Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Chair, I want to thank the clerk for bringing up the letter that we received from the Privacy Commissioner on September 12. I think that could have been the last day of our committee meetings on Bill C-49. I think it's really important to mention that the Privacy Commissioner noted...and I'll only pick out a couple of statements out of this letter:

However, we find the provision allowing rail companies to have access to these data for proactive safety spot checks is less clearly defined.

I think they're identifying a lack in the bill. Then he is also saying that:

In our view, allowing rail companies to have broad access to audio and video data for non-investigatory purposes has a greater impact on privacy, and could open the door to potential misuse of the data or function creep.

I think we have to be aware that we have the Privacy Commissioner weighing in on this piece of legislation and pointing out to us where there may be a need for more clarity. I guess our committee has to decide whether or not we're fine to leave that clarity up to what may be put in the regulations. What is the result of this? What will happen if we've received this letter from the Privacy Commissioner in regard to a proposed bill and we do not take those concerns...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We all received the letter, so we all received the information. We're all very aware of his concerns. Sure, if the department wishes to speak to it, but we all received the letter and we all read the letter. He outlines areas of concern. I think overall, everybody is concerned with the same thing, which is to make sure that information doesn't get used for purposes that were not the intent.

Would you like to have a brief response to this?

[Helena Borges]

Maybe I'll ask Brigitte, who's been dealing with this and with the privacy element of it, if she can elaborate on the privacy controls that will be put in place as part of the regulations.

[Brigitte Diogo, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

Thank you.

In terms of the proposal, it was really important to put in the legislation the two uses, or what the companies will be permitted to use the information for. It was really to ensure that there was no discretion or interpretation about the use of information, and that through regulation we would be defining clearly the privacy control that needs to be put in place.

When we talk about random selection of the data, the intent is to put in regulation what are the parameters that a company would need to put in place to do that random selection. Again, it's not leaving 100% discretion to railway companies to determine that process for the policies they would need to put in place to protect the information, to prevent unauthorized use, to ensure that there is a tracking of who has access to the data and for what, and to ensure that we build into the system an audit record. It's not just us taking the word of railway companies in terms of submitting to us documentation about how they are tracking information. We can match that against an electronic audit trail that would really be able to confirm that what we are seeing in the tracking documents is indeed what the electronic signature is telling us.

So the intent is for those policies to be submitted to Transport Canada for review in terms of the random sampling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hardie, and then Mr. Aubin.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Just briefly, Madam Chair, if we are committed through the ministry and the department to the SMS, we certainly have to permit the use of this in the interests of maintaining a good safety system. It's obviously a management tool. We'll have to guard against fishing expeditions, but if control finds out that somebody has blown through a signal, I'd want to know what was going on in the cab at that time.

What happens as a result of that? Is there some sort of remedial training or whatever, or is discipline applied? That's an area where I would expect the regulations to be as prescriptive as possible. Certainly the union is there too, of course, to protect the members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin is the last speaker on this.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I always see it as a problem when you can't take a position on future regulations because you don't have them. The more I listen to the interventions, the stronger I feel in my initial position. Although we wanted to tie everything together, we are always adding or opening a door somewhere, unless there is a rare exception.

I would like to know whether the officials remember Transport Canada's study, which was tabled in 2013. If my memory serves, it was in the previous Parliament. A working committee had brought together trade unions and employers and had come to the conclusion that these voice and video recorders were not necessarily a guarantee of safety effectiveness.

Do you recall that report?

[Helena Borges]

Ms. Diogo, you may answer.

[Brigitte Diogo]

Yes. Essentially, the report's findings were to let the companies do it voluntarily. We think the bill provides a framework for the possible use of the information, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the railway companies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

All those in favour of amendment NDP-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have amendment PV-1, which you all have in front of you.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Do I have to move it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No. It's from an independent member, and it's moved automatically here.

The motion is to amend Bill C-49 in clause 61 by adding after line 20 on page 42 the following:

(4) The information that a company records, collects or preserves under subsection (1) shall not be destroyed if it is used, or can reasonably be expected to be used, for any purpose authorized under this Act.

Is there any discussion on that amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 61 agreed to)

(On clause 62)

We have amendment NDP-9.

Monsieur Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have already given some thought to the amendments that have been tabled on this, and amendment NDP-9 is exactly the same. It is intended to ensure that the railways do not use the recordings after they have been collected and retained. It is in line with NDP amendment 8. I do not think it would be very helpful to waste a lot of time going back over the substantive arguments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendment PV-2, another one from Ms. May, that Bill C-49 in clause 62 be amended by adding after line 4 on page 43 the following:

(1.1) For greater certainty, the information that a company records, collects or preserves under subsection 17.31(1) is not to be used for any purposes other than the one referred to in paragraph (1), including managerial review or productivity and employee output measurement.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 62 agreed to)

(Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to)

(On clause 65)

We have amendment NDP-10.

Monsieur Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Give me a few seconds to find the right page, Madam Chair.

This amendment is in keeping with the others that we have tabled. At least we're consistent in our amendments.

We would like only the TSB to have access to the voice and video recordings, but this amendment doesn't give the minister permission to request the recordings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-10?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 65 agreed to)

(Clause 66 agreed to)

(On clause 67)

We have amendment NDP-11.

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The justification is the same as for the previous amendments, and I have the impression that the outcome will be the same, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments or discussion on amendment NDP-11?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 67 agreed to)

(Clause 68 agreed to)

(On clause 69)

Mr. Aubin, would you propose your amendment NDP-12, please.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Amendment NDP-12 proposes that Bill C-49, in clause 69, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 49 with the following:

(3) The costs incurred for the delivery of screening by the Authority under the terms of an agreement entered into under subsection (1) shall be borne by the Authority and may not be recovered from the other party to the agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.

Based on the information from the legislative clerk, it is unacceptable as it is an amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading. It is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

I have to rule that NDP-12 is out of order.

(Clause 69 agreed to)

(Clauses 70 to 76 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 77)

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have amendment CPC-22.

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Chair, this is a recommendation that came to our committee through Mr. Tougas. Quite simply, the rationale would be because C-49 is not oriented toward fulsome disclosure, not to customers, not to the agency, and not to the minister, the proposal is a simpler revision to the performance data provisions of C-49.