Transport committee  It depends on the contract established between the two. If CN is no longer using the entire line and it rents it instead of selling it, it will depend more on a clause in the contract than on a clause in the bill. If CN says that it will continue to own the line and maintain it, but that someone is operating on that line, at that point, it would be CN who would be responsible for the maintenance.

Transport committee  AMT mostly operates on CN and CP tracks, except for in the north, from the crossing in Blainville to Saint-Antoine or Saint-Jérôme. That is their property. It belongs to them. So, we don't meddle with it. We don't concern ourselves with that section. When they go south, toward Montreal, and get to the Blainville crossing on Seigneurie Boulevard, they are operating on railway tracks that belong to Canadian Pacific.

Transport committee  Mr. Guimond, I could say that they can do it now if they want, despite Bill C-33. Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could announce at any time that they are changing the contract made with the other and that this is how they are going to do it. The bill makes no provision for that.

Transport committee  The possibility of exemption?

Transport committee  CP owns the track; CP and CN would be accountable for the maintenance of the track, as they are right now. The only thing that will change is when that commuter rail has its own equipment, then they'll be subject for the maintenance of their equipment to Transport Canada, rather than going after the host railway to get the corrective measures.

Transport committee  Nothing should change with respect to the track when you compare it with the current regime. Currently, they're operating on CN and CP track, and they're supplying the infrastructure for these commuter rails. Both CN and CP are responsible and accountable for maintaining a safe track.

Transport committee  Are you talking about the exemption from the operating certificates? It's section 17.9, if I remember correctly.

Transport committee  I believe it's in proposed subparagraphs 17.9(1)(c) or (d) where you'll find that.

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  The railways, yes.

Transport committee  I have two things I can say. First, no railway under strictly federal jurisdiction that does not operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33. But your shortlines, which only operate on tracks under federal jurisdiction, will in no way be subject to it. Only railways under provincial jurisdiction that operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.

Transport committee  First of all, I'd like to say that the three urban transit authorities we're dealing with, which are currently under provincial jurisdiction, are very safe companies, and they're definitely not operating in an unsafe manner. However, it all goes through the railway operating certificate.

Transport committee  There are two things. The first one is, and you touched on it, accountability. They may be accountable to the province or other governing bodies, but while they're operating on federal track, as I explained on Tuesday, we have the authority to measure compliance, but no authority to impose enforcement action when they're non-compliant.

Transport committee  One thing they mentioned to us, and we told them this would not apply to them, was that many of them were concerned about the maintenance of track. A track is owned by CP or CN, depending on which commuter rail we're talking about, so it will not be the responsibility of these commuter rails under the railway operating certificate to maintain the track or to be accountable for that track.

Transport committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the members for having us here today again. The minister, on Tuesday, touched on some of the key issues in the bill, and I'd like to take about four or five minutes to let you know what we've done with all the recommendations that were generated by the Railway Safety Act review panel—the 56 of them—and the 14 that were generated by SCOTIC.