Evidence of meeting #55 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Shall amendment G-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)
There are no amendments for clauses 15 and 16.
(Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to)
Mr. McCallum.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, I will, once we get into the bulk of them.
There are no amendments for clauses 17 or 18.
(Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to)
(On clause 19)
We have an NDP amendment on clause 19, amendment NDP-3 on page 10.
Mr. Julian.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Currently the act reads that
The Minister may designate any person whom the Minister considers qualified as a railway safety inspector or a screening officer for the purposes of this Act
What Mr. Bevington is proposing is that it be changed to read “employee,”—of the crown—“as defined by section 2 of the Government Employees Compensation Act” and that only employees of the crown would be railway safety inspectors.
Mr. Bevington reminds us, and you will recall, Mr. Chair, that the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees came forward and stated their concern about having inspectors who could be appointed who were employed by the railways, which creates a conflict of interest. This would very clearly stipulate that employees of the crown—government employees—are the only ones who could be safety inspectors and thus remove that potential conflict of interest that exists.
On behalf of Mr. Bevington, I will move that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
My understanding is that this would then prohibit outside contractors, outside independent experts, or even retired personnel who had previously worked as employees but had maybe gone consulting or something, from being included. That's my understanding.
Would that be correct from your perspective?
Unless someone can convince me otherwise, my gut tells me I will be voting against this. The question I have is that I don't understand why we wouldn't look for the absolute best person. I suspect there are not tons of people outside the government who are qualified for this, but there may be, and why wouldn't we go for the best?
I'll ask the first question to the witnesses.
Are you aware whether there are many people outside the government, number one, who would be qualified to take these positions? I know it is the minister's judgment, but would there be, and what sort of ranks would they come from?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
It never happened in the past. Usually, when people come on board with us on a contract basis, they work for us. If they've got the qualifications, we may qualify them as railway safety inspectors.
The only issue I have with the way it's worded now is that it makes reference to “screening officer”, who are not under the purview of the rail safety directorate. They're under security. So I could not accept something like that without at least consulting with them to see what it means, whether they have security officers who would be impacted by that. They don't report to us.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Are you saying this would then take the ability...? Not that the minister necessarily would do this to put a screening officer, but instead of having some of the technical expertise of safety, in theory you could have someone who had more security expertise, then, be put in charge. Am I understanding that correctly?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
No, the thing is that the Railway Safety Act, the way it's worded now, is what we use to determine who's going to be a rail safety inspector, who reports to my directorate, but it also covers screening officers who are under the security directorate, which is another branch in Transport Canada. We got that yesterday afternoon, so they've never been consulted on that. I don't know what the impact would be for them, on screening officers, on their ability to qualify screening officers. I can't provide any information on that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
So we'd sort of be flying blind if we voted for this, not knowing the consequences.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I'm not comfortable, then. Again, to your experience, basically everyone who's ever done this job has been a government employee.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Working for us either on a.... I mean, we have people who are hired full time with us, but we do have to bring in people part time.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
So this amendment would then be dealing with a theoretical possibility that's not happened yet.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Okay. So we might want to be precluding some unique circumstances.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to say that this brings me back to what happened with the underwear bomber. What if we got a threat in relation to trains, or particular trains, and all of a sudden we had to have 50 RCMP officers out there doing inspections for screening? I can't imagine that happening, and I sure hope it doesn't, but if in an emergency situation, if we get a threat from somebody like that, I think that would be a situation where you might say, okay, immediately we have to get 50 RCMP officers on a train and they have to be Transport Canada employees or whatever the case might be.
Would that be a situation that might...?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
I don't know, because again, it's a security situation. We don't deal with security. We don't even deal with safety. From a safety standpoint, every inspector who carries out the function of an inspector needs to be qualified as per our own criteria. We do have training programs they need to follow; then they will get their inspector card. Everyone we've got now is a Transport Canada employee, but we do from time to time, because there's a shortage of people and it's hard to find someone...that we will hire someone who has all the skills and bring them on board for six months.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I don't have as part of the amendment, of course, the definition in the Government Employees Compensation Act, but it includes, “any member, officer or employee of any department, company, corporation, commission, board or agency established to perform a function or duty on behalf of the Government of Canada who is declared by the Minister” or “in the service of Her Majesty”. That's how it's defined in the Government Employees Compensation Act. I think the scenario that Mr. Jean raises is dealt with in the definition of federal employees under the Government Employees Compensation Act.
I certainly do respond to the concerns around screening officers, and I'd entertain a friendly amendment if the will of this committee was to exclude the impact of this amendment from screening officers. The intent was to ensure that railway safety inspectors were government employees.
