Bill C-11 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act. Certain amendments apply to all modes of transportation, including amendments that clarify the national transportation policy and the operation of the Competition Act in the transportation sector, change the number of members of the Canadian Transportation Agency, create a mediation process for transportation matters, modify requirements regarding the provision of information to the Minister of Transport and modify and extend provisions regarding mergers and acquisitions of air transportation undertakings to all transportation undertakings.
It amends the Act with respect to the air transportation sector, in particular, in relation to complaints processes, the advertising of prices for air services and the disclosure of terms and conditions of carriage.
The enactment also makes several amendments with respect to the railway transportation sector. It creates a mechanism for dealing with complaints concerning noise and vibration resulting from the construction or operation of railways and provisions for dealing with the transfer and discontinuance of operation of railway lines. It also establishes a mechanism for resolving disputes between public passenger service providers and railway companies regarding the use of railway company equipment and facilities.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to create provisions for the appointment of police constables with respect to railway companies and procedures for dealing with complaints concerning them.
In addition, it contains transitional provisions and consequential amendments.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

The groups that have also approached us as a committee, the various shipping parties that are interested in these amendments, asked us to take note that the Coalition of Rail Shippers, which represents some 80% of Canadian railway revenues, have come together to develop a common approach to fixing what they call “chronic service shortfalls” that are negatively impacting the Canadian economy in a very serious way. My amendment would hopefully simplify and rationalize the negotiating opportunity between shippers and railways.

Right now, the Canadian Transportation Agency permits final-offer arbitration--FOA, as we call it--as a recourse for shippers who can be held captive, sometimes, by the terms and conditions of what amounts to a monopoly, a monopoly means of transporting goods in some cases. These amendments would enhance final-offer arbitration by allowing groups of shippers with common interests and concerns to bring their grievances to arbitration simultaneously.

I just want to go a little further, if I could, on the background. Last May 5, according to the shippers who have contacted my office, Transport Canada agreed to bring forward amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, to enact such group rights for shippers. That was May 5. Some shippers I have spoken with felt that a promise was made to see these amendments in legislation by the end of June. It's now December. They are frustrated that these elements that were originally proposed in Bill C-44 are not on the agenda and certainly haven't found their way into Bill C-11.

If we examine the letters we all received with respect to these concerns, we see, for example.... I'm quoting the Western Grain Elevator Association: “We applaud and support your efforts to have provisions for group final offer arbitration included into Bill C-11.”

As a committee, Mr. Chair, I think we can agree on this modest evolution as a short-term attempt to re-balance the power between shippers and railways. We all agree that our economy depends on an efficient transport system. Enhancing that balance I think could only be a good thing.

I don't know if there's any other information, Mr. Chair, that the government wishes to share or can share with us with respect to these provisions, but they've now been delayed May through December--nine months. This is continuing to wreak havoc in the dispute settlement mechanisms in the business world. I think this is something we ought to address, which is why I put them here for consideration under L-5.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a few minutes, if I could, just to walk the members through why this is here. We all know that Bill C-11 has been derived significantly from Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. We know that Bill C-44 included parts, for example, of Bill C-3, on international bridges and tunnels, which we've already considered and has gone before the Senate. Bill C-44, of course, included many aspects of the bill that we're currently studying here in Bill C-11.

Bill C-44, for example, also included provisions regarding VIA Rail, which we do not see in Bill C-11. It included the provisions that you see before you in amendment L-5.

I'm bringing these before the committee to reflect the concerns of many shippers who are saying--this is their language--that they've been thoroughly neglected by the government in its rush to bring Bill C-11 forward. I'm deeply concerned by this, because I know the members of the committee ought to all have received by e-mail letters written on or around December 4 by groups like the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Industrial Transport Association, Forest Products Association of Canada, and the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.

I'm not sure if everyone has received these letters, Mr. Chair, but they contain very strong endorsements of amendment L-5, and I'd like to table that if I could for one moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've been advised that new clause 47.1 is inadmissible. The amendment seeks to amend section 160 of the Canada Transportation Act, and the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

An amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 160 of the Canada Transportation Act is not being amended by Bill C-11, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment; therefore, it is inadmissible. I do have that in writing. I have it en français and in English, and I'm prepared to circulate it.

So new clause 47.1 is denied.

Now we go to amendment L-5, page 42 to 44, a new clause. Again I will advise the committee that I do have some reservations and an opinion, but I do ask Mr. McGuinty to submit the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 30.

The order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, is a study of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us again are people from the department. We welcome you. I don't think introductions are necessary.

When we left off in the committee the other day, we were dealing with clause 13. Mr. McGuinty had put forward an amendment, which is on page 14. It is amendment L-2.

At that time, Mr. Jean introduced what was proposed to be a subamendment, but the discussion that followed suggested that it was too much of a change from the Liberal amendment and would have to be a stand-alone amendment.

What we're deciding right at this point is that if Mr. McGuinty's motion succeeds, then the motion by Mr. Jean would move off the table, and we would move either to (2.1) or on to the other clauses.

Mr. McGuinty, can you give us just a quick briefing on where you are with amendment L-2? Then I'll ask Mr. Jean or the department to discuss theirs, and then I think we can make a decision.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, one of the reasons we pushed this aside and set it aside was that although it was sent out by you on November 2, 2006, members had not received the Competition Bureau's submission on Bill C-11. I think we distributed it at the last meeting.The clerk made copies available.

Before moving any subamendment, I'd certainly like to treat the merits of this serious brief that was put forward. This was put forward in the absence of knowledge of even Transport Canada officials. I'm not sure why it would happen, but it did.

It might be useful for us to examine some of the merits of the concerns raised by the Competition Bureau. It was the thing that struck me when I first read the M and A section, the mergers and acquisition section, of the bill.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Are we then, in effect, cleaning up the language of Bill C-11--cleaning up this bill--anyway?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Julian raising the operative paragraph being put forward by Monsieur Laframboise. I wasn't dealing with that, but I will take the opportunity to say that I did have a concern.

Maybe the government can tell us why Bill C-11 as presently written does talk about submitting it to the minister, who shall cause it to be laid before both houses of Parliament, when this draft proposal with compromise language does not. Is it merely a drafting—?

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to Bill C-11, which will indeed take effect in 2011, I will point out to him that there is nothing about hybrid locomotives in that bill. There is no stated requirement for all train engines in rail yards to be hybrids by 2011, and there is nothing about the type of oil to use in order to reduce sulphur and particulate emissions either. None of that is covered.

What is this legislation, which I am very familiar with and have discussed previously, all about? What more does it do?

Perhaps we should put that in Bill C-30, because we did not in Bill C-11.

Whistleblower Protection

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we want to create a culture within our public service where the men and women who serve Canadians and serve our government have the confidence that if they step forward to report wrongdoing, their concerns will be taken seriously. They will also have freedom to do so without fear of repercussions of losing their jobs or facing a demotion.

We have brought forward the most comprehensive, meaningful whistleblower protection ever tabled in Canadian history. Not a single union stepped forward before the Bill C-11 committee hearings, the Liberal bill to support it.

A lot of hard-working public servants are proud of our measures to protect whistleblowers.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Just going back to Monsieur Laframbroise's concern, then, as it's presently drafted, Bill C-11 would compel the agency—no matter who's in charge of it, what president, what CEO, what budget it was working with—to conduct its affairs this way. In the future, three years or five years from now, could someone say, “That's enough, we're not going to treat level one complaints the same way we've been treating them for the past five years”?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just want to go to Mr. Fast's point.

Here is the memo received from Mr. D'Amore to all members of the committee and analysts. It's the brief prepared by the Competition Bureau of Canada with regard to Bill C-11, dated November 6, 2006. It was sent to the chair, in fact. There are three aspects of the bill that are focused on. I assume every member has seen this and read it. There are some very serious concerns put forward by the Competition Bureau.

I don't want to read the brief, Mr. Chair. I assume everyone has seen this.

[Helena Borges]

Can I clarify whether that happened for Bill C-11? We just had communications with them two weeks ago, and we haven't seen any written documentation from them.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment stems from a concern about vesting the minister with a serious new power, which is to review mergers and acquisitions beyond airlines in the transport sector, in federally regulated transport areas. The problem that some of us are having at the table, Mr. Chair, is that we're not sure what criteria the minister might intend to use in the review of any kind of merger or acquisition that he's being empowered to review.

I'm sure we recollect receiving a serious memo from the Competition Bureau about these provisions, raising concerns about this new power being vested in the minister and whether or not this power in any way contradicts the power or the target of the Competition Act and the role of the Commissioner of Competition to oversee all mergers and acquisitions in a Canadian context.

At first blush, when I first read this as part of Bill C-11, I was quite surprised. Unless counsel can point us in some direction, I haven't found in the federal system—which doesn't mean it doesn't exist—other areas where line department ministers have been given authority for this mergers and acquisitions types of power, which seems to be in direct conflict, or at least side by side, with the power of the Competition Bureau under the Competition Act.

What I'm trying to do is simply ask that the minister clarify, in a public way, the criteria that would be applied by the minister in making a decision about a merger or acquisition in the Canadian context. Maybe we ought to be examining what criteria are being used by this minister, whoever that person is and in whatever period of time going forward, and the criteria that are being used and applied under the Competition Act. If we have two separate bodies in the federal family conducting precisely the same review of mergers and acquisitions, using the same criteria or slightly varied criteria, what's the point? Why are we vesting this new power in the minister in the first place? That's what the amendment is trying to do.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

As a point of clarification, Mr. Jean, would proposed paragraph 52(2)(c.1), “the long term outlook in trends in transportation in Canada”, include, for example, the air travel complaints responsibilities addressed by Bill C-11 as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 28. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, are for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have our witnesses joining us again today. I don't think I need to introduce everyone. I think everyone is familiar. Welcome again today.

(On clause 11)