Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

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

Okay, I move that Bill C-49 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 41 the following new clause:

59.1(1) The Minister shall, no later than three years after the first day on which sections 2 to 59 of this Act are all in force, carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of this act in relation to the Canada Transportation Act, and any other Act of Parliament for which the Minister is responsible that pertains to the economic regulation of a mode of transportation or to transportation activities under the legislative authority of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would simply like to understand one thing. In what has just been read, it states, “The Minister shall … appoint”, then the idea of people being appointed is removed. If I understand correctly, the minister no longer has to appoint anyone. It should read “no later than three years after the first day on which sections 2 to 59 of this Act are all in force, the Minister shall proceed”, as there is no longer an appointment. Is that it? In my opinion, the word “appoints” should be struck out at the beginning of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, all right.

To the department, do you have any comment? Have you had time to review this?

[Helena Borges]

I haven't, but I understand that the amendment is for a review of the legislation.

The minister can at any time review the legislation. In fact, I think the previous minister demonstrated, with the recent review by Mr. Emerson, that that was moved up in time. The provisions of the act were also reviewed in 2013 and 2014. The act can basically be opened at any time, and the minister has the authority already to do this. We don't think that an amendment is needed at this point to accomplish that.

We haven't included anything in this bill in regard to that, but the minister already has existing authorities for reviews.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

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

Right now the minister's review is, if you like, voluntary. I wonder if we should consider something that requires a review, which this amendment does, although the track record is that the act has been reviewed very frequently, certainly much more frequently than every three years. We could put it out there that there is value in having some sort of a mandate to do it at a specific date on the calendar.

[Helena Borges]

If there were to be a review, as I think Ms. Block said, every three years, that would be a pretty short time period, because by the time these amendments would take effect.... Some of them are taking effect six months or a year after the provisions are passed. Would that provide sufficient time for evidence to demonstrate the working of the act? That would be a consideration to take into account.

Other pieces of legislation do have mandatory review periods, but usually reviews are no more frequent than every five years, and in some cases ten years, depending on the legislation, so three years is a pretty tight time frame.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I would have to agree with the members of staff for the most part. Transportation is looked at not only in isolation with transportation-related issues but also with respect to ongoing monitoring of the economy.

If we look at the CPA review, that was the case. The previous government, rightly so, recognized the economic downturn situation we were in at the time and, of course, also recognized how much it would impact the review of the Canada Transportation Act. When this government came into office, we also recognized not only the need for review of the act but also the need to review and put forward an actual transportation strategy that would align with our economic strategy. I think that goes without saying for the most part, because transportation is a big part of our economic strength.

With that said, I think this would simply be redundant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

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

Madam Chair, I would just put forward that Bill C-30 was introduced in 2013-14 to address some very unusual circumstances, and here we are in 2017, three years later, saying we have all the information we need to conclude that while the extended interswitching was great for the circumstance for which it was created, we need to allow that measure to sunset and move on to another remedy.

I would respectfully disagree that three years doesn't give one enough time to review a piece of legislation to see if a certain remedy is working. That's apparently what happened with extended interswitching here, so I would welcome somebody perhaps lengthening that time, but I think with long-haul interswitching, it would be a really good idea to review that legislation to see if it is in fact accomplishing the purpose for which it has been created.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Chong, then Mr. Aubin.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to propose an amendment to the amendment, which would be to replace the word “three” with the word “five”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Aubin.

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

I'll say two things.

First, I agree that what we're discussing requires review. I find the three-year period sufficient as long as it's three years after the first day on which sections 2 to 59 are in force. What we were told was that a transition period is not part of the calculation. It's three years from when everything will be in place, which I think is quite reasonable.

The second aspect is to give the department full responsibility rather than assigning the evaluation to another committee. There are two elements in the amendment that must be taken into account: the obligation to conduct an evaluation after three years and that it is the direct responsibility of the department.

It's not up to me to decide whether the friendly amendment will be in order or not, but as far as I am concerned, I agree with those three years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion? Is there any comment from the department?

[Helena Borges]

Maybe in response to looking at specific provisions of the act, I believe section 49 of the act gives the minister the power to review anything, any issue, any specific part, any part that you want to look at. We've used that power in the past to review, for example, level of service. There were two big studies that were done in the past seven years related to level of service.

The act already provides that to the minister, so if there is something that is specific, if you want the LHI to be reviewed, the minister could review that and ask for that review to be conducted either by the department, the agency, or some external party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion?

Not seeing any, we have a subamendment moved by Mr. Chong, changing “three years” to “five years”.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Then we have Ms. Block's amendment, “no later than three years after the first day”. You have it in front of you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 60 agreed to)

Amendment LIB-4 is proposed clause 60.1. Who would like to speak to that?

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Chair, you have an amendment in front of you that proposes a change to the CN Commercialization Act, whereby it will allow CN to increase its shareholder ownership limit from 15% to 25%. It's a minor technical amendment. It could be made to the bill to make this increase effective upon royal assent. This would simplify the process for CN and align with the policy intent of the proposal.

It's a change requested by CN; they think it will help them.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the bill is fair and equitable to all stakeholders. No other railway company is subject to such limits.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any discussion or comment on amendment LIB-4?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 61)

We have NDP-8.

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the next few minutes, you will see a number of amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party. They are all similar, because the discourse must be consistent.

In all the presentations, we were told that tapes of these voice and video recorders would not be used in any particular situation. The only thing on which all witnesses agreed was that these recordings should only be used by members of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, or TSB. The bill should not contain any clauses that give the railways the power to do anything else because of criteria that are not quite clear. That's what we are trying to correct or eliminate.

Amendment NDP-8 proposes that Bill C-49, in clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 42 with the following:

(2) No company referred to in subsection (1) shall use the information that it records, collects or preserves under that subsection. Instead of explaining how the company should not do it in unfortunate situations, let's say from the start that it cannot do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

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

Madam Chair, in relation to that amendment, I would just remind our committee of the rail study we did. I don't even remember the timing or when we did it. It was shortly after we came back in the 42nd Parliament. Recommendation 12 in that study stated:

That Transport Canada immediately develop legislative and regulatory structures to mandate the use of locomotive voice and video recorders by railway companies, and that effective rules be put in place to ensure recordings are used exclusively by the appropriate government authorities during Transportation Safety Board accident investigations or in subsequent criminal investigations to which they directly relate.

I believe Mr. Aubin's amendment is in keeping with the recommendation we made in the rail safety study report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the department like to comment?