Evidence of meeting #89 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
It has to be Mr. Bachrach. It can't be Mr. Barsalou-Duval. He can't amend his own motion.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Very much along the lines of what Ms. Koutrakis was saying, I think the original proposed amendment would state that any exemption granted under subsection (1) or (2) shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it comes into force.
I would amend that to read like this: “Any exemption granted under subsection (1) or (2) shall be published on the Transport Canada website within 30 days after it comes into force and by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I see a lot of nodding heads. That was well done, Mr. Bachrach. However, I have Mr. Strahl, who would like to join in.
Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours, sir.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I just think the order it's in should be “on the...website” and then the “30 days” should be at the end of that sentence. It shouldn't be “on the...website within 30 days” and then however else not captured by the 30 days. The words are fantastic. It's just the ordering I'm concerned about.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Strahl, it's rare that you get a smile from Mr. Bachrach.
I see a lot of nodding heads, all jokes aside, Mr. Strahl, so I think everybody is in favour of that reorganizing of the wording.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Do you want me to try one more time, Mr. Chair, with that change?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The legislative clerk is proposing to read it to everyone to see if we have it right, like the Goldilocks porridge.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
I think I have it. It would read, once amended, “(10) Any exemption granted under subsection (1) or (2) shall be published on the Transport Canada website and by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate within 30 days after it comes into force.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We have the proposed wording for the subamendment. We'll go to a recorded vote.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
We'll go to a vote on the amendment as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
We'll go to a vote on whether clause 8 shall carry as amended.
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, we have no submitted amendments for clauses 9 to 22.
Do I have unanimous consent to group clauses 9 to 22?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We can pass them on division. Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
Shall clauses 9 to 22 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The clerk is saying that on division means that you're not in agreement, which means that—
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
In the House we pass things on division all the time. It's on the list. It's on the sheet we were given as an option.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I will turn it over to the clerk and follow the guidance of our legislative clerks. We will have a recorded vote on clauses 9 to 22.
Shall clauses 9 to 22 carry?
(Clauses 9 to 22 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 23)
I will turn it over to Mr. Bachrach for NDP-1.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The proposed amendment would read:
Regulations made under subsection (1) shall require companies to publish the contents of their safety management systems and any information that is necessary to explain the operation of the system.
This relates to testimony the committee heard from witnesses who were concerned about the fact that safety management systems for the rail sector remain proprietary documents despite the fact that they're also, I think it's fair to say, the dominant tool for ensuring the safety of rail workers, communities and the environment. This would simply provide much-needed transparency and allow the Canadian public and those who are affected by the rail sector to better understand the primary system that is said to be protecting their safety. I think it's fairly self-explanatory.
I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
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.
NDP
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
You do have the option to challenge the chair.