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

This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Lawrence Cannon  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 14, 2007 Passed That the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and concurred in.
Feb. 21, 2007 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Feb. 21, 2007 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

October 31st, 2006 / 5:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I was going to make a suggestion, and we will deal with Mr. Laframboise's request.

In the note we sent out to members of the committee, we did ask what extra time they would have to allow us to set up some extra committee meetings. To date, one committee member has responded, so please put that in to us.

I was going to ask the subcommittee to have a meeting--and I agree with my colleagues on this side--to lay out the agenda beyond Bill C-11. It would include some of the motions that have been put forward and would also deal with future bills that are coming down the pipe.

I know everyone has a busy schedule, but from a selfish point of view, I would like to have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow. I would suggest from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Perhaps we could put some detail around the outside meetings we want to have and also the order of the motions that we've taken.

I felt I was under the instruction of the committee to organize the witness schedule and the clause-by-clause consideration, and I'm certainly prepared to listen to other suggestions, but beyond that, I think the direction of the subcommittee should make those decisions.

October 31st, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I was given the direction by this group to deal with Bill C-11. What I did was arrange the witness list and dates. As of Thursday, we will have heard the last witnesses on Bill C-11, as is indicated on the schedule.

October 31st, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

If I may, you should have received the calendar that lays out the agenda for Bill C-11.

October 31st, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB

I know we have a lot of things on the table, including Mr. Laframboise's motion and Mr. Bell's that is coming. We have the estimates that should be looked at sometime within the next week. All of these will have to be somehow built into our work.

When we vote on whatever comes out of Mr. Bell's motion, we're really acknowledging the need for that inquiry or study of railway safety. It's then up to the subcommittee to come back to our overall committee and determine how we're going to proceed with all of these. For example, when do we see the final date for Bill C-11? Somebody says that's next week, but it would be good to know, Mr. Chair.

October 31st, 2006 / 5:15 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

I do not want to be misunderstood. It had already been determined, in the context of future work, that railway safety would be included in the work of our committee. However, if, because of a motion, we change the order in which we deal with the files, we run the risk of everyone presenting motions on specific files and then having to deal with them. For this reason, I would say that, if Mr. Bell believes that safety problems are worse in the west than in other areas, I am not opposed to dedicating one meeting to that issue and calling upon experts.

If I were told that this is one of the issues that the committee should study, I would reply that we should have a meeting on future work and make a clear decision. Do we want Bill C-11 to pass or do we want to talk about safety? If we talk about safety, we must set the bill aside, send it back, and give priority to safety issues.

I do not want a motion to divert the work of the committee. We already agreed to study safety issues. For me personally, Quebec is just as important, if not more so, than other regions, but if there are specific problems at this time in western Canada, as is the case in Montreal regarding air safety, I am prepared to support the cause and opt to study safety problems. If we want our committee to focus on studying safety, I would suggest to Mr. Bell that we hold a meeting on the committee's future work, that we organize ourselves accordingly and that we leave nothing out. I am not against proceeding in this manner. For now, however, I am having a hard time following.

October 31st, 2006 / 5:15 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Laframboise, the intention of the original motion was that it be Canada-wide. And if you'll notice, the phraseology said “into rail safety and particularly”, not “selectively” or “only.” But the words “in Canada” were simply to clarify that.

What I envisage is that we would gather statistics--we wouldn't do it, the statistics would be gathered for us--as to the experience, and we have some of it now in Ontario and other areas, in Quebec and the Maritimes. If there aren't problems beyond the ordinary, if there doesn't seem to have been a particular rise or the level appears to be okay in the other areas, that's one thing. But particularly in western Canada--and I have a list of incidents in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan--where the number seems to have risen. In one instance, it's suggested that there have been ten so far this year in Saskatchewan; in 2005 there were nine. So it does not seem to be dissipating. It may well be that the primary focus of the inquiry would be on the west. But I did not want to exclude the other parts of Canada that might think we were not interested in rail safety in those areas as well.

Certainly, it is not meant that this would queue-jump over some of the other work this committee is already proceeding with. The one mentioned is your concern about the airport. Originally, when I first drafted this motion, I made a reference that it would follow Bill C-11 and some of the other priorities of this committee. This would fit in with the priorities of the committee, and it's not meant to supercede them. It's meant to ensure that when we do this, we establish some baseline information that can be used in future, so that we can reference back to it. If we do the reference work now, it's there. Five years from now or two years from now, this committee can go back and say these were the facts in 2006--the history. It can then determine...because we've had statements from presenters who have said things are getting better, particularly the railways. I'd like to see how much better they are getting--or, as Mr. Gow and some of the others made reference to, they're getting better but they may not be getting better fast enough.

October 31st, 2006 / 4:50 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to touch on the issue of airfare advertising and air travel complaints within Bill C-11. You mentioned, Mr. Gow, that your organization represents air travel consumers as well.

Mr. Benson, when we talk about the Teamsters we're talking about all modes of transportation. I wonder if you have any comments to offer on either of those elements of Bill C-11--transparency in airfare advertising and air travel complaints going to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

October 31st, 2006 / 4:50 p.m.
See context

Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada

Phil Benson

I'll send it directly to the clerk.

I'm sure there are laws, but the question is whether they are specifically similar to Bill C-11. So I will pursue that matter.

October 31st, 2006 / 4:30 p.m.
See context

Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada

Phil Benson

Thank you very much.

The issue is that often when we look at one statute, in this case Bill C-11, we tend to look at one problem. If we stand back and look at a broader concern, we could be parochial and say, “If it doesn't go by rail, it's going to go by road; fine by us.” At the same time, we have a lot of social concerns. We have concerns about clean air. We have concerns about using things environmentally correctly. We have all sorts of broad social concerns.

We also have issues where, in other parts of Transport Canada, different regulations and different acts permit different ways of marshalling that, quite truthfully, we've had concerns about for safety and other reasons. They tend to make things a tad noisier. We don't like the squealing of large trains going around bends, but we permit the trains because, for the economy, we just have to have them.

So the only concern I would raise is that it's not the issue of reducing noise. People have a right, and I think as a society we should stand up for that right, to have a certain quality of life, and that includes not being harassed by screaming noise. But quite often with government, and especially with regulatory bodies, the right hand is doing one thing and the left hand is doing another. One says we don't want noise, the other one says it's okay. One says we don't want marshalling yards close to cities; if that means there are going to be more trucks, fine. The other one says we don't want pollution, we want to have more efficient use of stuff.

That's why I say that when we go to the regulatory thing, if parliamentarians retain some kind of control and handle on it, we can actually have a holistic solution. When we just look at one thing in isolation, we come up with one answer. From our perspective, if you look at it in a global way, you end up with a simplistic solution that may in fact....

Would people like a little bit more noise and a little less pollution? This is the type of thing we have to weigh. I'm looking forward to things like the Clean Air Act coming forward so that we can discuss them.

Thank you.

October 31st, 2006 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada

Phil Benson

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Simply to make you aware, in other transport areas they are looking at things like speed limits for marshalling yards for other reasons. You talked about the humping; there are also remote control units they're pushing, which give less control over how fast things go, how hard things couple. While you're looking at Bill C-11 and talking about noise, at the same time there are what are regarded as complementary consultations and discussions going on about various technologies and uses they have to marshal. Again, that's why I said the devil's in the details, because we are aware that things are happening in other areas of Transport Canada that kind of address some of these issues, or may address some of them.

Consider noise, one issue that was raised by our locomotive engineers. Again, if you pick an area where they have very high-priced condos or homes being built and we have a crossing that isn't a properly controlled crossing, they have to blow their whistles: there's no option, they have a requirement to do it. Of course, we can go ahead and build a proper crossing for them and put an overpass in at $25 million to $30 million or more a pop. So I think the devil is really in the details about how we deal with it. Certainly, having lived across from a marshalling yard in Vancouver and being awakened at three o'clock in the morning with a loud clatter and bang, I can appreciate it.

I think somehow we have to balance the needs and interests of the business with what the community needs. I think we have to respect things like sound levels, and we have to do it in a meaningful way. I think we have to look at it holistically. We can't have one part of Transport Canada creating regulations that will make noise under one act and under this act have a bunch of regulations to make less noise.

The devil is really in the details, and we look forward to working with you on them. It's something I really sympathize with.

When we talk about long trains, Transport Canada gave authority for long trains so we can move stuff out of Vancouver. As you understand, coming from there--in fact, we got together out there because it's my original home as well--we have complaints about screeching wheels going around a bend and that it's the railway's fault. Well, we had an economic problem. How do we move all that stuff off the port? Let's make one-mile or two-mile-long trains. Now we have people complaining about screeching. So are we going to use Bill C-11 to stop the screeching when some other department has said we have to do that?

Coming from Teamsters Canada, where we look at all modes of transportation--we look at everything--we tend to view it in a more holistic manner. I think that's why, as we move forward...it's how we link all of these things together to get a solution that will allow our members to do what they do very well and allow the businesses to make business and get the stuff that has to be...and also to make sure that your constituents and Monsieur Laframboise's and others' constituents can have a good night's sleep as well.

October 31st, 2006 / 3:40 p.m.
See context

Founding President, Transport 2000 Canada

Harry Gow

No, it's context. It's not within the bill. This is simply a plug to remind members that VIA Rail has some needs. They haven't all been met.

But for the act to operate efficiently, one has to have viable carriers. That's all. I wouldn't push this as part of Bill C-11. It's context, sir.

October 31st, 2006 / 3:35 p.m.
See context

Harry Gow Founding President, Transport 2000 Canada

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Transport 2000 wishes to thank you for the opportunity to briefly present our points of view regarding Bill C-11. There are a few ancillary matters that constitute context, rather than directly belonging to Bill C-11.

As a general comment, we support Bill C-11, but we have some concerns with some proposed sections as the amendment now reads, because those proposed sections do not appear to serve our best interest as Canadians. There are four points, of which the middle two are really on Bill C-11. The first and fourth are contextual, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Transport 2000 would like to draw the committee's attention to the uncertain long-term prospects for VIA Rail. As a national business and public service provider, VIA continues to suffer from a lack of a legislative basis, which would ensure its long-term survival.

The second point concerns the national transportation policy declaration, particularly, the statement that prohibits investing in one mode of transportation to the detriment of another form of transportation. In our view, this would be highly problematic. Studies from other developed countries, and even our own studies in Nova Scotia, indicate exactly the opposite. In fact, the introduction of one form of transportation can actually increase the use of other forms of transportation in the same region. Such a catalytic effect could reduce our dependence on private vehicles and help achieve the emissions targets set out under the new clean air act.

The Nova Scotia work we did showed that when passenger trains were withdrawn from local runs, for instance, in the Annapolis Valley and up to Cape Breton, the number of bus passengers dropped immediately by 10%. We did a survey and we found it was because people were using the two services in a complementary way to increase frequency. When that frequency dropped, the number of passengers dropped by more than the number or percentage of runs removed.

The other effect is connectivity. People can travel on from a train trip on the bus, or vice versa. Adding a corridor may actually benefit both modes, and the same may be true of other modes, although there are some highly competitive businesses where that might not be so.

While we appreciate that the new act reaffirms established principles and embraces new ones, notably the environment, this strikes us as needlessly restrictive. This may be a surprising statement, but while both economic and environmental factors are identified, we urge the committee to go a step further and add a reference to sustainable development as a guiding principle of Bill C-11. Such a reference would include social considerations as well as economic and environmental ones. This is according to the definition of sustainable development by the Brundtland commission.

Finally, Transport 2000 has been advised that some members of Parliament have received complaints regarding noise from railways. Before resorting to costly measures, changes in operating hours, large sound barriers, or even removal of track, we advise the mediation service available through Transport Canada be first used. There are numerous options for such things as noise abatement. I won't elaborate on that, but if people want details, I'd be happy to supply them at another time.

There is an annex here called ”VIA Rail Service--the Importance of Investment”. It was written to mark the coming of 150 years of service between Montreal and Toronto. It limits itself to a statement about the value of rapid train service in the corridor, but mutatis mutandis, these considerations would apply in other areas of the country, such as the Maritimes, or between Calgary and Edmonton. Indeed, the whole VIA network is valuable economically for tourism, business, and visiting families and relatives.

Finally, we strongly support giving more protection to rural rail lines. The urban lines are and will be protected to a degree. Ottawa, for example, has benefited from this. On the other hand, on Vancouver Island there's the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, which is now in the hands of the Island Corridor Foundation. By the way, the mayor of Parksville, Mr. Jack Peake, sends you his greetings.

The Esquimalt and Nanaimo--the Island Corridor Foundation, as it is now called--is in the process of building its business case and would like to draw attention to a few points. First, protect rural lines the same as lines in towns. Second, the passage of a new VIA Rail act would be helpful for these people on the island. Finally, the language of a bill ought to be modified to include rural rail lines.

We also suggest removing from the bill any references to urban transit authorities, to be replaced with expressions such as transportation agency or similar body. This would allow such authorities, boards or agencies to be established in rural areas, as well. For example, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell plan to expand the territory served by the Clarence-Rockland Transit authority to eventually include the United Counties and even part of Glengarry County. This area is not at all urban, in a strict sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I have said what I had to say.

October 31st, 2006 / 3:35 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Good afternoon to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We're studying 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 today, we have Mr. Phil Benson from Teamsters Canada. Representing Transport 2000 Canada, we have Mr. Harry Gow, the founding president. Offering support is the current president, Mr. David Jeanes.

Welcome. I'm sure you've probably had some experience appearing before committees before. As indicated, you have a seven-minute timeframe for presentations, and then there will be questions from the committee.

Mr. Gow, if you'd like to start, please go ahead.

October 26th, 2006 / 5:35 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

My colleagues and I discussed this, and I actually proposed to Mr. McGuinty that we would support this unanimously. That would have a real effect for those outside of the committee to see what we want to challenge and certainly infrastructure in the motion itself is of good content.

My concerns, like those of Mr. Lamframboise, are the security of Montreal airport and Bill C-11, to make sure that these people who have come before us and are watching us so closely and are listening to us today realize that we're not trying to hesitate. We're a committee that gets action done, and we're going to get Bill C-11 done.

Mr. McGuinty, these are projects that are happening five to twenty years from now. I'm very interested in them as well, but as for the $30 million that was removed by the province, you should probably talk to your brother about that, because it was his decision to remove that. Our federal money was contingent—

October 26th, 2006 / 5:30 p.m.
See context

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

I agree with you completely and I agree with Monsieur Laframboise completely, and to assuage the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, I don't want to hold up Bill C-11. I think Mr. Scott's suggestion of holding additional meetings—one for Monsieur Duchesneau—as soon as possible and moving immediately to begin looking for a time and place to deal with this motion and to convene infrastructure officials can happen contemporaneously with Bill C-11 discussions. I don't think anyone wants to delay the passage of Bill C-11. We have lots of meat to chew on and lots of amendments to consider, I'm sure.

But it would be unnecessary to delay it until next Tuesday, Mr. Chairman. We can probably move on the motion and continue the debate or put it to a vote. Perhaps we could then work with staff and the clerk to find additional times. I don't know if evenings are doable or not doable in terms of being able to convene. I just think this is of such import that we need to get some clarity around what's happening with booked, unbooked, and future projects.