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.

The House proceeded to the 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 12 motions in amendments standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-11.

Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the French version, lines 23 to 26 on page 1 with the following:

“national compétitif et rentable qui respecte les plus hautes normes possibles de sûreté et de sécurité, qui favorise un environnement durable et qui utilise tous les”

(b) by replacing, in the French version, lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following:

“domaine de la sûreté et de la sécurité”

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-11, in Clause 4, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

“(3) If a member appointed under subsection 7(2) ceases to hold office, the Chairperson”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 9 on page 3 with the following:

“members under subsection 7(2) or up to three”

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 4 with the following:

“parties III ou IV ou sur l’application de prix ou”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 13 on page 7 with the following:

“ment et qui résume la situation des transports au”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-11, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 5 and 6 on page 9 with the following:

“(2.1) Les lignes directrices sont élaborées de concert avec le”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-11, in Clause 29, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 4 and 5 on page 20 with the following:

“way, a railway company must cause as little noise and vibration as possible, taking into”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 14 on page 20 with the following:

“95.2 (1) The Agency shall issue, and publish”

(c) by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 20 with the following:

“vibration complaints relating to the con-”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-11, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 41 on page 20 and line 1 on page 21 with the following:

“estime raisonnables pour faire le moins de bruit ou de”

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 12 on page 41 with the following:

“portation Agency under subsection 7(2) or”

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Motions Nos. 1 to 12 that are on the order paper, some of which come from the government and some of which come from the New Democratic Party.

I should begin by saying that Bill C-11 was supported by all parties. There were some important elements within Bill C-11 that needed to be brought forward. A very healthy process took place throughout the fall. All four parties in the House of Commons worked together to improve the initial legislation that we supported in principle and brought amendments forward that would make this legislation even better. This was done with the cooperation from Conservative members, Liberal members, my colleagues in the Bloc, and myself representing the New Democratic Party.

We worked over the course of a number of weeks to improve this important legislation. We succeeded in a number of different elements. There is no doubt that the bill coming back from committee is much better than it was when it came to Parliament. We were able to make important improvements.

I do want to flag a number of areas, particularly the area around representation within the Canadian Transportation Agency. This was brought forward by the New Democratic Party. We thought this was an important element to change as we were endeavouring to modernize the Canada Transportation Act. We wanted to make the kind of changes that would help to address some shortfalls and deficiencies within our transportation system.

A number of components of Bill C-11 do this, but one important component is missing and that is having the best possible people from across this country at the Canadian Transportation Agency. To ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency is not an Ottawa centric organization, the NDP endeavoured to bring forth an amendment to allow essentially important members of the Canadian Transportation Agency to reside outside the national capital region. There are two important reasons for this.

First, by broadening the pool we can get the best qualified people, regardless of where they live. It is not true that every Canadian wants to live in Ottawa. It is not true that people from British Columbia can simply deny their family ties, uproot their family and move to Ottawa if they want to work in the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is important that we have the broadest possible pool of potential candidates, the best qualified people in the transportation business to ensure that we have the safest transportation sector and transportation elements in the world. Second, and this is perhaps even more important, we want to ensure that those who are appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency, who will play an important role within our country, actually understand the regional variations.

Over the past few years we have seen an increasing rate of railway accidents. I can cite some of the more well known examples of high profile and tragic railway accidents in places like Wabamun Lake in the Fraser Canyon of British Columbia, Wabamun Lake in Alberta, and Cheakamus River in British Columbia. These are issues of transportation safety and the viability of our transportation system. These are important components of the Canadian Transportation Agency among many other things. We need to ensure that the people who are appointed to these positions actually understand the regional requirements in B.C., the prairies and Atlantic Canada.

We brought forward these amendments simply to allow that broad pool of potential candidates, not shutting out most Canadians who do not come from Ottawa and would prefer not to live here.

Second, is also to have that regional expertise. When we talk about regional issues, whether it is British Columbia or Atlantic Canada, members appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency would have the regional expertise and could contribute to enhancing our transportation system.

Because the Conservatives refused that very logical and sound approach, what we have before us a requirement in Bill C-11 that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency to reside here. It says, “The members shall reside in the National Capital Region”.

We are essentially centralizing the Canadian Transportation Agency in such a way as to not have that regional expertise and understanding. At the same time, we are narrowing the pool of potential candidates for the Canadian Transportation Agency. It does not make sense.

I do not understand the opposition of the Conservative Party to broaden that mandate to ensure we get the best qualified people wherever they live in the country. In addition, the bonus, particularly coming from western Canada and this should be understood, is we would have a broader understanding of western Canadian transportation issues. It is simply logical. It simply makes sense.

The government refused that amendment. It has put before us instead a requirement that those appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency “shall reside in the National Capital Region”.

For that reason, the NDP is moving to delete the requirement that individuals appointed to the transportation agency have to live in the national capital region. As a result, we have a number of consequential amendments.

The four motions all deal with this important factor; that the Canadian Transportation Agency should not be limited to those who choose to reside in Ottawa. We should not exclude the vast majority of Canadians who may want to contribute or who may have real talent and real skills to contribute. In addition, we should endeavour to have individuals within the agency that have the regional expertise.

It has often been said that British Columbia is perhaps the most remote of the provinces to Ottawa. We certainly have to fly across the country to get to Ottawa. B.C. members of Parliament are honoured and privileged, particularly the 10 B.C. MPs who represent the NDP, to do that.

I cross the country twice a week. On Sundays, normally, or Monday morning I fly to Ottawa. I fly back on Thursday evening or Friday morning. My family is very understanding, as are the families of the nine other B.C. NDP MPs who represent our province in Ottawa.

It is very clear, and there is no doubt about this, that sacrifices have to be made. Many British Columbians would love to participate and provide their expertise to the transportation agency. Yet they are being told that they cannot do so unless they reside in the national capital region. That is simply unacceptable. That is why we are offering the opportunity for the government to address an important issue, one that it should have allowed in committee.

The government should have simply said that it made sense to provide for the best possible expertise in the country and not limit the pool to only those who would choose to live in Ottawa. It should have said that it would attempt to do the recruitment in such a way that it would have regional expertise, that those individuals in the mountainous areas of British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean with that expertise would be encouraged to be part of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

As we know, the way the bill is currently configured, they do not have that choice. The government has simply said that they do not have that choice, that they have to live in Ottawa. That is unacceptable.

That is the element of the motions the NDP has brought forward. We are essentially supportive of much of the bill.

I would like to mention the work of Brian Allen and the Quayside Community Board in New Westminster, British Columbia. Mr. Allen, as did mayor Wayne Wright, both testified before the committee and provided valuable feedback as well on the issue of railway noise, which is another area of weakness in the bill.

Despite the fact that the bill is less strong on the issue of railway noise, we are hopeful we will see improvements to government policy over the next few months so people in the quay area of New Westminster and in other urban communities can finally get a good night's sleep. Mr. Allen was indispensable in providing support to ensure that the committee did deal with railway noise. Although we are disappointed with the results in that area too, we do have some hope that over the course of the next few months we will see action finally.

We are supportive of Bill C-11 and of many of the amendments that the NDP and other parties brought forward. It was a collaborative effort. There are a couple of weaknesses and we hope they can be addressed at report stage, particularly the area around the Canadian Transportation Agency.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the good work that my colleagues on the committee have done. I am a new addition to the committee, but not new to the issues of transportation. You and I served on the committee that eventually led to some of the issues we are debating today. I will have more to say about this in a few minutes.

Could the member clarify the urgency of having to ensure that people not necessarily reside here if they are part of a functioning board? Certainly they would bring expertise as well as regional perspective. They would also work to ensure that those regional issues and regional perspective were brought into an environment that would coordinate all the perspectives nationwide, those which should be brought to bear on railway policy to the benefit of all Canadians.

While I am at that, would he clarify for us the understanding on Motion No. 10 in the French version? Perhaps the Bloc might want to do this more than others. He is talking about the amendments that he identified as ones that might be acceptable. There is a change which says:

“estime raisonnables pour faire le moins de bruit ou de”

In his understanding of that amendment, would that lead someone to conclude that less noise is the same thing as absolutely no noise?