight”, it says, “We have collected data from Transport Canada in order to examine regulatory oversight.” They are requiring documentation, not just relative to the regulatory environment for rail safety, but for the actions of the regulator itself and whether or not they're sufficient. I think the public can be satisfied with the independence of the Transportation Safety Board and that it is investigating all aspects of rail safety, including the regulator's responses.
The fact that Transport Canada is involved in this requires that their resources be devoted both to the TSB investigation as well as to other ongoing rail safety issues and to their own examination of whether or not regulatory compliance has been followed in the Lac-Mégantic situation.
This motion is requiring that the attention and the resources be divided in the short term. I don't think this is appropriate. It's not that these measures can't be looked at. I would suggest that they're better placed inside the rail safety study as it commences, and we can look at a lot of these particular elements. I think the resource issue will be less apparent as we get into that than it is in the imminent stages of an investigation right now.
So, again, it's not a “no”; it is certainly a “not yet”. We'll consider these as we get to the rail safety study.
An hon. member: Call the vote, Chair.
View Larry Miller Profile
CPC (ON)
I have no other speakers on the list so I am now going to call the motion.
Ms. Olivia Chow: A recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: Is there any further business?
With that, I thank everyone for coming to Ottawa. I know it's a busy time in the ridings, and I think we'll all be following the investigation as it comes along.
We certainly wish the people of Lac-Mégantic the best in their sorrow and dealing with some of the closure.
So with that I will adjourn the meeting.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
Today is Tuesday, June 18, 2013. Welcome to the 86th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
We will be here for an hour to discuss three motions—two from Mr. Godin and one from Mr. Dionne Labelle.
I yield the floor to Mr. Godin.
View Yvon Godin Profile
NDP (NB)
Mr. Chair, I ask that we stop sitting in camera.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
We are not in camera.
View Yvon Godin Profile
NDP (NB)
Mr. Chair, I would like us to vote on the motion regarding the marine rescue sub-centre in Quebec City.
View Michael Chong Profile
CPC (ON)
First, you have to introduce your motion.
View Yvon Godin Profile
NDP (NB)
I will do so, Mr. Chair. It reads as follows:
That the committee conducts a study on the closure of the marine rescue sub-centre in Quebec City before September 30, 2012.
Results: 136 - 150 of 150000 | Page: 10 of 10000

|<
<
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data