Transport Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[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.

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

Can I ask for a recorded vote on the clauses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We can definitely do that.

Is it the will of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll do recorded votes.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 5)

We'll now go to CPC-1.

For that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment responds to the concerns of the railway companies. They have expressed an interest in having separate and more robust definitions for safety and security in the bill. This would ensure that the respective requirements apply only where appropriate within the Railway Safety Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?

Mr. Badawey.

[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?

[Stephen Scott, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

I can speak to that, Chair.

It's really about migrating over the basket of tools and authorities that exist on the safety side in the Railway Safety Act and bringing them over in a clean and comprehensive way to the security side of the Railway Safety Act.

Currently, those tools and powers exist in a bit of a patchwork way on the security side, so having a combined definition will bring that over and ensure that all the tools and authorities needed to do security functions are there in the same manner that they're there to do safety.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

While it may seem like a simple solution, would the amendment create additional gaps, especially with respect to safety and security? Would it be interpreted that way in the Railway Safety Act?

[Stephen Scott]

There are a couple of considerations.

Having separate definitions would involve a series of consequential amendments throughout the entirety of the Railway Safety Act to parse out the individual powers that are there now, to basically identify or tag them as either safety or security. Given the evolving nature of safety and security scenarios over time, this could create a future gap in authorities.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

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

[Stephen Scott]

Yes, that's correct. Currently, there is no definition of “safety” in the act. Adding a definition that includes “security” will ensure a comprehensive application of tools and regulation-making powers for both safety and security scenarios going forward.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is an interesting one, because what has been proposed in this amendment is simply splitting the definition, so that there are separate definitions for “security” and “safety”.

I wonder if the officials could outline for us in a bit more detail what the ramifications of that would be in terms of the need for other amendments. Does this create a situation in which you have parts of other bills that will then need to be amended in order to specify whether it's safety or security that is being dealt with?

Is that a clear enough question?

[Rachel Heft, Manager and Senior Counsel, Transport and Infrastructure Legal Services, Department of Transport]

It would require, in every instance where the term “safety” is used in the Railway Safety Act, an amendment to include “and security”.

Where it currently says “safety”, it would include “security” and, if it didn't include the words “and security”, then there would be a gap.

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

I guess the corollary to that is this question: Are there situations in which treating safety and security with the same definition—assuming that everywhere “safety” is mentioned, it also means “security”—would create issues because actually they should be dealt with separately?

I note that safety management systems are specifically set aside as having to do only with safety. Are there other instances in which putting those two terms together...?

The concern expressed to us by the rail industry was that these were actually very different concepts that deserve different treatments. Just doing a wholesale sort of “one means the other” will create situations in which they're treating security with the same brush as safety in a way that might not be appropriate.

Is that a concern of the department's?

[Rachel Heft]

The term “security” is currently used in the Railway Safety Act where the provisions are intended to deal with security. Despite there not being a definition of security, the terms are used where it is intended to deal with malicious actors or intent. For example, “security measures” or “security documents” are terms that are already included in the Railway Safety Act to distinguish provisions and definitions that are intended to deal with security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any other questions or comments, colleagues?

We will go to a vote on CPC-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Shall clause 5 carry, colleagues?

(Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We are now moving on to clause 8.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval now has the floor and will speak to amendment BQ‑1.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Again, I appreciate the amendment. We do support the increase in transparency for ministerial decisions, of course, and we welcome the publication amendment to this clause. However, we think that publishing on TC's website, which you just mentioned as an option, would be adequate, given that it would and could be more timely and be updated more regularly, as required, as it makes it more accessible to the public.

I am prepared to make an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that “The minister must, 30 days after it comes into force, make any exemption granted under subsections (1) or (2) accessible to the public through the Internet or by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

We just have a request for clarification from the legislative clerk. Where would you be putting that in the bill?