This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Lawrence Cannon Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
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.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-11s:
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, 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.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta
Conservative
Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to support the amendments to Bill C-11 that the Senate passed and to explain why as well.
Bill C-11 primarily amends the Canada Transportation Act. The Senate amendments affect two provisions of C-11: one regulating railway noise and vibrations and one regulating airfare advertising. I will deal first with the so-called “noise” provisions.
The noise provisions give the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to resolve disputes related to railway noise and vibrations. This is a great thing for Canadians. It has been hailed from Quebec through to the Atlantic provinces and all the way to British Columbia. A lot of people are looking forward to these amendments and that is why this government is moving forward with this agenda.
The agency used to adjudicate disputes related to noise vibrations and other nuisances. However, in December 2000 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the agency did not, that is correct, did not have the jurisdiction in such matters. As a result of that, it takes this government to bring clarification to the issue and Bill C-11 reinstates the agency's authority in this regard.
The amendments passed in the Senate deal with two elements that are at the heart of the noise provision. The first is the obligation that railways must live up to it and, indeed, the factors that are taken into consideration with respect to this obligation. There is also a coordinating amendment to the section that gives the agency the authority to hear a complaint and order corrective action, if warranted.
Bill C-11, as originally tabled in the House of Commons, proposed to add section 95.1 to the CTA. This section required that when constructing or operating a railway, a railway company “must not cause unreasonable noise”. It also specified three factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not this standard had been met. These factors include: the railways' level of service obligations under sections 113 and 114 of the act; the railway's operational requirements; and the area where the operation or construction takes place.
Members should take note of the third factor, the area where the operation or construction takes place, because I will be dealing with that.
Section 95.1 was amended based on recommendations from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the amendment consisted of three main elements. First, it extended the agency's authority to vibrations as well as noise. This is very important. As we are aware, people who live next to railways must deal with the constant vibrations of idling engines.
Second, it changed the railway's obligations from “not causing unreasonable noise” to “cause as little noise and vibration as possible”.
Third, it added a new factor, the potential impact on persons residing on properties adjacent to the railway. Coordinating amendments were also made to section 95.3 to reflect these changes.
Section 95.3 authorizes the agency to hear complaints and order the railway to take corrective measures. As I noted earlier, the Senate amendments change the obligation that is imposed on the railways. Under the Senate amendments, a railway “shall cause only such noise and vibration as is reasonable”.
In addition, the Senate dropped the factor that was added by the transport committee, the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway. I do not want anyone to get upset at that because we feel we have covered that in other amendments and with the original text. Coordinating amendments were made to section 95.3.
The government supports the Senate amendments for various reasons. It establishes an obligation based on “reasonableness” and, as all members of the House know, reasonableness is found in many sections of the law and many acts throughout this country. In fact, this is the same concept that was reflected in the original Bill C-11.
The concept of reasonableness, as I said, is found in hundreds and hundreds of acts and has been judicially interpreted on countless occasions, so there is no question as to what judges will do once they find the issue of reasonableness as coming into consideration. These interpretations make an obligation based on “reasonableness” a lot easier to understand and circumscribe than one based on “as little as possible”, which has very limited use in federal legislation.
The expression “least possible noise” was used in Bill C-26 in 2003, a predecessor of Bill C-11. It was changed in the next version of the bill in 2005 to reflect the notion of reasonableness because this is a concept that is used consistently in Canadian legislation.
Furthermore, it is a concept that the agency must apply on a daily basis. That is correct, on a daily basis. There are over 30 references to the word “reasonable” or “unreasonable” in the existing Canada Transportation Act.
A review of the agency's previous decisions on noise complaints clearly indicates that the agency applied the concept of reasonableness in rendering its decision. It is a concept with which the agency is very familiar and of course judges are familiar with it. In conclusion with respect to this, an obligation based on “reasonableness” is preferred to one based on “as little as possible”. That obviously makes sense.
The government also supports the Senate's amendment that drops “the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway” when determining if a railway is fulfilling its obligations. This is very important but it is already included in the act.
The “area where the operation or construction takes place” will remain as one of the three factors. I will repeat that because it is very important: the area where the operation or construction takes place. The government believes that this factor is broad enough to include the impact on persons living in homes or apartments adjacent to the railway. It is inconceivable that the agency would not take this into consideration.
Finally, the government supports the coordinating amendment to section 95.3 which brings the section into line with the amended language in section 95.1.
The amendments to the Canada Transportation Act passed by the Senate also affect air transportation.
This is such an important bill. That is why we are so happy to have some of our friends from the opposition support us on this endeavour.
Bill C-11 will improve protection for air travellers by requiring the agency to prescribe regulations on airfare advertising. The guidelines and objectives of the government regarding airfare advertising are clearly set out in legislation and will assist the agency to develop adequate regulations.
In the version of this bill tabled by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in May 2006, the provision on airfare advertising indicated that regulations may be developed by the agency “on recommendation of the minister”. The bill was subsequently amended following testimony before the standing committee last fall removing this particular stipulation and was adopted by the House on February 28.
Earlier in May the Senate committee on transport and communications heard from a number of witnesses from the air and rail industries. The committee supported the amendments regarding airfare advertising that were adopted by this House. That was good.
However, the committee also felt strongly that this particular provision should come into force at a later date, one determined by the governor in council. This is reflected in the amendment to the bill, a new clause 64, relating to the coming into force of the airfare advertising provisions.
The Senate committee was of the view that further consultation should take place between government, the airline industry and other interested parties, such as consumer advocacy groups in Canada, before advertising regulations are developed by the agency.
Very clearly we consult stakeholders on a continuous basis. We make sure that we listen to them and act on their suggestions.
The government agrees that additional consultations across Canada will help to ensure on a consistent and timely basis that all information and views are received and the development of the regulations would take into account the views of all stakeholders, as we usually do on this side of the House.
This government wishes to ensure that consumers are offered clear choices, so that they know what they are buying before they buy it, as it relates to advertising of air travel by airlines. The government is very aware of consumers' concerns that airfare advertising be clear, transparent and not at all misleading to consumers. Consumers have told us on a consistent basis that they want to be able to compare different airlines' advertised prices and to know up front how much they will pay for any air service that they wish to buy.
The additional time for consultation and review will be well used. We believe that these new amendments are excellent.
In closing, I urge all members to support Bill C-11 as amended by the Senate. Stakeholders were first consulted on amendments to the CTA in the year 2000 and after seven years they are very anxious for this bill to be passed, preferably before the summer recess.
I have one more point that is very important. This bill provides for a one time adjustment to the grain revenue caps. That is expected to save western farmers $2 per tonne, or more than $50 million per year. This government is standing up for farmers. Any delay to the passage of this bill will preclude the farmers from getting this money. We support this bill and we would hope that all other members come forward and support it as well.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I was in the House when the parliamentary secretary addressed this issue because it affects my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis. Before I touch on that, I noticed that the parliamentary secretary gave his government a pat on the shoulder for bringing forward this legislation. I would point out that this legislation had already been introduced by the former Liberal government before it was defeated.
My question is with regard to information, and I ask this quite sincerely of the parliamentary secretary. If he cannot answer it tonight, I would like it very much if his department could give me the answer in writing.
There are two railway bridges side by side in my constituency from the town of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue to the island of Île-Perrot. One is a CP rail bridge and the other is a CN rail bridge. I would not say the CP rail bridge is quiet, but it is reasonable. The CN rail bridge makes a horrendous noise whenever a train crosses. That bridge is located right next to the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue boardwalk which goes along the canal.
Under this new legislation, would it be possible for citizens in my riding to launch a complaint and to eventually get CN to replace that old bridge with something that makes less noise?
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to answer this question.
Yes indeed, this legislation clearly states the obligation of railways with respect to noise and vibration. The agency certainly has jurisdiction there. I would suggest the member contact it.
I would like to deal with my colleague's first comment about the Liberals putting legislation forward similar to this bill, which they did, but it took seven years and they did not get it passed.
I am proud to stand in the House today. Bill C-6, Bill C-11 and Bill C-3 were all on the order paper for seven years under the previous Liberal government and none of them passed. All three have now passed. Bill C-6 was passed by committee a couple of days ago. We are very proud of this government's initiative. In less than 18 months, three bills have been put forward that were never passed by the Liberals.
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
I would like to ask him a question concerning the amendments made by the Senate that negate some important amendments made by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities following submissions from a number of groups of citizens who live near marshalling yards and railway lines, and who told us about the problems they face as a result. This bill aimed to correct those problems.
I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that the Senate, in its so-called serious examination of the issue, met only with the railway companies, who indicated that things would be very difficult for them if the amendments remained as they were in the bill and that it would be very hard financially for them to meet the requirements. I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that the senators are not even meeting with the citizens' groups that would be served by this bill in an attempt to correct the situation.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's frustration with the other house. That is why I hope those members will support Bill S-4 and move forward with elected senators. That is a really good initiative.
I would like to thank the member and his party for their help on this particular piece of legislation. It was very helpful to hear from some of the groups. I think we worked cooperatively to get the best piece of legislation.
I cannot answer for the other place, but I can tell the member that I am confident with these two amendments that have been put forward that they will still meet Canadians' expectations from coast to coast to coast and in those communities that are mostly affected by noise. It will do a better job because case law is already established regarding the term “reasonableness”. I would suggest it will do a much better job than the changes would have done.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, a train goes right through the community of Fall River in my riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore. During the summertime we get complaints about train noise.
Some of the crossings have bars that come down and lights and some crossings do not. We have been consistently told by CN and others that a municipal bylaw has to be enacted in order to get bars and lights at every crossing throughout my riding.
Would this bill change that so the federal government could exercise some judgment or some sort of authority and ensure that all crossings, particularly those in my community, would have those safety bars and lights? Is it possible for the parliamentary secretary to tell me that this bill would do that?
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the member's question. The legislation will not address that specific need. I would suggest he deal with it by way of the municipal council. That would probably be the best way to deal with it. If his constituents have concerns with the noise in that particular area, they can take it up with the agency.
I look forward to the member's colleagues not filibustering any further on this legislation and to moving it forward. There are a lot of people who want this legislation. I would encourage him to talk to his colleagues to help us move this agenda forward and to satisfy the needs of Canadians.
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know there are some people who were hoping that the parliamentary secretary's speech would have left me speechless, but I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint them in that regard. He actually said a couple of things that deserve the attention and the applause of everybody in this House, including those people who are watching democracy at work.
Members should take careful note and the parliamentary secretary will want to underscore this. He did two things tonight that are brand new for the Conservative government.
First, he acknowledged that the Senate, or as we say here, the other place, put forward two amendments that should be supported unanimously. He did not just say “the other place” or “the Senate”. He said “the Liberal dominated Senate” put forward two amendments that deserve the unanimous support of this House. Can members believe that? I could hardly contain myself. If members can believe this, he was acknowledging that members of another party, this party, that members of another place, the Senate, could actually do something that the government did not think of without the help of opposition members. This deserves to be underscored over and over again. I thought that his reasons that those two amendments should be supported were very good.
This is an indication of what members on this side of the House have been saying for quite some time, that if there is good legislation or there is improved legislation, then it deserves to be supported because it represents the interests of all Canadians. Whether they are watching this debate live or on TV or whether they will be reading about it, it is something that is worth supporting.
I want to thank him for engaging all of his government caucus and saying that a Liberal amendment that came from the other place, the other house, is worth the merit of everybody.
The second reason I was almost speechless is he went to great lengths--and I know if we read the blues of the Hansard once again, we too will be surprised--and actually said that this bill was one of three bills that came from a Liberal government, that it deserved the attention it has received, that it has been passed in two forms so far, and a third one is coming up, because--are members ready for this--the government has received the cooperation of members of Parliament who want to make Parliament work. Do members know about whom he was speaking? He was speaking about my colleagues, Liberals.
The other thing is--be ready for this; I know that the Minister of the Environment is anxious to hear the rest--not only is he acknowledging that this was good legislation from the previous government, he also said on two occasions that the reason the bill did not go through in its former form is that he and his caucus were obstructionist. Thank God they are not faced with an obstructionist Liberal opposition.
This is just wonderful. I am going to accept on behalf of our colleagues in the other house the compliments which the government so ungenerously and so hesitantly wants to offer to the parliamentary approach with which we address legislation and the desire of Liberal members who want to make sure that legislation is perfect.
I must confess that being one of those members who was on the committee working with the parliamentary secretary and other colleagues from all parties, perhaps we should have reflected just a little more assiduously upon those two articles that the Senate felt in its wisdom needed to be improved.
I said there are too many big egos in this world that stand in the way of the right things, but we should not be accused of them in this House. So there were improvements. The idea of reasonableness was absolutely important and the parliamentary secretary has acknowledged that the legislation the previous Liberal government put in place included such wise statements.
He was saying, even though he regrets it as a partisan politician, and now there are people who are actually going to be listening to his response, there they are right there, that not only was the legislation forward looking but it was properly framed--
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order. I know the House is sitting a little bit later than normal, so perhaps some members are having difficulty dealing with that, but it is difficult to hear the member for Eglinton—Lawrence finish his remarks because of all the noise in the chamber. I would ask members to extend some courtesy to the member for Eglinton—Lawrence and hold off questions or comments until after he is finished his speech.
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, thank you for being very helpful. The noise we were hearing was coming from the Minister of the Environment who was trying to establish a cheering session for me. He wanted to shake down some people in order to retire my debt.
But before my train of thought was interrupted so rudely, what the parliamentary secretary was focusing on was essentially the merits of a government that he wishes were still seated in its proper place on that side of the House.
The second best thing of course is that members of Parliament from this side of the House have worked, as they should, to ensure that legislation like this one, amended by the other place, deserves immediate and proper passage. So I thank him for supporting our amendments. I hope he encourages others to do the same.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta
Conservative
Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, it is always good to have the opportunity to rebut something that is said and I know it is unfair, but the Liberals did not get it done. They had seven years to get it done. They did not get it done.
The member and his colleagues from that party did indeed support the original amendments, so is there a lack of communication totally between his party and the Liberal dominated Senate? Is it totally no communication?
Why did the Liberals agree to one thing and now they are agreeing to another. Did they not communicate with the Senate before that because they did agree to that. I am lost because I know they did not get it done after seven years and it took 18 months for this Conservative government to get it done. That is why they should remain over there and support our initiatives.
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, some of the member's colleagues should give him a road map so that he will not be lost.
As I indicated, the reason why things have been getting done is because there is a willingness on this side of the House to actually do things. We are prepared to do things that are right, but I want to thank the member once again for acknowledging that the amendments we put in place are the appropriate ones, and that he has stood up for about 30 minutes applauding them. I want to thank him for recognizing that the Liberal Party and the members in the other place have done what the Conservatives were unable to do. I thank him very much.
