:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I wish to extend my congratulations on the exceptional choice that the members have made to reconfigure, or re-elect, or push you into the position of chair. I want to congratulate also the two vice-chairs.
I'm accompanied by Helena Borges, who is the director general of surface transportation policy, and Brigita Gravitis-Beck, who is director general of air policy.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the members of the committee. I would like to open by reiterating the government's overall approach to amending the Canada Transportation Act. The act is a legislative framework for economic activities related to air and rail transportation in Canada and covers a number of general matters such as the role and responsibility of the Canadian Transportation Agency.
The act, which came into effect in 1996, included a requirement for a statutory review. The panel was appointed in June 2000 and undertook extensive consultations across Canada before submitting its report in June 2001.
In the five years since that review, amendments to the legislation have been introduced through bills tabled in Parliament twice: Bill , in 2003; and Bill , in 2005. Both of these bills died on the order paper.
[Translation]
The government recognizes that there have been extensive consultations and consensus-building with stakeholders over this, and that there was considerable support for many of the provisions that were in Bill .
Stakeholders are anxious for the government to move forward with improvements to the CTA. The government wishes to proceed with CTA amendments on which there is consensus using the former Bill as the base, with appropriate revisions.
In order to expedite passage of the amendments, the government has decided to split into three more manageable components. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-3, an Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act, is presently before the Senate.
Bill C-11 is the second component and deals with the air provisions, rail passenger provisions, railway noise, the grain revenue cap as well as a number of general provisions.
:
The third component will deal with shipper protection provisions. Consultations are under way with shippers and the railways on potential changes to those provisions. The intent is to table a bill later this fall.
Allow me to highlight some of the amendments contained in Bill .
Section 5 of the act contains the national transportation policy declaration, which provides a general context for the legislation. You will recall that, in its report, the Canada Transportation Act review panel recommended that the policy statement be updated. Although the underlying principles are well accepted, the panel agreed with many stakeholders who said the statement is too long and too confusing. Furthermore, the statement needs to be updated to add principles related to the environment and security.
The act sets out the powers and responsibilities of the Canadian Transportation Agency. Amendments contained in Bill will affect the agency's role and structure. There will be a reduction in the number of full-time members, from seven to five, and members will be required to reside in the national capital region. This is expected to reduce its administrative costs without affecting the efficiency and the effectiveness of the agency.
Rather than relying solely on regulatory remedies, the CTA review panel supported the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that emphasized negotiated solutions to disputes between carriers and their customers. Such approaches are often quicker, less costly, less confrontational, and more effective than regulatory measures.
In June 2000, the agency launched a pilot project based on mediation. This has proven quite successful. Bill will give the agency formal authority to engage in mediation on demand with respect to matters under its jurisdiction.
Bill also introduces a new merger review process that extends to all transportation carriers and service providers under federal jurisdiction, notably in the areas of air, rail, marine, buses, trucks, airports, and marine ports. This process would build on the strengths of the existing merger review process currently in place for the airlines.
Bill contains a number of important provisions related to air travel. In this regard, I want to emphasize that this government is committed to promoting competition in the air transportation sector and offering increased consumer choice to the travelling public. It is my intention to set out a more comprehensive air policy later on.
The bill contains several measures to enhance consumer protection. Among these is the obligation for carriers to display their terms and conditions of carriage more prominently at their business offices and on their Internet sites. Consumers are entitled to know the terms and conditions of the air service before they book a flight, to help them make informed travel choices. Amendments also help to ensure that consumers obtain fair airfare advertising that is clear, transparent, and not misleading.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, allow me to expand briefly on this last element: air fare advertising.
Good information helps Canadians make informed choices. Consumers want to be able to compare different airlines, advertised prices and to know, upfront, how much they will pay for air services when setting out to purchase airline tickets. Carriers are realizing this, and it is reflected in their changing practices today. Consumers are also becoming smarter as evidenced in the increasing use of the Internet for ticket sales.
However, concerns have been raised by some consumers that price advertisements, whether in newspapers or on Internet sites, still do not contain complete or clear pricing information. For that reason, the amendment proposed in the bill would give the minister, where required, the power to authorize the making of regulations respecting transparency in the advertising of prices of air services, regardless of the medium used.
[English]
The amendments provide guidance regarding what types of costs should be included in the base price of an airfare and what costs may be advertised separately. The regulations, should they become necessary, would be enforced by the agency and would ensure that the standards would be consistently applied across the industry.
The Office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner was created, you'll recall, in 2000 as part of a specific amendment to the act. It has served a useful function during the transition period of the last few years; however, the complaints function has become integrated into the regular work of the agency. With changes in the marketplace since 2000 and more competition, especially from low-cost carriers, the number of complaints against Air Canada and other carriers has stabilized to what we would call a normal level, approximately consistent with their market share. In addition, complaints now increasingly relate to matters that fall within the core functions of the agency.
Since the fall of 2004 the function of the commissioner has been entrenched in the agency through the implementation of the air travel complaints program. The agency has been able to continue to adequately respond to consumers' complaints in an informal manner and consistent with its ongoing mandate. The proposed amendments would therefore make permanent and transparent the complaints resolution function of the agency by integrating this function into the regular operations of the agency.
Bill also addresses the need of publicly funded passenger rail services. It will implement a more effective mechanism to resolve disputes during contract negotiations between passenger service providers and the freight railways.
[Translation]
VIA Rail, commuter rail authorities and other publicly funded passenger rail operators prefer to conclude commercial agreements with infrastructure owners. If negotiations prove unsuccessful, publicly funded passenger rail service providers will be allowed to seek adjudication from the agency on the terms and conditions of operations on federal rail lines, including access fees and charges for services provided by the railways. Adjudication will be precluded for existing commercial contracts except for resolving train priority issues under the existing VIA Rail agreements.
In addition, the line transfer and abandonment provisions will be extended to include urban corridors, passenger stations, and urban transit authorities.
I want to emphasize that the proposed improvements to the rail passenger provisions are strongly endorsed by the commuter rail operators in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. They would like to see these changes implemented as soon as possible.
[English]
Bill also addresses the issue of railway noise. The agency used to consider complaints about noise from railway operations. However, in December 2000 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the agency lacked jurisdiction to hear noise complaints. Therefore, no federal regulatory body is presently mandated to regulate railway noise. Bill C-11 will amend the act to require that railways not cause unreasonable noise when constructing or operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operations and the interests of affected communities. As well, the agency would be granted authority to resolve noise complaints if a voluntary settlement cannot be reached between the parties. The noise provisions have strong support from interested parties, including a number of members of Parliament.
Bill contains a provision that will enable the Minister of Transport to make a one-time-only request to the agency to adjust the revenue caps for grain movements to reflect current maintenance costs of hopper cars. This will provide for an adjustment that is not dependent upon a disposal. This amendment is widely supported by western Canadian grain producers.
Many of you may be curious about how Bill C-11 amends the Railway Safety Act. Let me explain in a couple of seconds. Under Bill C-11 the CTA is being amended to repeal the provisions that grant police powers to railway companies and to incorporate comparable provisions in the Railway Safety Act. In addition, amendments to the Railway Safety Act will require that the railways establish an independent review mechanism for responding to public complaints against railway police. The review mechanism will be filed with the minister for approval.
[Translation]
Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I would like to flag one other provision. Bill C-11 introduces a new provision that authorizes the transport minister to enter into an agreement with a provincial authority under which the provincial authority would regulate a railway in the same manner as the minister. This is aimed at facilitating the introduction of expanded O-Train service in Ottawa, which falls under federal jurisdiction and is therefore subject to federal safety regulations.
The city plans to convert the existing rail corridor into a dedicated two-track electrified streetcar-type light-rail train (LRT). However, since LRT typically operates with different control systems and different braking characteristics, LRT equipment and operations do not need the majority of the rules, regulations and standards currently set out pursuant to the Railway Safety Act.
A tentative agreement has been reached with the city and the province under which the city would assume all applicable responsibilities for the Ottawa LRT system.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, we believe these amendments will greatly improve the CTA and benefit air travellers and communities across the country, urban transit providers, grain producers, and the environment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your re-election.
Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee. It's good to see you again. Thank you for coming to speak on Bill .
Let me thank you as well for your generous comments in the House last week, where you admitted that most of the heavy lifting on Bill and in fact, for that matter, most of your government's transportation agenda was done by the previous government, by the department, and by transportation stakeholders who have been working on this for over a decade. I appreciate your largesse in that regard.
I'd like to ask you two specific questions, and I want to know how the bill deals with both questions, if I could.
The first has to do with the safety of our airports. You've heard about the incident in Montreal earlier this month; a journalist was able to penetrate six or seven times on the periphery of Trudeau airport. Without identification, he was able to gain access without being stopped. With all due respect, Minister, your comments on this matter have been vague. They have been inconclusive. Canadians are very worried about this. It was compounded today by media reports, Mr. Chairman, about members of criminal organizations, including the Hell's Angels, intimidating security officers at our airports in order to operate--we take from the article--their flourishing drug trade.
How is this bill specifically going to deal with this question, in the first instance, of airport security?
:
Well, clearly, Mr. McGuinty, this bill doesn't address that specific issue. On the alleged infiltration of a reporter into the Trudeau airport in Montreal, of course I acted promptly and swiftly and instructed officials to inquire into the proceedings and to come back to me with information as to whether the system is functioning and did function correctly.
You know well, as I do, that in the case the report comes back, we do have a certain number of measures that can be applied, going from fines that can be levied to very stiff sanctions to the airport authorities as well as to those who play a major role in the security. That is an ongoing process.
As for the question dealing with personnel going into these areas, since 1986--this is not yesterday--the Government of Canada has been doing clearance work for all those people who wish to work in restricted areas of the airports. They are in a position to access information that will determine whether the individual does pose a risk to airport security or aviation security.
In the month of December, we will be putting in place a secure access system that will oblige everybody to have cards with them and to use these cards to access these areas. Those are ongoing.
As you mentioned in your radio interview two weeks ago, a lot has been done over the last three years. We are continuing in that direction. You know as well as I do that the Government of Canada, up to our election, had put in roughly $2.5 billion, if not $2.6 billion, into the security following 9/11--particularly in the aviation sector, which got a large chunk--and we have increased that amount of money by supporting CATSA with $133 million this year in our budget.
We have supported, also, an air cargo design program that I believe Senator Kenny had mentioned during some of his remarks previously, wherein he indicated that the former government should be involved. We've done that, so I feel quite proud of our mandate, and I feel quite proud of what we've done up to now in terms of making sure airport security and safety are uppermost and that Canadians can use that vehicle to go from one destination to another.
:
Thank you, Minister. I have a second question I want to put to you. Time is ticking, and I am cognizant of it. It has to do with rail safety.
This committee has committed to examining rail safety when it has the time to get to it. Lately my colleague from North Vancouver, the vice-chair of this committee, Don Bell, has been responding to rail safety issues, particularly in B.C.
We've seen a lot of accidents on CN track. CN derailments jumped 35% last year. Your predecessor, Minister Lapierre, ordered an audit of CN safety management systems. He pledged to make the audit public once it had been completed. We had an election. The audit's been completed. You got it in June; your office received the audit in June, four months ago.
In July, unbeknownst to any member of Parliament, to my knowledge, you secretly issued a ministerial order to CN, under section 32 of the Railway Safety Act--the first time a minister has ever exercised such an extraordinary action and power--after CN reportedly failed to address the safety deficiencies found in the audit. I understand CN is now appealing the order, but there is no reason, to my mind, that you cannot release the audit to us and confirm the details of your subsequent section 32 order against CN, as the previous minister promised.
Can you assure this committee now, today, that you will in fact release both those documents?
:
I appreciate your comments and I'm very happy to answer that question, Mr. McGuinty. I know that Mr. Julian has been very preoccupied by this; I've been very preoccupied by this.
Historically, you're absolutely right; my predecessor, Mr. Lapierre, did go forward, and an audit was undertaken. That audit was completed in June. Subsequent to that, before issuing section 32, I did ask for another audit to make sure the findings were substantially correct. We did receive a great deal of push-back from CN in terms of their compliance with it. That's the reason I issued section 32.
As you know, it's gone in front of the appeals board, and I am limited in being able to comment on that specific issue, but when this whole issue is brought forward at the appeals process, I do intend to make this audit public. I believe there is no reason in the world that we would not want to make it public. I would add, though, that through an ATIP--through the access to information officer--that has been requested. Third party acknowledgement, therefore--in this case, CN--has to be obtained, and CN has refused us the chance, or at least the opportunity, of making this public. Until such time as the official Information Commissioner statutes on this issue, I am bound legally to respect the terms and conditions governing that institution.
This issue is extremely serious. I met last week with Mr. Hunter Harrison, who is the chair, president, and chief operating officer of CN. As a matter of fact, we discussed this issue. I've indicated to him in no uncertain terms that we will go forward with the appeal process and we will not accept systematic obstruction to the rail safety issue. I would further say to you today, and be on record, that I am looking at different options now as to how we can go forward, including a process that would involve this committee.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for appearing before the committee, Minister. I am going to make a comment and ask two questions.
My comment deals with what was said by my Liberal colleague, Mr. McGuinty. You are quite right: Bill C-11 does not deal with security problems, including problems at the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau airport, and neither did Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Liberal government.
This morning, there were again problems on the tarmac with smuggling. There has been infiltration by organized crime and concerns about employees. I think that this is worrisome, Minister, but I am sure that you will address these problems in upcoming legislation. But that is not the thrust of the bill that we are considering here today.
I will now go to my two questions.
Transit authorities are asking some questions. I know that you understand the situation because of your experience at the municipal level and in the transportation industry. Will this legislation make it possible to somehow force the hand of companies that have abandoned rail lines, so that they can be used for public transit? Could that be done through mediation? It is not because they have abandoned rail lines that companies will necessarily decide to negotiate in good faith. Have you thought about that, or is this something that the committee might look at improving?
I am new at parliamentary work. I would like to thank the minister for attending the meeting. I believe that the key questions have been asked this afternoon, and we appreciate the respect you have for the committee's work, as you have shown with regard to the issue of flight attendants, and, particularly within Bill C-11, the issue of noise, which is an issue that is of particular concern for my constituency. This is something that is included in the legislation.
Is also interesting that you were able to split up this bill compared with the previous version. It has been improved, which is why we are able to move forward more rapidly.
Discussions this afternoon have been very constructive. I also want to salute your courage with regard to railway safety. We really get the sense that you want to deal with this issue, which is one that I believe is shared by committee members.
That is all I have to say. You said that your appearance would last 30 minutes, and yet you have been here for over 50 minutes. I therefore want to thank you for having accepted the committee's invitation. I believe that your appearance will help guide our work going forward.
Of course, before moving on to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, we will hear from witnesses. I think that the names of the witnesses that we wish to call for this consultation have already been submitted to the chair.
:
Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Blaney.
I heard my friend, the Liberal Party critic, tell me that bills, etc., came about thanks to the exceptional work by the previous government. I would no be so bold as to say such a thing. I believe that we were able to choose measures, actions and initiatives, which all parliamentarians here subscribed to and expressed their opinion on. Needless to say, it is up to the government and a minister to introduce the initiatives, but I would humbly suggest that they are the result of the productive work that committee members have done over the years. Members properly defined, identified and improved the legislative measures included in the bill.
We simply gave careful consideration to the elements on which there had been a consensus in order to move things forward, rather than introducing legislation left and right, which could have led to resistance. We believe that it was important to move forward with issues for which there was a general consensus. And the consensus was reached thanks to members sitting on this committee.
It is always a pleasure to work with members of Parliament, because it reminds me of my beginnings. I sat on a number of parliamentary commissions at the National Assembly to discuss several bills. Basically, the role of members is to examine these issues and to add their views, which are extremely important because we will have to explain these issues to our constituents later on.
Thank you very much for hearing me out today. Mr. Chair, I remain available for you if you feel the need to call me back here again. Thank you.
:
I will respond on behalf of the surface mode, and I'll let my colleague respond on behalf of the air mode.
The issue on which we have received by far the most concerns in letters has been related to railway noise. It dates back to 2000, when the Federal Court of Appeal overruled that the agency had any authority to engage in disputes of this nature.
We've consulted, going back to 2001, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We've had communities write in. We've had individual constituents write in. We've had numerous members of Parliament; there were even opposition days when we responded to this issue. Basically, this is why it is such an important element of this legislation, a brand new power for the agency. This power does not exist for any of the other modes. It's really specific here to rail.
On that one by far we've tried our best to address the concerns put forward to us. We believe the solution will allow for hopefully a cooperative approach to be taken, but if not, the agency has the power to order a solution and to try to correct the problem.
I'd say that the second issue we heard most about was related to the commuter rail operators and urban transit operators, about access to rail corridors that are being abandoned, and making sure that those corridors remain available for urban transit purposes. We are strengthening the current provisions in the act, which outline a very detailed and rigorous abandonment and discontinuance process. We're including them in the process and also broadening it to include rail sidings, rail spurs, and rail stations, which can continue to be used for urban transit purposes.
As well, the commuter rail operators came to us numerous times. We had several meetings with them. With us they helped craft the provisions in the act about publicly funded passenger service providers. The new adjudication mechanism we included in the bill was designed with them. We consulted with the railways, of course, to determine the impact. The railways are okay, I think, with the provisions in there. As the minister said, those groups are very interested in getting this through, and I think they would be very happy to come before the committee to talk about that.
Those are the three big areas in which we've had extensive consultation and requests.
:
On the air side, I would refer to two areas.
To begin my remarks, I would say that we've worked closely with the air industry in terms of its associations. We've worked closely with the agency in terms of its experience with carriers in a range of areas, and we have tried to build in responses to the kinds of issues they have raised.
The one area where we have had concerns raised--from this committee but also from stakeholders--relates to consumer group concerns about adequate protection in the case of airfare advertising. In that case, again, this legislation includes a specific component, a specific element, that would allow the minister to enable the agency to pass regulations, if needed, with respect to airfare advertising. It would put into place, for the first time, specific guidelines in terms of expectations of behaviour from carriers in Canada with respect to airfare advertising. So we feel that we have addressed the concerns while retaining sufficient flexibility to respond to changing market circumstances with respect to airfare advertising.
The second area in which consumer groups have expressed some concern is the intent to not renew the commissioner of air travel complaints. I know that has generated some interest in a number of quarters. We have emphasized very strongly through this legislation that the informal complaints resolution function, which has really become a core function of the agency, should continue, should be made permanent. We feel that this responds to the need from passengers to have a sounding board without necessarily having the head, the individual, in that particular role.
:
I am going to answer you in English.
[English]
Currently the process applies to the railway discontinuing operations or abandoning the railway line. Once the railway discontinues operations—it will no longer offer a freight service—it has to offer the line up for sale to another private entity, for example, a short line. If there are no takers, it currently has to go through the process of offering the line to the levels of government. The federal government receives an offer if the line crosses municipal jurisdictions or a first nations reserve; then it goes to the provincial government, and subsequently to the municipal government. Each level of government has 30 days to decide whether or not it wishes to acquire that corridor for any purpose that the municipality or the level of government would want.
If there are no takers and the municipality, which has the last offer, does not take the line for urban transit purposes, a bicycle path, or whatever, then the railway has the authority to discontinue it. Then it becomes a piece of property like any other that can be sold, as with any piece of property. It is no longer under the process, because it has already followed the thorough discontinuance process.
What we are adding through Bill is one intermediate step between the province and the municipalities for urban transit authorities that cross multiple jurisdictions—for example, West Coast Express or TransLink in B.C., AMT in Montreal, GO Transit in Toronto. Where they serve multiple municipalities, they would be dependent on getting all the municipalities together to agree to buy that line for them. This allows them, right after the province—because they are provincial creatures—to put in an offer themselves and buy that whole corridor for their urban transit purposes. It in fact makes the process stronger and preserves more of these corridors for potential urban transit or other community uses.
:
I believe so. We don't have the exact statistics, so I'm not going to hang my hat on that.
These people would investigate first with the carrier, if that has not already been done, to see if those complaints can be addressed. Those are the level-one considerations: working first with the carrier to get resolution.
In terms of resolution, the agency is saying to us that they have a high level of satisfaction through level one, I assume just by working with the carrier in clarifying, resolving, and addressing, with the carrier taking appropriate measures to respond to the complainant. If necessary, they go to a second level, at which the agency, still in an informal process, looks further into the complaint. It looks at how the carrier has responded, looks at the complainant's issue, looks at whether there is some compromise possible, some intermediate ground, and at the validity and so on.
Again, in most cases the issue is resolved. The issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant through discussion, through the informal clarification of the issue, and through the responsiveness of the carrier. Only a very small number of cases are then referred to a formal, quasi-judicial process. Out of the thousand and some complaints received in 2005, only seven went to that quasi-judicial process.
I'm being a little bit vague because I don't want to speak for the agency's day-to-day work.