TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• 1538

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order, although we don't have a quorum at this time. The quorum for us is nine, but it must include two members of the opposition—

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): What are we, chopped liver?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I'm sorry. I will rephrase that to say, “include members of two opposition parties”.

The first part of our meeting is information. Members have identified clauses that need to be questioned, amended, or, for any reason, pulled.

Those are clauses 18; 19; 20, 23 and 27, which have amendments; 34; and 35.

When we do the clause-by-clause, I will ask you if there are others. After that time we will attempt to approve and agree on those that have not been identified.

Do any of the committee members have questions of our department?

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I believe you have a notice of the question I had with respect to the control of whistles at crossings.

There are two things I want to know. Both are related to regulation.

One, how on earth could you craft a regulation that would give the engineer some flexibility as to what he does at low speed compared with high speed?

• 1540

The other question is, if such a thing could be crafted, does it have to be dealt with in this piece of legislation or could it be dealt with as a regulation subject to something that's already in here?

Mr. Terry Burtch (Director General, Railway Safety, Department of Transport): With respect to the first question, the drafting of a regulation, it would be possible to come up with some form of wording after appropriate consultation.

For example, we currently have signal control systems that will vary the amount of warning time, depending on the speed of the train, before gates come down. So there are technological solutions and other things that could be pursued.

We know there have been a number of projects proposed—for example, having horns installed actually right at the intersection as opposed to along the way that would be brought on board by a train.

In some cases, these technologies are more ideas than proven, so there would still be some work there. But it would follow the usual process of having some research, identifying options, and then going through our regulatory process.

So I suspect there is some way of doing it. People are looking at a number of different ways to do it now, and we're monitoring some of those.

Second, to the question of whether, if it were decided that we wished to do this, we could do it under the act, the answer is “yes”. We would need no additional legislative authority to do it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay. That's what I wanted to know, primarily.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: On this issue? Please, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Just as a “sup”, and in the meantime, only because we've discussed this thing ad nauseam in years past, Lee, to tell you the truth, in my riding and adjoining ridings in our area, which is pretty urban, where there's whistle-blowing and sometimes where the locomotives idle and cause the smoke to come out, and the noise, we've had a lot of...

What the hell is that all about?

The Chairman: They're taking a picture of you making those comments.

Mr. Stan Keyes: As proof that we showed up here. The whip's office is going too far, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The rail lines have been exceptional in responding to requests from residents who go through their MPs to go to the rail lines to complain about any particular whistle in any particular location.

My guess is that a lot of work hasn't been done in that area because the railways have been so responsive, but if it comes down to a problem where things aren't getting done, and there are examples of it, of course the regulatory matter would be pursued.

Mr. Lee Morrison: They're bound by the existing regulation, Stan.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes.

Mr. Lee Morrison: They can't just arbitrarily decide that they're not going to blow their whistle.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, no, there are circumstances, as Terry can—

Mr. Lee Morrison: But not arbitrarily. I know the rules inside, outside and backwards. What I'm saying is that the railways just can't, of their own volition, do something like we're talking about, which would be to change their whistle patterns relative to the speed of the train.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, you're right. That stuff is different. But ultimately, you're trying to solve the constituent's problem.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): On the question of the municipality approaching the railway in question, because of signalling devices, to dispense with the whistling altogether, when you do that, does any of the responsibility insurance-wise then fall to the requesting municipality should there be an accident?

Mr. Terry Burtch: I really can't comment on that. There's nothing in our act or the legislation that imposes it one way or another, as far as I can tell. I do know that, under certain circumstances, when whistling has been lifted, some railway companies do negotiate an insurance agreement with the municipality that requested it. I think it's done on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there other questions?

Could we ask you to remain in case as we go we need more information?

I'll go over the list again of clauses that have been identified as being pulled. If you need any clause pulled, which means we will discuss them after, you don't have to give a reason. Just give me a number and we will pull it.

The first one identified is clause 18; 19; 20—

Clause 20 is pulled.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Yes.

The Chairman: Clauses 23; 27; 34; and 35.

• 1545

The clerk advises me we can proceed.

Clause 1, of course, is pulled automatically.

Do you agree to vote on clauses 2 to 17 inclusive?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: Do you agree to vote on clauses 21 and 22 together?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to)

The Chairman: This will all be ratified.

Do you agree to vote on clauses 24, 25 and 26 together?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, because clause 26 you had left out of the list already.

The Chairman: Clauses 24, 25 and 26, yes; and you want clause 26 pulled?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, you pulled it, not me.

The Chairman: I did this morning, but it was in error.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Let me see what it is.

The Chairman: Why don't we just pull it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Okay.

The Chairman: We'll pull clause 26. No problem.

Do you agree to vote on clauses 24 and 25 together?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to)

The Chairman: Do you agree to vote on clauses 28 to 33 inclusive?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: Do you agree to vote on clauses 36 to 39 inclusive?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Clauses 36 to 39 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 18)

The Chairman: Someone has asked that this be pulled, either for clarification or questions. We're open for discussion on clause 18.

Committee members, you know that I like to push things, but it's your committee. If I go too fast, it's your responsibility to slow it down.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Somebody raised it this morning. I don't know which witness it was.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is it clause 19 or clause 18?

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Clause 19.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mercier.

[English]

Does anyone have problems with clause 18? Do you need more time?

• 1550

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes. One of the witnesses must have raised it, and I'm just trying to find out what it was.

The Chairman: We will come back to 18. Is that okay?

Do you agree with that, Mr. Morrison?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

The Chairman: We'll come back to 18, because we're not clear on it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Why don't we just find whatever it was that was said by the witnesses and then we can decide?

The Chairman: That's what you want?

Mr. Roy Bailey: We won't have to come back, then.

The Chairman: We'll wait for clarification on 18.

Take the time you need.

Can someone well versed in the bill just summarize clause 18 for us? Are you able to do that? Could you give us in a few words what clause 18 talks about?

Mr. Terry Burtch: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

This clause provides the conditions under which a railway company would cease whistling at a railway crossing. It provides that it would be done when certain prescribed requirements were met: when a municipality had put in place a by-law; had consulted with the railway company; and had contacted and notified a relevant association. Mr. Huckert, I think, of the BLE this morning was speaking to that. When all those conditions were met, they would have to stop whistling. In the event of a dispute, the minister has the power to make a determination.

The last part of the clause simply states that notwithstanding that, if there is an emergency; if there's an existing rule or order that requires whistling over and above the ones we've been talking about; or if a railway safety inspector has required whistling for a threat, then you still have to whistle. So for true safety purposes, you still have to whistle. And that's what the clause requires.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): As I recall from what the gentleman said this morning, his point was that the locomotive engineer should have the option of doing that. Now, I know it says in here that in an emergency they still can blow the whistle. He seemed to have some problem with the fact that there's a bit of hassle after the fact.

The Chairman: Okay.

Did we need just clarification on clause 18 or did someone have an intent to make an amendment?

Mr. Roy Bailey: We heard here that the emergency is the engineer's discretionary call. Is that not right?

Mr. Terry Burtch: That's correct. If he perceives something in front of him is causing a threat, yes.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Even though it's in a zone that's already been—

Mr. Terry Burtch: That's correct.

Mr. Lee Morrison: He seemed to have the impression that if the engineer uses his whistle at a crossing where whistling has been under an order of cessation, he then has to fill out forms and make a report.

Is there anything, to your knowledge, about that?

Mr. Terry Burtch: That would be internal company business.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Oh, I see.

Mr. Terry Burtch: It might be that somebody has alleged that an employee had maliciously or for some other reason purposely done something to annoy them.

Mr. Lee Morrison: It's not unknown.

Mr. Terry Burtch: The company would probably undertake an investigation.

So that's the only reason I can think of that it would be there.

The Chairman: And the reporting is internal business.

Mr. Terry Burtch: That's correct. It's not part of this.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I'm just reviewing his comments here. He also indicated that he felt that in these cases where there was going to be a prohibition order, the group involved should be included in discussions so it wasn't sort of an after-the-fact kind of thing, where they were finding out.

My understanding, just from what he said this morning, was that this wasn't always the case.

Mr. Terry Burtch: At the present time, a lot of this is done administratively. There are no supporting regulations that deal with this. This provides the ability to put in place a regulation that explains under what circumstances you can stop whistling. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and others would all be part of that regulatory development, because it isn't in place yet.

Secondly, by virtue of being notified, the relevant association can raise any concerns they wish with the municipality, either directly or through their railway company. And if they're still not satisfied, they could always write to the minister, who still can make a determination as to whether or not there's a safety concern.

So we believe this provides a quite all-encompassing ability to ensure all interested parties have a say.

The Chairman: Are we clear on clause 18? Does anyone have an amendment?

There being no amendment, are we ready for the question?

(Clause 18 agreed to)

(On clause 19)

The Chairman: Monsieur Mercier.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier: Mr. Chairman, it's a clause which would allow the Governor in Council to make regulations regarding the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations.

• 1555

I asked one of the witnesses a question on this subject. I was concerned that such regulations would allow the Governor in Council to force a municipality or a province to assume certain costs, as long as they were needed for safe railway operations. I feel that this clause is too general and we will be tabling an amendment at the report stage to describe its scope.

In theory, according to this clause, the Governor in Council could require that a municipality or province build an overpass or follow the railway lines in order to avoid crossings. This would make no sense, of course, but the clause does not rule this out and our amendment will be designed to limit this power.

The Chairman: You intend to move it at the report stage?

Mr. Paul Mercier: At the report stage, yes.

The Chairman: We may proceed, then, with this stage?

Mr. Paul Mercier: Yes, but of course I cannot approve it as it stands.

The Chairman: Okay.

[English]

Are you ready for the question on clause 19?

(Clause 19 agreed to on division)

(On clause 20)

The Chairman: There is an amendment to clause 20.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make an amendment and then follow it up afterwards with a discussion.

The Chairman: If necessary.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: If necessary.

Can you all turn to page 13 of the act?

The Chairman: I will say, though, Mr. Dromisky, that everyone has a copy of your amendment.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh. Very good. I move to amend the bill by adding, after line 5 on page 13, the following:

The users of a road shall give way to railway equipment at a road crossing if adequate warning of its approach is given.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this has been discussed in the past, but let's go back in time a wee bit, when there was intensive consultation here. Some members might have been here as members of the committee, when this issue was discussed. It was in the hands of the bureaucrats and the government, and there was intense discussion going on, but because of the time factor, the bill appeared before the House before the consultative process was completed regarding this clause.

As a result, it did not get into the original document that was tabled in the House and that died in April 1997.

I'd like to point out that, first of all, this amendment I'm making has no impact on, and does not change, the policies and the rules regarding safety in this act or any other act. It has no direct or indirect implications.

The amendment is supported by the CNR railway, as well as by the CPR. It is also supported by the vast majority of the people—in fact, nearly all of them—who belong to the Railway Association of Canada.

I'd also like to point that railway “equipment” is a much more inclusive word. Because of the nature of its interpretation, it is much more in harmony with the French terminology used not only in this bill but in other bills as well.

Therefore, I would ask for full support for this amendment to that clause.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I wonder if we could pass clause 20, since Mr. Dromisky is actually introducing a new clause, 20.1. So we can pass clause 20 first and then move to 20.1.

The Chairman: That's right.

The amendment is suggested as a new clause 20.1. Therefore, I tend to agree with Mr. Keyes.

Does the committee agree with Mr. Keyes that we can pass clause 20?

Are you ready for the question on clause 20?

(Clause 20 agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we are talking about new clause 20.1.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes. There's no need for me to repeat everything I have said.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You said it so well the first time.

An hon. member: You were just warming up there, Stan.

The Chairman: Is there discussion on the addition of clause 20.1?

Mr. Morrison and then Mrs. Desjarlais.

Mr. Lee Morrison: The people from the ministry pointed out to us, Stan, that this all-inclusive term, “railway equipment”, may not be the best idea.

• 1600

I mean, sure, it certainly would go down very well with CP and CN, but we were told this morning that they already flag that stuff through. There's no reason they couldn't continue to flag it.

If you were to change the words “railway equipment” to “trains”, then I think you would have something better for the intent, which is to protect the public, rather than to make life easy for the railroads.

I mean, they can flag those tamping machines and so on through the crossings. I don't think those slow-moving objects should have right-of-way over road traffic. On that, I'm supported by the bureaucrats who were here the last time we discussed this.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I understand your point, but a great variety of machinery at the present time is used on the railways of not only Canada but also the United States, and more and more is being introduced on the Canadian scene.

For instance, if you have a rail-testing car, or an examination car, it's a very large vehicle. It's not a little thing like a tamping machine, or a handcart, or a go-cart.

Mr. Lee Morrison: A tamping machine is a pretty big machine.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I know; they're getting bigger and bigger, because they do quite a few ties at one time.

However, some of these other machines that are very large could be like a single coach car in size, and they travel at terrific speeds, clicketing along the railroads. I think they have to be covered too.

And even the gas-driven machines that are running along the road—you just can't stand at a crossing and expect that machine that's coming around the corner to suddenly slam on its brakes in order to avoid a collision.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: With regard to track-testing equipment, I've never seen that stuff move at high speed. I'm sorry, but they go along at about 15 to 20 miles an hour—or any that I've ever seen working—when they're doing the electronic testing of the rails. And that's what you were referring to, I believe. I've never seen them operating at train speeds.

Anyway, just to get this behind us, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, could I ask a favour of you? Maybe I'm alone, but it's very confusing the way it is now. Could I ask Mr. Burtch to explain it?

We're dealing with 20.l, which is a new clause, and that will affect 26.2, which amends the act.

If you agree, I'd like to ask Mr. Burtch to make sure we're all clear.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Sure.

The Chairman: I think we're heading for a bit of confusion. Help us out, please.

Mr. Terry Burtch: I guess I would first like to come back to the question of equipment. When we were here before the committee the last time, and we raised our concerns about equipment, as I recall one of the things we were worried about was that the way it was phrased, including the use of the word “equipment”, might result in too much right-of-way being given when it wasn't warranted.

We are more supportive of this now, because it includes the concept of adequate warning, and because, after having reviewed this again with our legislative people, we are convinced at this point in time that since it does not supersede any of the existing rules and regulations or other things that govern any equipment approaching a crossing, it would not create a safety problem. Those people would still have to comply with that.

The second problem is that the word “equipment” is all-inclusive, but it's also matched in with the French-language part of the bill, where equipment is called matériaux ferroviaires ou trains. So a train is already defined in the bill as “equipment”.

So we think, one, it is all-inclusive. By leaving it in there, it does cover trains. But it also does not supersede the existing requirements that any equipment would have to meet.

So we're satisfied with leaving it in there, especially with the addition of the words “adequate warning”, which conveys the notion that it can't just be a last-minute sort of thing. It has to be adequate such that we're satisfied it meets the safety intent.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Burtch, how does a piece of maintenance equipment give adequate warning? They don't have horns, bells or whistles on them.

Mr. Terry Burtch: As mentioned this morning, that equipment has to be stopped and flagged. By virtue of being flagged, the flagging is warning the road users they will be occupying the crossing.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, then we're getting back to the existing situation, which I think is fine; I'm just concerned about the implications of making this change here.

• 1605

Mr. Terry Burtch: My understanding—and we have reviewed this again—is that when you combine it with the concept of adequate warning, we're now satisfied that this conveys no new powers on that type of equipment. So that is one thing we're not so worried about.

Secondly, this does not supersede any of the existing rules and regulations, so it does not give a railway the authority to block a crossing for more than five minutes. By virtue of having to provide adequate warning, it essentially requires that the railways provide adequate warning for them to be construed to have right-of-way. It imposes an obligation on the railways to have provided adequate warning.

So we're satisfied that this provision as written, with these changes, would be satisfactory for safety purposes.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Actually, it's pretty much the same question, but I'm just going to make sure that we're absolutely clear on this.

No piece of equipment that currently has to be flagged through will be able to go through as equipment, with this new clause.

Mr. Terry Burtch: That is correct.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, do you still have an amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, I'll accept that.

The Chairman: Is there any more discussion on the amendment to include new clause 20.1? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

(On clause 23)

The Chairman: Is there discussion on clause 23? We have a government amendment.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I think you all have a copy of it.

I move to amend clause 23 by replacing, in the English version, line 23 on page 13 with the following.

emergency directives, rules, orders and security measures

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 23 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 26)

The Chairman: Do we have debate, enquiries, amendments? Do you need time? This is one that was requested pulled. We have not voted on it.

Okay. That was identified in error. The amendment we just put through affects clause 26 too.

Are you ready for the question on clause 26?

(Clause 26 agreed to)

(On clause 27)

The Chairman: There is a government amendment. Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move to amend Bill C-58 by replacing line 6 on page 17—and the first word of the amendment finishes the word “determined”—with the following:

termined by regulations made under paragraph 18(1)(c)(iii) or by any rule in force under section 19 or 20.

The Chairman: Does anyone need an explanation of what the intent of this is?

An hon. member: Yes!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: I was hoping someone would say yes so that I could hide the fact that I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, I turn to the experts who are here. They will explain.

Mr. Terry Burtch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This was one of the recommendations put on the table by Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. The intent is to clarify this particular provision.

If we read the earlier part of that section, it refers to people being in “designated positions”, or “safety critical”, as defined in paragraph 18(1)(b) of the act. The end of this talks about the actual testing and the testing intervals. There was some confusion that the way it was written, people might think it referred to paragraph 18(1)(b), which does not have any authority for testing intervals. It actually is subparagraph 18(1)(c)(iii).

• 1610

So what this does is simply clarify that this is the relevant portion that gives the authority to that regulation. It just confirms again that a rule is done under sections 19 or 20.

The Chairman: A technical change? Housekeeping?

Mr. Terry Burtch: It's a technical change.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Do you see how simple it is, Mr. Chairman?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Ms. Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I just want to give notice that I will be making an amendment in a portion of that section, but not the specific designation section. I'll be handing it in later.

The Chairman: Do you mean today?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: No.

The Chairman: At the report stage?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there any other discussion on the amendment to clause 27? Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 34)

The Chairman: Someone had asked that this be pulled.

Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: This was discussed with the CPR when they appeared this morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned about the way “pollutants” is defined here, or not defined. That's a pretty broad axe we're swinging, and I don't know, really, what it means.

I would move that the word “pollutants”, on line 18, page 22, be replaced with the word “combustion emissions”.

My reasoning is that this then covers the really nasty stuff—the nitrous oxide, sulphur trioxides, particulate matter and so on—and doesn't get off onto things like noise. It's pretty hard to run a train without noise, but you can tune up your diesels.

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison, do you agree that I ask the department to react to this?

Mr. Lee Morrison: By all means.

The Chairman: Mr. Burtch, please.

Mr. Terry Burtch: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The original concern expressed was that the concept of pollutants might get into noise and other matters. As we mentioned before this committee the last time we testified, issues of noise and vibration are already covered under the Canada Transportation Act, in section 95. So we certainly didn't see this as giving any additional authority in there, because it's already provided for under another act.

The word “pollutants” was used because it was close to the kind of concept of air pollution. That is what we were trying to get at. The question of “combustion emissions” is certainly a section of that.

In any event, whatever we decide to regulate and whatever pollutants we decide to put limits on by regulation would be defined by virtue of the regulations themselves. In that sense, the wording was chosen to be reasonably broad, because whatever we decided to do would be specified in the actual regulations.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, what are you targeting, then, Mr. Burtch, if it isn't just combustion emissions, or motive emissions? What do you have in your mind when you're talking about pollutants?

Mr. Terry Burtch: It is primarily the area of emissions coming from motive-powered equipment, locomotives and other things. That's what we're really talking about.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, perhaps we should say so.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, since they're defined in the regs. He wants the latitude in the bill so he can define it in the regs.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, and I'm asking him why. He's not answering.

The Chairman: The impression I got from your response is that this can be addressed in the regulations. Is that correct?

Mr. Terry Burtch: That's correct.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So he wants the latitude in the bill.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, and this is what I don't like, this broad latitude in bills to put it into regulatory power. That's the whole point. Let's say what we're talking about.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Do you have your list prepared, Mr. Morrison, of all the pollutants we're going to speak to?

Mr. Lee Morrison: That's the precise point.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, Jesus Murphy.

The Chairman: At this point I'd like to ask you, Mr. Morrison, if your amendment is on the floor.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes, it is.

The Chairman: I'm accepting it.

It is moved by Mr. Morrison that on line 17, clause 34, “combustion emissions” be replaced by “pollutants.”

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, it's the other way around.

The Chairman: Read it, please.

The Clerk of the Committee: He moves that “pollutants” be replaced by “combustion emissions”.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Which is what we're interested in.

The Chairman: Mr. Calder and then Mr. Keyes, on the amendment.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): I would like Mr. Morrison to then explain what happens if they had a coolant leak on a locomotive, or a hydraulic leak, or a diesel fuel leak out of the tank.

• 1615

Mr. Lee Morrison: Then you're dealing with “accidents”. I don't think it is necessary for us to put unreasonable demands upon an operator. It's a reasonable demand to ask they have their equipment functioning well. It's not a reasonable demand to expect that nothing mechanical will ever fail.

I mean, they don't apply this to us as motorists, for example, on highways. I don't think we should apply it to railways.

The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But in fact they do, Mr. Morrison. If a tanker truck is running down the road, has an accident and spills its load of propane or diesel fuel or whatever, that is classified as a pollutant, and all kinds of emergency task force measures go into effect, and it's cleaned up.

So they are defined as a pollutant; how they got on the road is an accident, or by whatever means it got there.

I'll be voting against your amendment for the reason that I think it's important that we try to keep as broad a definition in there as we can. I'm sure the railways would be probably delighted with your amendment, because it limits it only to the machinery that is going to be operating, such as a train locomotive, and spewing out the stuff that comes out the stack. But I think there's a lot more to pollutants than just the stuff coming out of a stack.

So I'd like to keep it as broad as I can, and then, within reason, and after further discussion, we can have it pinpointed in the regulations and listed there. To answer your concern, those specifics can be listed in the regs.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Anders and then Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I just wanted to say that based on the questions Mr. Morrison asked of Mr. Burtch, noise and I think a couple of others were already covered under other regulations or under other acts.

I'm trying to understand what the purpose would be of having an all-encompassing definition here if it's already covered in other places. If the purpose here is to deal with combustion emissions, why not call them that?

The Chairman: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I think on the comparisons that have been used, if you look carefully at the wording it says, “make regulations restricting or otherwise governing the release” of them. We're not talking about spillage or anything like that; we're talking about the release of something into the air. We're not talking about spillage.

It seems to me the pollutants we're talking about are just those involved with the combustion within the engines. And I don't know why we can't say that, really.

The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we're getting into a very complicated area here. When you go to the gas pump, you'll notice they do have gadgets to make sure nothing spills at the pump. I want to tell you that Diesel's patent stated that motive force by means of air compressed to so high a degree that by expansion subsequent to combustion, the air is cooled to atmospheric temperature. When that air is compressed, fuel is gradually introduced, and is spontaneously ignited.

So a lot of different things happen in combustion processes, and I think you need to leave it open.

I could expand it a little more, but I don't think you guys want any more of this kind of stuff.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I was just going to mention Mr. Bailey's concern with regard to the release of pollutants. I mean, opening your toilets right to the track, as the train is moving down the track, might be a “release of pollutants”. I just want to make sure we have the definition wide open so that we can deal with the release of pollutants.

The Chairman: Is there further debate on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 34 agreed to)

(On clause 35)

The Chairman: Someone had asked that clause 35 be pulled, but is there no problem with 35?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Why did somebody ask to have it pulled? There must always be a reason.

The Chairman: Let's take the time to feel comfortable with it.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: It was only because I was going by the number in the act. They were changed around. It should have been 27, so I asked for 35 to be pulled.

Mr. Lee Morrison: So it's all your fault.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Absolutely. I'll take responsibility for this one.

The Chairman: And we've dealt with clause 27.

• 1620

Are you ready for the question on clause 35?

(Clause 35 agreed to)

The Chairman: We shall go back to clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill, with amendments, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall we go home?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.