Karen McCrimmon

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise during this report stage to continue our review of Bill C-22, which would create a committee of parliamentarians on national security matters.

I am pleased to see that today this bill has not only been through committee scrutiny, but thanks to all of that work, the advice of experts, many stakeholders, and the voices of Canadians, we have landed on a version that balances all those concerns. We have agreed to an expanded mandate. We have agreed to remove certain exclusions to the unprecedented level of classified information that this committee will be able to access, and we have balanced concerns about ministerial powers of redaction and national security limitations with reasonable compromises.

As we have moved this significant legislation forward, much has been made about how Canada's committee will compare with counterparts in other Five Eyes countries. Indeed, Bill C-22 would have favourably compared to them as initially introduced. However, this amended version will make it even stronger. If we look closely at another country with a Westminster system comparable to Canada's, for example, the United Kingdom, we see very interesting comparisons with parliamentary review of national security and intelligence. There, in particular, the balance between access to highly sensitive information and protection of national security is reflected in the U.K. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

In the U.K. model, ministers may choose to withhold certain types of sensitive information, as long as the disclosure would be counter to the interests of national security. Specifically in the U.K., its Justice and Security Act states that if asked to disclose information, the government can withhold the information because it is “sensitive information” and that “in the interests of national security, should not be disclosed..”.

If we look to the Australian model, similarly, the government cannot be compelled to provide operationally sensitive information, including intelligence sources, operational methods, or foreign intelligence, if that information is deemed injurious to either national security or foreign relations. All international partners agree that access to information must be balanced with the need for safety of sources and the integrity of the national security framework, and that ongoing investigations should be free of political interference.

Under Bill C-22, Canada's committee would have a statutory right to access highly classified information in any department, any agency, and now, thanks to an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, any crown corporation, making our committee an international leader in terms of information access.

To continue with comparisons, Canada's committee would also be in line administratively with other Westminster systems, for example, on security clearances. However, Canada's committee would go further still in the scope of its mandate, as its jurisdiction would not be limited to the main national security agencies.

Also, unique to Canada, the committee would be able to engage and collaborate with existing expert review bodies, including the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, the Security Intelligence Review Committee for CSIS, and the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.

What is more, Canada's committee would have a unique membership. We are now proposing a body with up to eleven members, including up to three senators, and with a limit of five MPs from the governing party. Certainly this will be reflective of Canada's diversity in advice and expertise, in experience, and in opinion. It will ensure that the government does not control the committee.

I also want to emphasize that this is a made-in-Canada approach. We have taken the best of what we have learned from our allies and applied it to our own system and reality, establishing a body that is unprecedented in Canadian history. It has been lacking for a long time. This goes further than what the government under Prime Minister Paul Martin envisioned in 2005, and it goes further than what many of our allies actually have. What is more, I want to remind hon. members about the checks and balances we have in place to ensure that the committee can evolve and become stronger in the future.

As with any new institution, there will be early experiences that can lead to subsequent improvements. There will also need to be a confidence-building process with the security and intelligence community, as well as with the Canadian public, and with us as parliamentarians. In fact, when Dominic Grieve, the chair of the British committee, visited Ottawa last year, his advice was to start small, build trust, and enhance the committee over time. With Bill C-22, we will actually be starting rather large, with a committee that would have more access and more teeth than many of its international counterparts, including the United Kingdom. A mandatory five-year review included as part of this bill would ensure that the committee's effectiveness and experiences could be studied and lessons applied, so that this new institution in the Canadian national security landscape could become as effective as possible.

I see no reason at this stage of this bill's journey to hold back this truly collaborative and long-overdue legislation. It reflects values that we have long agreed upon, and the final version will incorporate, with the government's agreement, a significant number of amendments proposed by the public safety committee. I commend all members for their valued input, and I applaud the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for its review. We are at an important juncture in the history of our country's security framework, and this bill gets to the root of the dual objectives that Canadians have told us they want achieved: keeping our country safe while protecting our values, rights, and freedoms. I urge all members to support this bill.

[Railway Safety Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-322, which would amend the Railway Safety Act and provide the Minister of Transport with an authority to order a railway company to construct a road crossing. I will explain the reasons why the government will not support the bill.

The Government of Canada does have a mandate to oversee the safety of federally regulated railway operations in Canada. Dating back to its inception in 1989, the Railway Safety Act, administered by Transport Canada, gives the current Minister of Transport direct jurisdiction over railways that fall within the legislative authority of Parliament, as well as the authority to oversee their safety.

Transport Canada's role is to monitor regulated entities, such as federal railway companies, local railway companies, provincial railways that operate on federally regulated track, and road authorities, which can include municipalities, provinces, and band councils, for compliance with the rules, regulations, and engineering standards under the Railway Safety Act through a robust oversight program.

Transport Canada also monitors for safety and has the authority to act to address threats and immediate threats to safe railway operations through various means, including ordering corrective actions. In fact, the Railway Safety Act provides both the Minister of Transport and Transport Canada railway safety inspectors with several authorities to address railway safety issues when there is a risk, threat, or concern caused by a railway operation to the safety of the public, as well as railway personnel, and the protection of property and the environment.

In addition, the Grade Crossings Regulations, which came into force in November 2014, contain a number of provisions that set out roles and responsibilities at federally regulated grade crossings, fostering collaboration between railway companies and road authorities toward improving safety.

Allow me to describe the existing authorities and mechanisms that are currently in place.

The Railway Safety Act provides inspectors with direct authority to conduct inspections and audits and to address safety threats. The act provides authority for an inspector to issue a notice to inform a company that a threat to safety has been identified. The notice is provided to the company identifying the threat and the company must provide a response as to how it will address it. Where a threat is deemed immediate by an inspector, the Railway Safety Act also provides authority to include an order in the notice restricting the company's use of railway equipment, infrastructure, or railway operation creating the immediate threat, or allowing that operations can continue but under terms and conditions specified by the inspector until the company mitigates the immediate threat on a more permanent basis.

In June 2015, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act was passed, which amended the Railway Safety Act and provided a series of broader authorities for both the Minister of Transport and railway safety inspectors to better address rail safety threats, risks, and concerns. These new authorities allow inspectors to issue notices, in the event of a threat to safety, to any person or entity that has responsibility in relation to that threat, including railways, road authorities, and municipalities. Furthermore, in the event of an immediate safety threat, an inspector may issue a notice and order to any person or entity, again including railway companies, road authorities, and municipalities, and order them to take specific corrective actions to remove the immediate threat.

These broadened inspector authorities complement a similar authority for the Minister of Transport. If the minister considers it necessary in the interests of safe railway operations, the minister may order the company, road authority, or municipality to stop any activity that might constitute a threat to safe railway operations, or to follow procedures, or to take corrective measures specified in the order, including constructing, altering, operating or maintaining railway work, which includes crossings. Another key consideration, in addition to these existing authorities under the Railway Safety Act, is that a process for opening new road crossings already exists.

Whereas Transport Canada is responsible for the safety oversight of railway operations, the Canadian Transportation Agency, an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, sets the ground rules that establish the rights and responsibilities of transportation services providers and users, and resolves disputes.

Rest assured that these responsibilities are complementary to addressing both safety and economic concerns with respect to rail crossings in Canada. Both organizations promote a collaborative approach for road authorities and railway companies to work together to determine whether to open a road crossing. Should discussions be unsuccessful, proponents can access services, such as mediation and adjudication, through the Canadian Transportation Agency.

It is important to note that agency decisions made through adjudication are legally binding and can include where crossings should be located, conditions the crossing must meet, and apportionment of the costs. In the exceptional circumstances that the minister orders the construction, alteration, operation, or maintenance of a railway work, the proponent may, if there is another beneficiary of the work, refer the allocation of liability and costs to the Canadian Transportation Agency for a determination.

In either instance, once a road crossing is to be opened, the road authority and railway company are responsible for the safety of the crossing and Transport Canada is responsible for monitoring compliance to the standards and regulations.

Moreover, Transport Canada takes appropriate enforcement action when safety concerns or instances of non-compliance to the regulations and standards are identified. In addition to the tools already mentioned, inspectors can use administrative tools, such as letters of concern sent to railways and road authorities, in order to mitigate safety concerns. In the event of non-compliance, Transport Canada's actions may range from a letter of warning to a fine through an administrative monetary penalty to prosecution and finally to the suspension or cancellation of the company's railway operating certificate, essentially shutting down its operations.

To be clear, when all other avenues have been exhausted and when there are exceptional threats to safety, the Minister of Transport already has the authority, under section 32.01 of the Railway Safety Act, to order a company, road authority or municipality to, among other things, take corrective measures to address a threat to safe railway operations, including constructing a road crossing.

We understand that certain communities living in close proximity to railway operations are struggling to combat willful trespassing on railway property. I believe the intention of the bill is sincere and is a way to address these trespassing issues. While the government fully understands the importance of this issue, the bill looks to amend the Railway Safety Act. However, doing so would duplicate existing authorities already in place.

As I have mentioned, under the Railway Safety Act, the Minister of Transport has the appropriate tools and authorities to respond to safety concerns or threats to safe railway operations. I know the Minister of Transport and Transport Canada will not hesitate to exercise these delegated powers when necessary.

It is for these reasons that the Government of Canada does not support Bill C-322.

[Railway Safety Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for her initiative and her speech this morning. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-322, which would amend the Railway Safety Act to provide the Minister of Transport—

[The Environment, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to delivering on a mandate, and we are putting significant money, $1.5 billion, into an oceans protection plan. We need to manage our natural resources, all of our resources, and we need to spend taxpayers' money responsibly.

In support of the Canadian transportation sector, it will be about building new markets and new gateways, providing better service to Canadians.

[Air Transportation, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, any decision about Canada's transportation system will be in the best interests of Canadian travellers and Canadian gateways. We will make strategic investments in trade and transportation projects that build stronger more efficient transportation corridors to international markets and help Canadian businesses to compete, grow, and create more jobs for the middle class. That is the program we are on, and we are going to continue.

[Air Transportation, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that a strong, integrated, and modern transportation system is fundamental to Canada's continuing economic performance and competitiveness. We will also support greater choice, better service, lower costs, and new rights for middle-class Canadian travellers.

We are working hard to improve the transportation system to better serve Canadians.

[Canadian Agricultural Safety Week, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, next week is Canadian Agricultural Safety Week in Canada.

My riding of Kanata—Carleton includes the fantastic farmers of West Carleton, from Panmure to Kinburn to Carp to Fitzroy Harbour. Unlike other occupations, a lot of farms are family-run operations, when the home becomes an industrial work site.

Canadian Agricultural Safety Week is an annual public awareness campaign focused on the importance of maintaining safe farming practices. I encourage everyone to check out the agricultural safety website for great information. It is designed to help farmers adopt sound safety practices.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our hard-working farmers. Their work is critical to our survival and prosperity, and doing it safely is fundamental.

I want to say a special thanks to all the farmers of West Carleton. As I have said on a number of occasions, if we like to eat, we should thank a farmer.

[The Environment, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I again take the opportunity to mention that in our efforts to restore and protect marine ecosystems and habitats as part of our $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, we will be taking measures to address abandoned and derelict vessels in Canadian waters. This will include the introduction of new legislation to prohibit vessel abandonment, and based on a polluter pays principle, increase vessel owner responsibility and liability for derelict and wrecked vessels. We will work with other levels of government to clean up priority smaller legacy vessels posing risks to our communities.

We recognize the threats that abandoned, derelict, and wrecked vessels pose to Canadians and our environment. We are taking a responsible approach to address this very complex issue, and we are doing it in collaboration with our partners and stakeholders. Our government is committed to improving marine safety and responsible shipping, and to protecting Canada's marine environment.

[The Environment, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith's concern about the need to systematically address the problems of abandoned, derelict, and wrecked vessels, and the impact they present for our coastal communities in particular. This is a problem that has been building for a long time.

Over the past year, our government has taken direct action to address several of these problem vessels. For example, our government has proceeded to the removal of the Viki Lyne II in Ladysmith harbour in British Columbia, and the dismantling and removal of the MV Kathryn Spirit in Beauharnois, Quebec. Both are under way.

However, this alone cannot be a vessel-by-vessel approach. We are committed to a broad, comprehensive strategy, and I am proud that our Prime Minister announced plans for this strategy on November 7, 2016, as part of our oceans protection plan. The cornerstone of our strategy is vessel owner responsibility. We believe that those who act irresponsibly when it comes to end-of-life vessel management should be held accountable. We know Canadians share this view. We heard it loud and clear in our national consultations.

Our government intends to table new legislation in 2017 that would prohibit the act of vessel abandonment while also enabling a more proactive approach to vessels before they become a bigger problem and more costly to remediate. Vessel owners would be responsible and liable for the costs associated with vessel cleanup. Alongside this new legislation, we will strengthen systems that allow for the identification of vessel owners so that we can hold to account those who act irresponsibly. We will also join 30 other countries and move to adopt the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. This would ensure vessel owners are fully liable and responsible for the costs of removal of a wreck resulting from a maritime accident or an act of nature. These new measures would mean that vessel owners would no longer be allowed to walk away from a vessel they do not want or do not properly maintain without the possibility of sanctions.

Finally, we cannot ignore the suite of legacy vessels that are already affecting our coastlines and communities. While developing a longer-term solution, which I have already laid out, in the short term our government will support the cleanup of priority small vessels in our coastal communities, and assess the requirements for larger priority commercial vessels. Transport Canada is working closely with the Canadian Coast Guard and other federal partners so that we can leverage each department's expertise and make the most efficient use of our resources. We are also actively engaged with concerned governments, communities, and stakeholders across the country as we develop our plan, and they will be important partners moving forward.

The challenges and therefore the solutions are complex, but our government is demonstrating leadership on the issue, and we are confident we have the right approach.

[Air Transportation, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the need to support the economic growth of Canadian communities and the important role that small airports play in that regard.

A mechanism has been put in place to allow non-designated airports to pay to obtain security screening services. Last year, Transport Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority talked to many small airport operators, including that of Sherbrooke, about how to implement security screening services on a cost-recovery basis in their airport.

We will continue to work with small airports that want to have security screening services.