Bill C-33

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends several Acts in order to strengthen the port system and railway safety in Canada.
The enactment amends the Customs Act to require that, on request, any person in possession or control of imported goods make those goods available for examination in accordance with regulations and deliver those goods, or cause them to be delivered, to a secure area that meets the requirements set out in regulation.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) add a definition of “safety” that includes the concept of security;
(b) prohibit interference with any railway work, railway equipment or railway operation, or damage or destruction of any railway work or railway equipment, without lawful excuse, in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations;
(c) prohibit behaviour that endangers or risks endangering the safety of a station, railway equipment or individuals who are at the station or on board the railway equipment and unruly behaviour toward employees, agents or mandataries of a company;
(d) authorize the Minister to order a company to take necessary corrective measures if the Minister believes that
(i) a measure taken by the company in relation to a requirement of a regulation made under subsection 18(2.1) has deficiencies that risk compromising the security of railway transportation,
(ii) the security management system developed by the company has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security, or
(iii) the implementation of the company’s security management system has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security;
(e) authorize the Minister to grant, refuse to grant, suspend or cancel a transportation security clearance;
(f) strengthen the administrative monetary penalty regime; and
(g) require a review of the operation of the Act every five years.
The enactment also amends the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 to, among other things,
(a) require persons who import, offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods to register with the Minister;
(b) provide to the Minister powers relating to the management of safety risks; and
(c) establish an administrative monetary penalty regime.
The enactment also amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to, among other things,
(a) set out the Act’s purpose and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with organizations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act;
(b) set out regulation-making powers that include powers respecting threats and risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system, the sharing of information and the establishment of vessel exclusion zones;
(c) authorize the Minister to make interim orders and give emergency directions and modify the Minister’s power to give directions to vessels; and
(d) create new offences, increase certain penalties and extend the application of certain offences and the administrative monetary penalty regime to vessels.
The enactment also amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that the Minister may use electronic systems in making decisions or determinations under an Act of Parliament that the Minister administers or enforces and provide that a power of entry into a place under such an Act may be exercised remotely by means of telecommunications; and
(b) reduce the threshold above which the Minister and the Commissioner of Competition must receive notice of proposed transactions relating to a port.
The enactment also amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) set out that port authorities are responsible for management of traffic and create regulatory authorities respecting fees and information and data sharing in respect of that management;
(b) provide the minister with the power to require, by order, the taking of measures to prevent imminent harm to national security, national economic security, or competition; and
(c) require port authorities to establish advisory committees, which must include representatives from local Indigenous communities, require periodic assessments of port authorities’ governance practices and set out new requirements respecting plans and reports relating to climate change.
Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act .

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I won't need two minutes. I know that you all have a lot on your plates. I appreciate the indulgence of all committee members. I'm here under the terms of a motion passed by this committee that gives me the right to speak to the amendments I bring, which are deemed moved, but not to others, so this is a rare chance. I appreciate it very much.

I would just say to Mark Strahl that this is a weird thing that these anchorages are on our coastline, and nobody looks at them and says, “Well, there's a job I've got.” This is free parking. There is no benefit to the community whatsoever. The anchorages are not of benefit to any coastal community. They do detriment to quality of life and to the marine environment, pose threats to the southern resident killer whales from the noise of the freighters, and cause damage to the benthic organisms from dragging anchor. There are multiple issues here. We heard about them from one of the witnesses before the committee.

Specifically to NDP-2, I think what it's doing is drawing attention in Bill C-33, in that key portion where they are already looking, as Taylor has said, at questions of health and security, to the well-being of coastal communities and the security of marine transportation. These vessels, in a storm, can drag anchor. We've had collisions. We've had many near misses. We've actually had collisions in which we could easily have had an oil spill from the vessels colliding. There are numerous examples in real life, not hypotheticals, of where broadening the discretion of what the minister is looking at....

What's being looked at in this question is the environment and the well-being of coastal communities, which I think is really well expressed, including, of course, the health of the people on board. Frankly, it's in no one's economic interest to have these ships just sitting there. It doesn't help the grain growers in the prairies one little bit. The Port of Vancouver doesn't have a good, effective system right now for bulk goods. The two main types of bulk goods, grain and coal, have a history of backing up. As they back up and back up and back up, they sit in the waters of the Salish Sea up and down the coast of Vancouver Island, proliferating in number.

I'm going to shut up there, but anything we can do in Bill C-33 to give more scope to better solutions than the current practices would be much appreciated.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The original article that is the subject of this amendment reads as follows:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act, if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a threat or to reduce a direct or indirect risk to the security of marine transportation or to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system.

The amendment's purpose is essentially to remove the word “believes”.

We therefore move that Bill C‑33, in clause 55, be amended (a) by replacing line 4 on page 38 with the following:

tion made under this Act, if im-

We think that the fact that the minister only needs to believe there is a threat or risk gives him significant power. He could therefore act simply on a belief, which he would not necessarily be required to prove.

We'd like to further circumscribe that power. There will be other similar amendments a little later today.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I know it was meant to be as friendly as possible.

Clause 12 of Bill C-33 does deal specifically with safety management systems. To the degree that we can disagree with the legislative clerks, it seems that safety management systems are very much within the scope of this bill that we're debating. If I remember it correctly, clause 12 provides the ability for the minister to direct rail companies to make changes to their safety management systems in instances in which those systems are found to be deficient. If the government looks into rail companies' safety management systems and finds deficiencies, under this bill that we're debating the minister can order the companies to amend or make changes to those safety management systems. It was because of that clause that we hoped that safety management systems would be deemed within scope. Certainly there are other changes and amendments we're considering that are similarly tangential but seem to be considered within scope.

I don't know, other than expressing my disappointment, how else I can argue this point. This is a really important change that would be a huge improvement for the way our rail sector manages safety. If it doesn't take place, what's going to continue to happen is that the primary system for ensuring safety is going to remain a black box. No one's going to be able to see how rail companies are regulating themselves and protecting rail communities, rail workers and our environment from disasters, like we saw in Lac-Mégantic.

Short of challenging the chair's ruling, which I know he made in good faith and in consultation with the experts, I don't know where to go with this other than to express my deep disappointment. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll hand it back to you in the hope that you will change your ruling—now would be the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I have a ruling on this particular amendment that I'd like to share with Mr. Bachrach and committee members.

Bill C-33 amends several acts, including the Railway Safety Act. The amendment proposes, through regulations, to require railway companies to publish the content of their safety management systems. The act is amended, in several clauses of the bill, to add the concept of security management systems without amending any of the provisions of the act related to the safety management systems.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair and in the context of the bill, adding a new regulation or new regulations to provide for the publication of the safety management systems is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I'd like to add a subsection to clause 8 in the bill, which would be subsection 10.

I move that Bill C‑33, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 4 the following:

(10) Any exemption granted under subsection (1) or (2) shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it comes into force.

That is the amendment I moved. However, there were discussions to find another way to achieve the same objective, i.e., to find a way to publish the exemptions granted to the railways and make them public. There may be other ways of doing so than through the Canada Gazette.

Perhaps you can advise me on how to proceed in order to produce a different version of the proposed amendment. Is unanimous consent required?

Do others already have an amendment to table? If not, I can proceed myself.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I can't support this, because, from what I'm hearing, this amendment would create a multitude or a cascade of other issues and the need to make additional amendments in other existing pieces of legislation, such as the Railway Safety Act. It would create more issues, which would require us to define “safety” and “security”—as I mentioned earlier in terms of my question—in every existing piece of legislation and in every clause that mentions “safety” and “security”.

Once again, I believe that Bill C-33 as written assumes that safety also includes security. It's there, and for that reason I will not support this.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On that comment, will Bill C-33 as it's written now assume that “safety” also includes “security”?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the team we have here today.

What would this change mean for the bill and the acts that are being amended by Bill C-33?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I think we're all clear on this, colleagues. There is a desire to adopt the study as amended in terms of the wording and who's going to be appearing, so I'll go to a vote on this.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We're going to do one last turn around here to see if there's anything else that we would like to have presented or spoken to, before we move on to clause 2 of Bill C-33.

Seeing none, I'll go to our first vote.

Mr. Bachrach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, the first piece of legislation sent to our committee in this session, I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Toxopeus, director general, transformation, planning and projects, and Shawn Zinck, manager, traveller, commercial and trade policy directorate, by video conference. From the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Stephen Scott, director general, rail safety; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Aiden Ryan, director, marine security operations; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome to you all.

We also have legislative clerks Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé joining us.

Welcome to you both.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, colleagues, consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. Therefore, I call clause 2—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I think we can discuss that. We obviously have some motions in the queue on things like recreational boating, etc., that are for future studies when it's the Bloc Québécois's turn to call a motion, so this would simply be a motion that we would consider when we were coming to that part of the calendar.

I know we have some things before us right now—Bill C-33 and finishing this HFR study—so it would simply be one of the ones we could choose from when we have a committee business meeting, but obviously we would like to have this as soon as possible, given the timeliness of the environment commissioner's comments yesterday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

That concludes our line of questioning for today.

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing this afternoon and for sharing their testimony.

I'd like to invite all of our witnesses appearing online to log off. For those appearing here in person with us, I ask for your patience as we deal with some committee business, which shouldn't take too much time.

Colleagues, as you know, we've distributed the committee's budget for Bill C-33. I have put forward a motion to adopt the budget.

Are there any lines of questioning or comments?

I turn it over to you, Mr. Muys.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

That leads me to another topic I wanted to address with you, which is the distinction between large and small ports. I believe you were here earlier when I discussed the issue with the minister. He couldn't respond because my time had unfortunately elapsed. I hope we'll have enough time this time.

If I'm not mistaken, you've previously worked at the Port of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a very beautiful port, which I've had a chance to visit, but it's also very small.

Do you you think it would be acceptable for the new operating rules provided for under Bill C‑33 to be different for smaller ports?

[Wade Sobkowich]

Bill C-33 doesn't include dispute resolution with the port authority, so it doesn't. It's a bit of a stretch for us to say that there is proper dispute resolution in the rail sector, because if there was, we wouldn't have the rail problems we have today.

We are definitely pursuing additional amendments to the Canada Transportation Act through the rail review that's going on right now, but, no. We believe there should be a better, proper dispute resolution with a port authority for decisions they may make, because they are in a conflict of interest position. They are potentially in a conflict of interest position both as a developer and as a regulator. We saw some of that manifest itself in some of the decisions made by the Port of Vancouver in recent years.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Sobkowich.

In a news release issued on July 20, 2022, entitled “Canadian Agriculture Groups Ready for the Most Important Harvest in a Generation”, a campaign was launched called Canada's Ready.

You were quoted as saying:

We are working in a port oversight system that simply lacks proper checks and balances, in contrast to what we have in rail or air transportation where there are tools available to hold people accountable for decisions

In your opinion, do you believe that Bill C-33 addresses those concerns that you have spoken about?