Bill C-49 (Historical)

Transportation Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act in respect of air transportation and railway transportation.
With respect to air transportation, it amends the Canada Transportation Act to require the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations establishing a new air passenger rights regime and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations requiring air carriers and other persons providing services in relation to air transportation to report on different aspects of their performance with respect to passenger experience or quality of service. It amends the definition of Canadian in that Act in order to raise the threshold of voting interests in an air carrier that may be owned and controlled by non-Canadians while retaining its Canadian status, while also establishing specific limits related to such interests. It also amends that Act to create a new process for the review and authorization of arrangements involving two or more transportation undertakings providing air services to take into account considerations respecting competition and broader considerations respecting public interest.
With respect to railway transportation, it amends the Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Canadian Transportation Agency will offer information and informal dispute resolution services;
(b) expand the Governor in Council’s powers to make regulations requiring major railway companies to provide to the Minister of Transport and the Agency information relating to rates, service and performance;
(c) repeal provisions of the Act dealing with insolvent railway companies in order to allow the laws of general application respecting bankruptcy and insolvency to apply to those companies;
(d) clarify the factors that must be applied in determining whether railway companies are fulfilling their service obligations;
(e) shorten the period within which a level of service complaint is to be adjudicated by the Agency;
(f) enable shippers to obtain terms in their contracts dealing with amounts to be paid in relation to a failure to comply with conditions related to railway companies’ service obligations;
(g) require the Agency to set the interswitching rate annually;
(h) create a new remedy for shippers who have access to the lines of only one railway company at the point of origin or destination of the movement of traffic in circumstances where interswitching is not available;
(i) change the process for the transfer and discontinuance of railway lines to, among other things, require railway companies to make certain information available to the Minister and the public and establish a remedy for non-compliance with the process;
(j) change provisions respecting the maximum revenue entitlement for the movement of Western grain and require certain railway companies to provide to the Minister and the public information respecting the movement of grain; and
(k) change provisions respecting the final offer arbitration process by, among other things, increasing the maximum amount for the summary process to $2 million and by making a decision of an arbitrator applicable for a period requested by the shipper of up to two years.
It amends the CN Commercialization Act to increase the maximum proportion of voting shares of the Canadian National Railway Company that can be held by any one person to 25%.
It amends the Railway Safety Act to prohibit a railway company from operating railway equipment and a local railway company from operating railway equipment on a railway unless the equipment is fitted with the prescribed recording instruments and the company, in the prescribed manner and circumstances, records the prescribed information using those instruments, collects the information that it records and preserves the information that it collects. This enactment also specifies the circumstances in which the prescribed information that is recorded can be used and communicated by companies, the Minister of Transport and railway safety inspectors.
It amends the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act to allow the use or communication of an on-board recording, as defined in subsection 28(1) of that Act, if that use or communication is expressly authorized under the Aeronautics Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Railway Safety Act or the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
It amends the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act to authorize the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to enter into agreements for the delivery of screening services on a cost-recovery basis.
It amends the Coasting Trade Act to enable repositioning of empty containers by ships registered in any register. These amendments are conditional on Bill C-30, introduced in the 1st session of the 42nd Parliament and entitled the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, receiving royal assent and sections 91 to 94 of that Act coming into force.
It amends the Canada Marine Act to permit port authorities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These amendments are conditional on Bill C-44, introduced in the 1st session of the 42nd Parliament and entitled the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, receiving royal assent.
Finally, it makes related and consequential amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Competition Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the Air Canada Public Participation Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 and the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are 15 motions and amendments standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-49.

Motions Nos. 1 to 15 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in amendment

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-49, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 18 on page 8 with the following:

“aux termes de l'article 53.8, le commissaire rend”.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and speak to my report stage amendments to Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act.

This bill amends 13 other acts. It deals with planes, trains, and ships. It touches on airports and seaports. It is vast in its reach and wide in its scope. Yet, if I had to state my thoughts on this bill in two words, it would be “missed opportunity”.

Through Bill C-49, the government had the opportunity to make great strides in improving our Canadian transportation system to ensure that it works well for all Canadians. Instead, the government let that chance go by.

The transport committee began special hearings on Bill C-49 in the week prior to the House's return from its summer recess. Over the course of that week, we heard 44 hours of testimony from dozens of stakeholders and expert witnesses in each of the sectors touched on by Bill C-49. We were given briefs and letters, consisting of thousands of pages of data, with over 100 suggested technical amendments from those whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by this bill.

We heard, almost unanimously, that Bill C-49 was a good start, and that if the suggested amendments were made, the bill would actually accomplish its stated objectives. However, after only two weeks to review this mountain of information, the Liberal members of the transport committee defeated over 24 reasonable technical amendments. Again, these amendments were suggested by a wide range of stakeholders and experts, and were written to make the bill a workable solution for all involved.

The good new is that there are still some amendments we can make here at report stage of this bill. I will be suggesting four amendments, as they were moved. The first of these has to do with airline joint ventures. Joint ventures, while sometimes useful for creating efficiencies for airlines on routes in the air passenger industry, can also run the risk of comprising consumer interests due to the loss of competition on a given route, and the ensuing increase in ticket prices.

That is why the decision to grant or deny an application for a joint venture has historically been left in the hands of the very capable Competition Bureau and the Commissioner of Competition. Bill C-49 would change that. If the bill were to pass in its current form, the Minister of Transport would have the final say on whether or not two airlines could combine routes and share cost and profit.

Further, this bill stipulates that the Minister of Transport must consider the nebulous terms “public interest”, and not simply whether or not a proposed joint venture would reduce competition. I use the word “nebulous” to describe the terms “public interest”, because over the past two years, far too often we have seen the Liberal government and its ministers claim to be serving the public interest while, in fact, they are only serving their own political or personal interests.

The recent political machinations that led to the cancellation of energy east come to mind as an example of the government serving its own political interests rather than the interests of all Canadians.

However, getting back to the amendment before us, this change gives an uncomfortable amount of power to the Minister of Transport over the currently non-partisan process and over the Competition Bureau. Bill C-49 risks taking a non-political process and politicizing it.

Bill C-49 also introduces an option for airport authorities to purchase the services of additional security personnel from CATSA. Ostensibly, additional staffing would increase the speed at which travellers are processed through security. On the surface, increasing security and processing speed to ensure that travellers remain safe while not missing their flights sounds like a good idea. However, there are two significant areas of concern.

The first has to do with costs. Air travel in Canada is already among the most expensive in the world. This provision could increase the costs even more. We all know that any added cost for the airports would simply be passed along to the end user, making air travel for middle-class Canadians even more expensive.

Second, we heard in testimony throughout the study of this portion of Bill C-49 that the federal government currently takes more in security fees than it provides back to CATSA to perform its duties. I believe this is unacceptable.

This is the opposite of making travel more affordable for Canada's middle class. Bill C-49 would, rather than addressing the issue, simply impose yet another de facto tax on Canadian travellers. For this reason, I have proposed a report stage amendment to remove this clause from the bill.

I am also proposing an amendment to remove two other clauses, clauses 73 and 74, from Bill C-49 that would give port authorities access to the Liberals' infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank is funded by taking $15 billion away from infrastructure projects for small and medium-sized communities across Canada through the Liberals' imposition of a $100 million minimum cost requirement for projects to qualify for support from the infrastructure bank. Small and medium-sized communities would see almost no benefit as a result. While I understand that our ports are in need of infrastructure investments, the infrastructure bank is not the way to address this.

While these are the report stage amendments I am proposing, I was very disappointed by the display of partisanship at committee when this bill was reviewed. At committee, my colleague from the NDP, the member for Trois-Rivières, and I proposed small, reasonable, technical amendments, which were defeated by the Liberals at committee.

For instance, with the introduction of long-haul interswitching, the Liberals sought to create their own solution to a problem which had already been addressed with a reasonable Conservative solution.

In the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, the previous Conservative government had created a regime of extended interswitching that worked so well in the prairie provinces that shippers from across Canada requested that it be extended to the entire country.

Instead, the Liberals created the complicated, inefficient long-haul interswitching regime that has such poor conception, and so many exceptions, it will be all but useless to shippers. For example, the member for Trois-Rivières and I both proposed an amendment requested by many stakeholders that would have made LHI work that much better.

This minor technical amendment would have changed the wording of the provision to allow the first interchange point to be in the reasonable direction of the shipper's destination. What does that mean exactly? Simply put, shippers did not want to have to send their product potentially hundreds of kilometres in the wrong direction to reach the nearest interchange point, as this would increase their costs. What happened to this very reasonable technical amendment? The Liberals defeated it. It was another huge missed opportunity to make this bill work.

Meanwhile, not content to make this measure simply worthless, the Liberals may have actually succeeded in making it harmful. In Bill C-49, toxic inhalation hazards, known as TIHs, are exempted from long-haul interswitching, supposedly due to safety concerns. However, this is not a reasonable exemption to make. TIHs are shipped under an extensive safety regime, as prescribed under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and its regulations.

The real concern is that this exemption undermines the principle of the common carrier obligation. This principle essentially states that railways are obligated to carry all products without discrimination, and allows shippers to access the railway's services without unreasonable carriage fees or threats of denial of service. Denying access to long-haul interswitching for TlHs could be the thin edge of the wedge that would one day break apart the common carrier principle.

Ten minutes is not nearly long enough to list every reasonable technical amendment that the Liberals voted against. Suffice it to say this bill is full of missed opportunities. It is my hope the government will take a small step forward, and accept our report stage amendments.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her presentation. I admit that I agree with the key components of her speech. It is truly a pleasure to work with her at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would not have believed it when she was in the Conservative government and that brings me to my question.

Since she was once on the government side, and it will surely be my turn in 2019, what happens to members when they arrive in government to make them suddenly think that they have all the answers and that every amendment proposed by the opposition is out of order?

That is what we experienced with Bill C-49, and that is what we recently experienced with Bill S-2 as well.

What makes the Liberal government members think that the light only shines when it is red?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can manage to get inside the head of a Liberal. This is really an omnibus bill that amends 13 different acts, and has consequential impacts on all three modes of transportation.

As I mentioned, we heard from many stakeholders in a short period of time who all agreed that if the government would be willing to make some small, very technical amendments, this bill would actually go a long way in addressing many of the concerns they had. It is sad the government is not actually listening to those stakeholders, and to those experts who recommended these technical amendments.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a mentor who said that public service is good for us. As the member here mentioned earlier, we really are seeing a government that does not put the public's interest first at hand, or really their political interests, let alone what we are seeing from the finance minister and his lack of transparency.

With respect to this bill, and clause 14 that amends the Canada Transportation Act with respect to airline joint ventures, it takes the final decision-making authority pertaining to joint ventures away from the Commissioner of Competition and gives it to the Minister of Transport. In giving the Minister of Transport that final authority with respect to airline joint ventures, the clause mandates the minister to keep the act in the public's interest, but exceptionally subjectively.

Could the member comment in detail on what her concerns are with respect to this clause. I do not believe it is in the public's interest; it is only in the political interests of the current Liberal government. I know she believes in the public's interest. I am looking forward to her comments.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply put, as we have seen time and time again from the government, and the last number of weeks would highlight this, it has great difficulty in distinguishing between its own political interests and the public interest.

A potential effect of clause 14 would be that Canadian consumers might have fewer airlines to choose from on certain routes. As a result, Canadians might face higher costs for air travel. This is one of the reasons why we raised this at committee and why this amendment was brought forward. Again, that nebulous term of public interest is what is really concerning when it comes to the Liberal government.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

Our rail transportation system is essential to Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. It is one of the economy's driving forces. That is why our government is taking a proactive approach by introducing this bill. The proposed measures will support the system's commercial orientation, which has made Canada's freight rail service one of the most efficient systems with some of the lowest freight rates in the world—even lower than in the United States.

Railway companies have also made significant investments to make Canada's rail transportation system more efficient and safe. That is why this bill also includes measures to promote future investment. This bill not only adds to our success, but will also ensure future risk management. Even if the rail transportation system is currently doing fine, there are some pressures to handle.

Canada's freight rail legislative framework must address these pressures, and that is why Bill C-49 would foster a balanced, efficient, transparent, and safe freight rail system. Overall, the freight rail measures in this bill strike a delicate balance between railway and shipper interests and provide the right conditions for our freight rail system over the long term. These legislative provisions would provide shippers with stronger tools so they can access the highest level of service at the best possible rates.

Through their diligent work in reviewing Bill C-49, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has proposed amendments that would further strengthen Canada's freight rail legislative framework. Amendments made by the committee include providing captive shippers in British Columbia, Alberta, and northern Quebec with access to long-haul interswitching; extending the notice period for the removal of interchanges and clarifying that the removal of an interchange does not relieve a railway of its level of service obligations; advancing the timelines for the coming into force of the new data requirements on service and performance metrics to six months following royal assent; and tightening the timelines for the posting of these metrics on a weekly basis by the Canadian Transportation Agency, which would improve transparency. Together, these amendments would strengthen the freight rail provisions while maintaining the balance that Bill C-49 is intended to achieve.

Safety is also a critical element of our future success, and that is why this bill includes important measures on voice and video recorders. We recognize that the greater use of technology can often create challenging and complex dynamics in the work environment. I am certain that my hon. colleagues can appreciate that this is the case with the proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act, which would mandate the installation of voice and video recorders in the locomotive cabs, including both freight and passenger trains.

As background, allow me to remind my hon. colleagues that the call for in-cab voice and video recorders was added to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's watch list in 2012. Further, the question of mandating this technology has been studied numerous times and been the subject of various recommendations from technical industry working groups, the TSB, and parliamentary committees. This includes, over the years, Transport Canada working groups, with the participation of the railway industry and labour unions, to study the feasibility and safety benefits of requiring this technology in locomotive cabs, specifically in 2006, 2009, and 2012. The latter resulted in the adoption of a voluntary approach whereby railways were encouraged to install the devices on a voluntary basis. More recently, there have been calls for a mandatory regime in the independent Canada Transportation Act review report and in the 2016 report of a committee of this House, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has always supported a regime such as the one being proposed in this legislation, which is outlined in their safety study on in-cab recorders published in September 2016. In that report, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada concluded that to maximize safety benefits, the use of data obtained from these recorders should not be limited to post-accident investigation, but rather should be used to also support proactive safety management.

The government has carefully considered and examined how to maximize the safety benefits of this technology while respecting employee privacy. This is why the changes we are proposing specifically define, limit, and control access to, and uses of, the data obtained through these recordings in accordance with Canadian privacy laws. As my hon. colleagues can attest, this is a comprehensive and balanced approach that would significantly advance railway safety while expressly supporting employee rights.

Bill C-49 also proposes a new, transparent, and predictable process that takes into account both competitive and public interest considerations in the assessment of air carrier joint ventures. Under the proposed process, the Minister of Transport would receive a report from the commissioner of competition identifying any risks to competition. The minister would assess these arrangements from a public interest perspective and make a decision taking both competition and public interest considerations into account.

As mandated by the amendments made at committee, a summary of the commissioner's conclusions and the minister's final decision would be made public to ensure the transparency of the process. Making this information public would inform Canadians of the grounds for granting or refusing a joint venture arrangement, and under what conditions, and would likely help build public confidence in the process.

Also, due to a clerical error, the text of the French language version of the adopted amendment continues to make the publication by the commissioner of competition a voluntary step in the process instead of a mandatory one. There is a government amendment being proposed at report stage today that would correct this clerical error so that the English and French versions of this bill will be aligned.

To conclude on this topic, it is expected that joint ventures would lead to better connectivity and an overall improvement in the air passenger experience, while ensuring competition.

As it relates to air passenger screening services, Canada's largest airports have expressed an interest in improving the timelines of passenger screening, either through additional screeners or technological innovation. At the same time, some smaller non-designated airports have expressed an interest in obtaining screening services to help develop economic opportunities. The proposed amendments to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act are important, as they would create a more flexible framework to allow CATSA to provide these services on a cost-recovery basis, which would in turn allow Canada to maintain an aviation system that is both secure and cost-effective.

Additionally, important amendments to the Canada Marine Act are proposed that would allow Canada port authorities to access loans and loan guarantees from the newly created Canada infrastructure bank, which would support investments in Canada's trade corridors and infrastructure projects, contributing to our long-term growth as a nation. Finally, Bill C-49 would improve the efficiency of Canada's supply chain by allowing foreign vessels to reposition owned or leased empty containers between locations in Canada on a non-revenue basis.

In summary, Bill C-49 provides critical objectives, including fair access to shipper remedies, efficiency, long-term investment, transparency, and safety. I urge members to support Bill C-49 in its current form and to adopt it as quickly as possible so that the right conditions will be in place for a successful winter season in our rail transportation system.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question focuses specifically on the locomotive voice and video recording portion of her presentation. I agree, and I think most Canadians would agree, that all locomotives' black boxes, so to speak, are probably, and theoretically at least, a good idea. We want to ensure that if there is an accident, investigators, post-accident, can determine exactly, if they can, what happened. The question, however, is one about privacy, and the parliamentary secretary mentioned that. There was a lack of specificity in her comments when she said that they want to respect the privacy of employees, which I can appreciate, but I did not hear any details about how they expect to do that. I have received many questions from union members in my riding concerned about the fact that their privacy may be violated, because they have not heard any clarity from the government on how their privacy will be ensured.

Could the parliamentary secretary please perhaps further explain to the House how the privacy concerns expressed by union members in particular would be met, and privacy maintained and ensured?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and something the committee struggled with. It had quite a fulsome discussion on the issue. We have committed to this path because we believe that it is in the interests of Canadians to have access to this data for safety management purposes, but we have also committed to defining access, limiting access, and controlling access to the data, limiting how and for what it can be used for. All of the uses will be in accordance with Canadian privacy laws. I understand the concern. We have heard it loud and clear, and will make sure that this data is used for its intended purposes, which is to make our rail system even safer.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to tip my hat to the response I got from my Conservative colleague a few minutes ago when she said that she cannot get inside the head of a Liberal. I would not be able to manage it either.

I always believed that in the House, as well as in committee, solutions emerge from the clash of ideas. That is how we come up with the best solution. I must apologize to the hon. member for saying earlier that no amendment had been accepted. That is not true. One amendment was accepted, and then only because the Liberals had proposed the exact same one. That is not what I would call open-minded. Even in the example that we are talking about, voice and video recorders on locomotives, what is being proposed in Bill C-49 is at odds with the conclusions of a Transport Canada working group.

I will repeat the question. What place do the opposition parties have in developing a bill if all amendments are always rejected?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know this issue is very important to the hon. member and the committee as a whole.

What we are trying to do is to create a transportation system with a focus on a long-term, comprehensive, and balanced approach among competing interests, oriented toward improving the security and safety of the system and the services it provides to Canadians, and that is in their best interests. A focus on a permanent, long-term solution is really what we were trying to achieve. There is no doubt that it is often a delicate balance, but we have heard a lot of testimony from a lot of witnesses, and finding that delicate balance is what we have tried to do.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I had two reactions when I learned that I had another 10 minutes to speak to Bill C-49.

First, I felt a little bit of panic. I asked myself how I would manage, in 10 minutes, to cover everything that is wrong with this bill. Second, I told myself to calm down, because no matter what I say, I will not be heard, and nothing I suggest will be retained. I will simply have to talk about some aspects of the bill that seem to have major problems, raise the question of relevance, and talk about how we work in the House and in committee.

Members will recall that during the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals said that everything about the previous Conservative government's approach had to be changed. Now, we see that essentially nothing has changed. As soon as a party is in government, it seems to magically become all-knowing, and bills automatically become wonderful and unchallengeable.

I still maintain that enlightenment comes from the clash of ideas. This is also what Quebeckers and Canadians expect from Parliament. They expect all members, regardless of their role in the House or their political stripes, to bring their perspectives and to work together to find the best solution. I must say that this is not the experience I am having right now.

I want to take the few minutes I have left to give an overview of the aspects of this bill that are ill advised. This bill plays well in the media, because Canadian consumers have been waiting for this for years. For a number of weeks the public saw Bill C-49 as a bill on the passengers' bill of rights, and yet, it is much more than that. It is an omnibus bill, so even if it often deals with transportation, it remains an omnibus bill.

One might ask why the government would introduce an omnibus transportation bill instead of addressing each problem and finding the best solution. Was the government hoping to use a wide-ranging bill such as this to discreetly gloss over some issues it does not care as much about? To ask that question is to answer it.

I will say that, as I was preparing my speech, I began to think 10 minutes might be too much. Perhaps I would not need more than 10 seconds to sum up Bill C-49 with the help of an old saying about biting off more than one can chew. That is exactly what is happening with Bill C-49, a bill that tried to tackle some major and necessary changes but falls short in many regards.

I want to comment on the passengers' bill of rights that consumers have been waiting for for years. Canada will once again be the last hold-out in adopting a passengers' bill of rights not unlike the ones that already exist all over the world. Let me emphasize that a great many witnesses told the committee that similar bills of rights already exist and that the European version is probably the gold standard. The European model is actually the one that inspired a New Democratic colleague of ours to introduce a proper passengers' bill of rights during the 41st Parliament. All Bill C-49 does is offer some general guidelines for Transport Canada consultations so that, at some point in 2018, the department can come up with some recommendations that the minister can do with as he pleases. If we are lucky, I get the sense the government will propose a passengers' bill of rights a few weeks or months before the 2019 election to generate some media hype. In the meantime, passengers will still have no rights.

No one needed to reinvent the wheel, here; every single witness testified that the systems that already exist work well, and yet, what we have amounts to an empty gesture. I would like to share one brief example of the difference a bill of rights can make.

Flight cancellations that invoke the European passengers' bill of rights account for 0.4% of all cancelled flights, whereas in Canada, where we still do not have a bill of rights, the rate is four times higher. That shows beyond a doubt that a bill of rights does have a real impact.

This could even be described as a government approach, since all of the rules that will make up this bill of rights will be applied by regulation. They will not be embedded in the act and so the minister will be able to easily change them on the back of a napkin some Friday afternoon as he sees fit. It is much more complicated to amend a law since that requires the involvement of the House. The approach is therefore questionable, as is the fact that the bill of rights is not embedded in Bill C-49,

I also want to say a few words about the voice and video recorders that were mentioned in previous questions. Everyone agrees that we should try to do everything we can to enhance protections and decrease the number of potential incidents. That is why airplanes have black boxes. As soon as there is an incident, the data from the black box can be checked to try to determine what the problem was, come to the best conclusions possible, and amend the approach if necessary.

We proposed an amendment that allayed all of the concerns workers have about the bill of rights and the protection of privacy. Everyone agreed that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada inspectors were the ones who needed that information. That is what those recordings should be used for. The TSB and the TSB alone should have access to those recordings if an incident occurs. That would allay all of the concerns of workers who might think that the employer could use those recordings for disciplinary or other purposes. It also addresses any concerns regarding the violation of privacy. The recordings would be available to TSB inspectors and only TSB inspectors when necessary. That is another amendment that was dismissed out of hand.

I would like to talk a little about the competition commissioner. Those who followed the case will remember the joint venture agreement between United Airlines and Air Canada that the competition commissioner ruled on. He said that a number of routes should be omitted from the agreement because, in the end, it was consumers who would lose out. He had the authority to limit this sort of agreement.

Now, the government is giving the minister that power, and relegating the commissioner to an advisory role. The minister can make his own decisions based on the public interest, a concept that is rather vague and becoming even vaguer. The committee never managed to define this concept. Neither the minister nor any of the witnesses or public servants who appeared managed to define it. That could result in an abuse of power by the minister, who may not necessarily defend the interests of Canadian and Quebec consumers. That is a serious problem.

Finally, I want to talk about regional airports. We all agree on the need to develop regional airports. Many companies want to offer cheap flights from regional airports rather than the larger airports. Some municipalities, such as Trois-Rivières, have explored the option of developing chartered flights, but had to abandon the idea because the cost of security is too prohibitive. No consideration is being given to the possibility of redistributing the cost of security to every passenger and airport. Instead, those who want security services are simply being told they have to pay for it. If a regional airport like the one in Trois-Rivières wanted to offer security services and pay for them itself, it would have to charge an extra $70 or $80 per ticket. We know full well that at that rate, the airport cannot compete and the idea will be dropped.

Those are the four elements I wanted to address. I sense that the Speaker would like me to wrap up so I will leave it there and make myself available to answer questions.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I completely agree with him, particularly when he said that our bills are “not unchallengeable”. That is true.

It is all well and good to criticize the government, but what does he have to say about our government's accomplishments? Our government has created over 400,000 jobs, and our economy is beginning to prosper. We introduced the Canada child benefit that helped lift over 300,000 children out of poverty, and our Prime Minister has played a key role in restoring Canada's image on the world stage.

We created an infrastructure bank. Over $160 billion will be invested in infrastructure in the years to come, the largest commitment to infrastructure in Canadian history.

About a month and a half ago in Laval, which is in my riding, we announced a $20-million investment to improve the public transit system.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite. I understand that the Liberals are now in the habit of changing the subject and talking about something different when we ask questions.

I also noticed that, at the beginning of his question, the member said “not unchallengeable”. In my opinion, two negatives always make a positive, so Bill C-49 should be challenged. If the Liberals really want to talk about the economy, then let us talk about it.

I would like to know why the government rejected all of the recommendations that we made on the development of regional airports.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I thoroughly enjoy working with him on committee. In fact, he would have made the observation during our clause-by-clause study of the bill and amendments made that we often had the same amendments we would have brought forward. I believe that was because it completely reflected what we heard from the stakeholders and experts. These were not amendments that we came up with ourselves, but amendments that the industry told us were needed.

The other observation made at that time was that this piece of legislation was a crowning achievement. I do not know if he would like to comment on that, but what I would ask him to comment on is the privacy commissioner's letter that was written to our committee chair, dated September 12, 2017, which raised concerns about how Bill C-49 was addressing the data that was going to be collected from LVVRs. Now that we are at report stage, does the member believe that the bill addresses these concerns adequately?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. My speech and questions may have made it sound as if I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and think everything is terrible.

There is one positive aspect of our work that I would highlight, however, and that is the collegiality of committee testimony. We get to hear every point of view in committee. We studied Bill C-49 for five days from dawn to dusk, and we were happy to do it. Every piece of testimony added one more brick to the building of this bill.

That being said, why is it that, after our study, these bricks are not being used to build up the bill? Why are they instead being used either to build a Liberal version of the bill, or to stone some amendments to death?

Several lines of consensus clearly emerged from all of the testimony we heard during our study of Bill C-49. The reason they are no longer reflected in the bill is not because members from any party felt uneasy about calling for a given addition, deletion, or change. It is because, I repeat, all of the amendments were rejected, except those the Liberals had proposed.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-49 today. I am opposed to this bill because of a number of issues with it, but in particular I want to speak to section 14 of the bill.

Section 14 concerns the review of arrangements involving two or more transportation undertakings providing air services. In other words, section 14 involves joint ventures between two airlines, joint ventures that allow airlines to co-operate in terms of sharing routes, frequent flier programs, and revenue-sharing and cost-sharing.

This is not an insignificant section of the bill. This is a major change to competition law. Section 14 of Bill C-49 makes major changes to the Competition Act.

I want to take a step back and explain why I think this is so concerning. The Competition Bureau is a very important organization. It ensures fair competition in Canada. It ensures that Canadian consumers and Canadian companies operate in a marketplace where they can prosper, a marketplace where there is sufficient competition, and a marketplace that delivers lower prices and more choices for consumers and companies.

Canada has long had a strong legal tradition and strong framework legislation in the area of competition law. We introduced competition law before the United States did in the 19th century, and throughout the last 150 years we have continually strengthened that competition law in order to ensure that we do not see anti-competitive behaviours in the marketplace.

I remember in 2004 when the then-minority government of prime minister Paul Martin was in place. It introduced a bill that would modernize competition law with the introduction of administrative monetary penalties that would work in place of, and alongside of, Criminal Code penalties that have a much higher threshold of proof.

While that legislation did not pass, the subsequent Harper government introduced similar legislation that was eventually adopted, and administrative monetary penalties are now part of our competition law. Canada has long had a strong tradition of ensuring competitive marketplaces. We are also seen around the world as leaders in competition law enforcement and ensuring that companies cannot abuse their marketplace position.

It is with great concern that I read section 14 of this bill that is in front of us, because it would weaken the bureau. The bureau is an independent law enforcement agency. This bill would actually take power away from the Competition Bureau and the commissioner of competition, and give it to the Minister of Transport. Not only that, it would allow the Minister of Transport to ignore competition concerns and to approve airline joint ventures.

The reason why this is so very concerning is that we know that more competition and a more competitive marketplace leads to lower prices and more choice for Canadian consumers. If we look at the history of airline policy in this country, we have come a long way over the last 30 years.

Privatization and increased competition have given Canadians more choice and lower prices in the airline industry. We started with deregulation in the 1980s, we privatized Air Canada in 1988, we spun out of Transport Canada the airports across this country in 1992, we established independent airport authorities in the 1990s, and because of that, there have been literally tens of billions of dollars of investment in airports and in airlines in this country.

For example, in the early 1990s, some $50 million a year was being spent on airport improvements. Since airports were spun out of the Department of Transport in 1992, over $14 billion has been invested in Canadian airports. The same is true of Air Canada. It is a much better airline today than it was in the 1980s when it was heavily regulated and not subject to competition, and owned by the Government of Canada. Today it is a much better airline, and it is a better airline because it has been subject to competition.

However, the job is not yet done. It is clear through numerous studies that the Canadian travelling public is still paying far too high a price to get from A to B in this country. That is why section 14 of the bill is so very concerning. It is going to lead to less competition, increased prices, and less choice for the travelling public, which runs counter to the effort that we made over the last number of decades to increase competition and lower prices for Canadians.

I want to give an example to illustrate this point. In 2011, Air Canada wanted to enter into a joint venture with United Continental that would allow them to share many transborder routes between Canada and the United States, and Canada and other destinations. That joint venture was fully reviewed by the Competition Bureau and the bureau demanded that certain conditions be put on that joint venture. The bureau in its review concluded that 10 cross-border routes between Canada and the United States would be less competitive for Canadian consumers because Air Canada and United Continental would be subject a monopoly and nine other routes would be subject to less competition than currently is the case.

The bureau refused to approve the joint venture unless certain routes were exempted, so the consent agreement that was entered into between the parties and the Competition Bureau exempted 14 cross-border routes from this joint venture, ensuring that on those 14 cross-border routes there was sufficient competition for Canadian consumers. The bill in front of us today would allow the minister to override the bureau and to approve these joint ventures without any conditions to ensure sufficient competition.

If we take a step back from this and we ask ourselves why the government is doing this, it seems to me that one of the reasons is that it has become a bit of a political “scratch my back and I will scratch yours” game. The government pressured Air Canada to buy 75 C Series jets from Bombardier in order to help the government politically with the problem it had with Bombardier. Fearing that the company was entering a dangerous period of insolvency, the government put a lot of pressure on a private sector company to purchase these 75 C Series jets.

I suspect that in return two bills were introduced in Parliament. I think the government needs to come clean on whether or not there was a quid pro quo in this arrangement. Air Canada buys these jets and in return the government introduces two bills, Bill C-10, which lifted the requirement for Air Canada to have maintenance facilities in certain cities in this country, and Bill C-49, which has section 14 that would allow the Minister of Transport to approve joint ventures without any conditions to ensure sufficient competition.

This would be a real step back for competition law. It would weaken competition particularly when it comes to future joint ventures that airlines in this country may enter into. It would lead to higher prices for Canadian consumers and less choice. It is for that reason that I strongly believe that this section of the bill should be deleted and why I am opposed to the bill. I look forward to members' questions and comments.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have already heard a lot of people speak about Bill C-49. I had the privilege of attending the hearings in September when I subbed in for that week. I found the hearings incredible in the sense of the knowledge that was shared by all of the experts, as well as the learning, and collegiality among all parties listening and questioning the people there. Having said that, I put some notes down on paper. I am not as well spoken as the previous member, so I will refer to my notes extensively.

Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, makes large-scale changes to how transportation is regulated in Canada. It is an omnibus bill. It makes big changes to rail, air, and marine port authorities. The question is, does it make all the right ones?

I would like to discuss the complicated set of changes Bill C-49 makes to rail in Canada. The changes to the long-haul interswitching this bill makes replace the provisions introduced by the previous Conservative government, which extended interswitching distance to 160 kilometres. Those provisions expired on August 1. I remember well the winter of 2013-14, and the reason why these changes were made at that time.

This is a significant challenge. It needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The shipping industry has been left in limbo since that time. Shippers and producers rely on those tools to ensure access to competing railways. Without them, they lose an important bargaining chip in negotiating prices with railways. Some would say they were not used that much. On the other hand, they were there as a bargaining tool.

This directly hurts competition and can even result in no produce being moved at all in some areas. That' is what happened in the Peace country in 2014. That is why the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act was necessary to address the situation in 2014.

Therefore, new interswitching provisions are long overdue. Unfortunately, it is far from clear whether this bill meets its objective of improving shipper and producer options with the 1,200-kilometre interswitching tool. The system introduced through Bill C-30 was popular with shippers. It provided the certainty of a regulated rate up to 160 kilometres. Bill C-49 proposes changing this so that the interswitching rate over 30 kilometres will be decided by the CTA on an ad hoc basis. The witnesses I heard at the transport committee preferred the 160-kilometre regulated rate system we already had.

The 30-kilometre interswitching rate will be set each year. It takes into account the railroad's infrastructure needs across their entire network. This could increase the rate paid by shippers.

The rate-setting regime this bill introduces needs to be designed to ensure that shippers have access to competitive rates. As designed, the rate will be derived from comparable traffic that is subject to captivity. This system needs to concentrate on a concrete review mechanism to ensure it is actually working for shippers. The government cannot just design this system and leave it to its own devices. Without a sunset clause, which we heard asked for many times, or predesignated review dates in two to three years, there are absolutely no guarantees for shippers and producers that they will benefit.

As it stands, there is simply too much uncertainty about the impact of the newly redesigned interswitching provisions. They need to be reviewable and they need to be timely. We need them implemented now.

Speaking of captive shippers and producers, it is noteworthy that the nearest interswitching location for many shippers and producers in northern Alberta and B.C. would be in Kamloops-Vancouver corridor. The other exclusionary zone is from Quebec City to Windsor. Interswitching is not allowed beyond 30 kilometres in these areas. For these captive shippers, the new interswitching provisions will do nothing to yield more competitive rates and improve competition. This is a serious problem. These captive shippers and producers have no choice but to use one company to which they are effectively held hostage.

It is important to remember that railways in Canada operate in a near monopoly situation. This situation could put shippers and producers at a real disadvantage. The provisions of Bill C-49 that allow shippers to request a contract from a railway, with reciprocal penalties, offers the chance to foster more competition.

However, the penalties need to be designed to acknowledge that the railways have much greater economic power than the shippers. Bill C-49 is intended to encourage the efficient movement of shippers' traffic while creating a system that is fairly balanced between the shipper and the railway. Therefore, the government needs to take a clear position that because of the difference in economic power, railways would be penalized at a higher rate than shippers. One dollar to a shipper versus one dollar to a railway is very different. Giving both the same fixed penalty would not be reciprocation. The railway simply would not face a meaningful penalty for failing to fulfill its service obligations.

The lack of short-line rail is also a pressing issue. There are very few left, and they are a critical component, where they do exist, of our infrastructure. Without them, we need to rely on trucking, which is hard on the roads in municipalities and worse for the environment.

When the railway does not operate efficiently for shippers, the whole supply chain is impacted. This we heard a number of times. They need to collaborate and plan with the whole chain, or the system does not work efficiently. If the respective parties plan their supply chain, the whole system has a chance to be more equitable and efficient. If a producer contracts with a shipper for a specified date, then gets a call that the cars will be showing up a week late, that is a problem, and the producer pays the penalty. The cars then show up late at their destination, and the producer is often the one who ends up suffering for it. When railways do not get their cars where they are supposed to be on time, that incurred cost goes back to the producers. They are held ransom by the whole system.

What I heard in committee when this bill was being considered was a lot of talk about adequate rail service. This bill needs to do more than strive for adequate. The government has expressed a desire to increase agriculture exports by 40%. Transportation needs to work much better, or increasing the amount of produce will be irrelevant. Canadians need and expect great rail service. We need an efficient system that ensures that cars show up and ship grain on time.

We all are aware that NAFTA negotiations are ongoing. It is therefore remarkable that the government would allow the new 1,200 kilometre interswitching distance to increase U.S. rail access to Canada at regulated rates. The U.S. could access this Canadian traffic without reciprocity. It seems like weak negotiating on the part of the government to give up this leverage before NAFTA negotiations are concluded.

With regard to air travel, Bill C-49 introduces some interesting provisions. It would take the ultimate authority on joint-venture decisions away from the commissioner of competition, which was mentioned by others, and would give it to the minister. It would further require the minister to take into account the public interest. This is a broad and extremely subjective term. We currently have an independent, non-partisan public official making the decisions to promote competition. The bill may introduce a needless political component to the decision-making process.

Bill C-49 would also allow the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to sell security screening services to airports. When large designated airports that already have security screening services buy additional screening, that cost is shifted to the airlines. The airlines then pass it on to consumers. This provision would essentially be a veiled tax on air travellers.

I respect that the government intends to benefit air passengers by introducing this bill. However, it would leave what compensation passengers would be entitled to from the airlines to the discretion of the minister and the CTA. This would be extensive government intervention. We cannot risk those well-intentioned measures actually making air travel more expensive through ad hoc decisions. The CTA would have to determine on a case-by-case basis if a service breach was the fault of the airline or of any other factors. We need a charter of rights. We need it up front. People need to know what the compensation factors are, not to be judged ad hoc.

The administrative costs of implementing this legislation could be large. Again, it is a large omnibus bill, with many parts to it. Do we have all the right parts in it? I think not. There are other things that could have been done and should have been done.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of sitting on the committee during the hearings on Bill C-49 and enjoyed the company of the hon. member for Bow River.

I took some of the member's comments to suggest that perhaps the bill would not go far enough to protect the interests of shippers. I cannot help but point out that the bill includes a number of pro-shipper measures, such as reciprocal penalties, adequacy of service, protecting the maximum revenue entitlement, enhancing data disclosure, improving the arbitration process, and a number of other things.

The member raised the measures included in Bill C-30, suggesting that they were preferred, according to the witnesses he heard. When I listened to the witnesses over the course of the entire study, many of them suggested that having remedies only for one industry and only for one region of the country was not the best approach and that the long-haul interswitching would open up a more efficient transportation system across sectors and across geography. Does the member support measures that would extend this improved service to new parts of the country and to different sectors?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a number of things, specifically the long-haul interswitching. What I am most familiar with, particularly in my region of the prairies, is that the interswitching has worked. There were a lot of people in as witnesses, and people I know, who said that 160 kilometres works, so let us keep it in place.

With respect to the arbitration you mentioned, we had a witness who said that it is an interesting game, but the other party has to agree, and very few of the railways agree to go to arbitration. The arbitration fees only work for the richest carrier in the country, so the arbitration piece actually does not work. There are other things in it, and there are some things that do work. Thank you for the question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I want to remind hon. members not to speak directly to each other but to go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the much ballyhooed part of the bill is the air passenger bill of rights, yet from everything I have heard, it seems that a lot of air passenger advocates are not really on board with this bill. Is there any good reason they are not stepping up, when it is supposed to be an air passenger bill of rights?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point. It is one that came up in the discussion, and all members discussed that thoroughly with the various witnesses. The member is right. It was the air passenger people who said that it is not fair. I think it is a critical point, when we know that there are numerous examples out there of passengers' rights and what the passenger would know he or she would receive under certain conditions. Having it on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis is not what we need for a passenger bill of rights. We need specifics. Passengers need to know what it is they are going to receive when things do not work.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the structure of our proposed passenger bill of rights exactly mirrors that of the European Union's. The legislation would provide the guidelines and the structure, and the details would be put into regulations. Therefore, that concern is not really valid.

I would like to know from the hon. member what he thinks the important elements of a passenger bill of rights will be for Canadians.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the airline passenger bill of rights would be a critical piece for consumers in Canada who travel on the airlines. They would know up front what the results would be for delays and lost luggage. People need to know those things. When they are stuck in a travelling situation, obviously their anxiety can be high. There can be family issues. They are trying to move. They are trying to travel. If they knew this up front, it really would make a difference to lessen the anxiety for travellers, which I believe is very important. The sooner we have this, the better.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Lethbridge, Health; the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Infrastructure.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill that makes significant changes to 13 existing laws and affects three different sectors, namely the air, rail, and marine sectors.

By introducing this grab-bag of a bill on transportation modernization, the Liberals are breaking their campaign promise to not introduce omnibus bills during their term. This is just one more broken promise. Let us face it; Bill C-49 has lost the media's attention. There seems to be some push-back now, after it was introduced under false pretences as dealing exclusively with the passengers' bill of rights to ensure rights and guarantees for all Canadians. Perhaps that is what the Liberals are going for, that is, a communication plan, a political strategy, and a few talking points designed to make people forget all of their mistakes and broken promises.

From the beginning of the session, the Liberals have been managing one disappointment after another and are drowning in a political quagmire: supply management threatened, the mishandling of the Netflix deal, incredibly long delays and chaos regarding the plan to legalize marijuana, and the Minister of Finance's conflict of interest regarding his botched tax reform. This government could really use some good news, and that is probably what it is going for here.

Nevertheless, it is our job as parliamentarians to scrutinize the repercussions of a bill and to have the courage to point out the risks and problems of a given measure, even if that is not a popular move. That is what the Conservative Party did when the government introduced tax reforms that it framed as fair but that we figured out were anything but. That is what the Conservative Party has done since this bill was introduced. My colleague the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, who sits on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, talked to her committee about asking the government to split the bill into four parts to make it easier for the committee to examine it closely. Every single one of the Liberal members said no, and they refused to explain themselves. Canadians do not see that as a confidence-inspiring move on the government's part; it is the kind of decision that feeds the public's cynicism towards politicians.

First of all, let us clarify a misconception: this bill does not specify what compensation passengers might be entitled to; it only establishes that they will eventually be eligible for compensation. We are to vote on the form, but not on the substance. We have no real information whatsoever. The government would rather shirk this responsibility and hand it over to the Canadian Transportation Agency. We are asked to vote on a blank cheque.

That is not all. If we give the Canadian Transportation Agency the responsibility of deciding which regulations will be part of the passengers' bill of rights, we also give the Minister of Transport the power to be the sole advisor to the CTA. That means that penalties will not be set by an independent body, unless the minister objects to these penalties and imposes his own proposals. How ironic for members to have to vote on handing over all of their powers to a single minister, the Minister of Transport. How ironic for an elected official to be allowed to deliberately influence an independent, non-partisan agency.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will therefore not be able to consult consumer groups, airlines, airports, or any other stakeholder in the sector, only the Minister of Transport. That is not all. The minister is also giving himself extensive powers to approve joint ventures between airlines. That power traditionally belongs to the Competition Bureau, which should also be independent and non-partisan, and certainly operate at arm's length from the Minister of Transport.

The lack of integrity and transparency in the process is quite apparent, but mostly it is troubling. If the minister cannot bear to allow the agency to establish its own standards, he should simply present them to the House and give all members a say on the matter.

There is another false message: the purpose of the bill is to reduce travel costs for Canadians, while improving service, and yet the reverse could happen. The costs related to the bill could force consumers to pay more, since they will have to pay for the new regulations, for example, regarding overbooking.

If the goal is to enable Canadians to travel for less, why not just lower taxes for airline companies, which already have a narrow profit margin, by cancelling the carbon tax, for example? Canada already has more than enough aviation legislation. Today, the government is just making it more cumbersome and complicated and forcing passengers to foot the bill.

The third inaccurate and false message is that this bill is a new air passengers' bill of rights. That is how the government is presenting it, but in reality, it will also affect three other modes of transportation and amend 13 different laws. Passengers' rights and benefits are just part of the bill. By leading Canadians to believe that this bill simply creates a new bill of rights, the Minister of Transport is glossing over a good portion of the bill, the part that is much more controversial and unpopular. The goal of this voluntary oversight is clear: to control the media message and ensure that the Liberal government does not make any more mistakes by announcing controversial measures.

That is why the transport minister failed to mention that the bill will allow foreign investors to own up to 49% of the shares in a Canadian company, give the transport minister the power to approve joint ventures, update the Canadian freight system, require railways to install audio-video recorders in locomotives that could be used for disciplinary purposes, and amend the Canada Marine Act so that port authorities can go through the Canada infrastructure bank that the government just created.

On top of all that, passengers' rights advocates and many consumer protection agencies are opposed to the bill as it was introduced by the Minister of Transport. Gabor Lukacs of Air Passenger Rights thinks that the bill of rights will not adequately protect passengers and that it would be more effective for Canadians to take legal action.

Jeremy Cooperstock, associate professor at McGill University and founder of a passenger rights web site, felt that this bill did nothing to protect air passengers and that the air transport regulations and the Carriage by Air Act already do the bulk of what is promised in this bill. In other words, we are reinventing the wheel. The Liberals are very good at that.

As if that were not enough, case-by-case management of the complaints and the long-haul tariff being charged to the railways could add more red tape. We will have to hire extra people and hope that consumers do not get discouraged by the response time and drop their complaint. In short, no one will come out ahead and no Canadian will be better protected.

I urge the House to be wary of the smokescreen this Liberal government is deploying today to make us forget its endless string of failures, disappointments, and disorganized policy ad libbing. I also urge all my parliamentary colleagues to be wary of the scope of power that this bill would give the Minister of Transport. We must also closely monitor the minister's dangerous intrusion into independent, non-partisan organizations such as the Transportation Agency and the Competition Bureau.

Lastly, to all those who are thrilled by the prospect of passengers getting more rights, I must point out that this bill makes no provision for consumer compensation. I would remind all members who are planning to support this bill that they will not be able to boast of having voted to improve rights and protections for the Canadian public.

Passengers' rights advocates are all profoundly disappointed to see this issue fumbled yet again. The bill before us is incomplete, imprecise, and totally inconsistent. It would be deeply troubling if it were to pass in its present form.

This bill is yet another sloppy rush job aimed at grabbing even more power by any means possible and entrusting it to a single individual, in this case the Minister of Transport. The same thing happened with the Minister of Finance's tax reform plan. We need to be extremely vigilant. I urge all members, even those on the Liberal side, if they have the guts, to condemn this bill and vote against it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I sat on the transport committee, we had a very intensive review of rail safety. I have to say that I am stunned at how little has come forward. We identified a lot of problems with the regulation of rail safety. I know that government members are out talking to people, but they should be talking to the lawyers who have a whole litany of reforms they would like made to the Railway Safety Act.

What is particularly stunning to me is the testimony we heard, including from the Transportation Safety Board and the inspectors from the Department of Transport, that there is a problem with the lack of inspection and a problem with the lack of response to problems identified by the Transportation Safety Board.

All this bill is doing is picking on the workers on the rail lines. The number one safety issue the workers have identified is fatigue, and the change in the rules has allowed the rail companies to hire fewer and fewer people and to work very erratically.

The member appears to share my concern that they have handpicked this one issue. There is no clarity on how this information will be used. It is going to violate workers' rights if it can be used by a company for other, nefarious purposes.

Would the member like to speak to my concerns?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her highly relevant question.

As I said in my speech, workers are very concerned about the government's plan to install voice and video recorders to capture every conversation. Apparently the purpose of this measure is to monitor workers who actually want to do their job. We have a lot of questions about this. The really surprising thing, considering how much work the committee put into this, is that every amendment put forward by the opposition was rejected by the Liberal members who had a lock on the committee. What we are going through with this bill right now is a crying shame.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciated working with my hon. colleague on the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee when he served as the shadow minister for infrastructure. It is on that note that I ask my question.

Clauses 73 and 74 would amend the Canada Marine Act to allow ports to borrow money from the Canada infrastructure bank. When the member was on the committee, he put forward a motion that we study the infrastructure bank. Would he like to comment on that measure in Bill C-49 and why he believes this might be problematic?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I want to say that it was a pleasure and a privilege to work with her on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I also had the pleasure of working on the government's proposed infrastructure bank, which was really just a new bank set up to serve Liberal cronies' interests. The government took billions of dollars out of the infrastructure budget and moved it all over to the infrastructure bank; that money was supposed to flow directly to municipalities across Canada, especially in the smallest regions, not really those in major centres. Now that various departments are quietly introducing bills, including this one from Transport, it is becoming clear that one of the unspoken reasons they created the infrastructure bank was to privatize pieces of infrastructure all over the place, including airport infrastructure. We know that the Minister of Transport did some research and consultation about the possibility of privatizing airports across Canada.

Right now, many questions remain unanswered. The government seems to be playing its cards close to its chest, waiting to be caught with its hand in the cookie jar before it responds and starts to back down. That is why it is important to have a strong opposition.

I think my colleague pointed out one of the real flaws in this bill, which is that it goes to great lengths to help the infrastructure bank that, in turn, will help the friends of the Liberals who will be financing the venture.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who did an excellent job for us.

People need to understand how large this omnibus bill is. What is an omnibus bill? “They don't build those in Canada anymore”, is one of the things that comes to mind. However, the reality is that there are several pieces of legislation crammed into this one piece of legislation. What usually ends up happening as a result is that we do a lot of things, usually rather poorly. That is where we are headed today with regard to the very serious measures in this transportation act. These include rail safety issues, on which there are lessons that we should have learned from Lac-Mégantic and other places where derailments are still taking place. Rail safety issues continue to come up daily in Canada. We recently had another derailment.

We also have other things that could become quite problematic with respect to consumer rights. An airline passenger bill of rights is included in the legislation by name, and name only. It is a good example of what the government is proposing, namely, doing things by regulation, with no enforcement, no real law and, at the end of the day, nothing for consumers.

I will follow up a little on the people that consumers should contact about those types of situations in the future. If consumers have a problem with their airline and any type of compensation or problem related to it, they should contact the Liberals. The Liberals will own all of these problems directly, because they are willfully passing this on to the regulator. They will be the voice in the future to address any particular problems to that consumers face.

It is clever, because they are avoiding the responsibility of a real passenger bill of rights, which should have been done in a separate piece of legislation, with a rules-based system that is very clear and legislated. By doing it this way they are thinking they can say it is just a matter for the regulators and that they have nothing to do with it. However, the public could become quite educated about this process when they have a problem with the regulation in force. They would just need to see their Liberal member or to call another Liberal member somewhere else to get that direct input, because the Liberals are going to pass this piece of legislation with that knowledge. That will be the only real route to have input on anything, ranging from being delayed to not having one's rights observed, to being stuck on the tarmac for unlimited time, and so forth. All of those things, in terms of regulation, will basically be set through the minister. That is going to be a curse that the Liberals brought upon themselves once members of the public become a little more educated about how to actually respond to their particular situations.

With regard to report stage, the bill went back to committee and several pieces of legislation were dealt with in separate sections, which are important for Canadians to understand. One of them was the arrangements between airlines that would be allowed. We had amendments on that to challenge what would take place, because we will see less accountability in regard to airline mergers and ownership, and there will be no oversight to ensure that passengers and/or competition thrive. In fact, this bill would be a disincentive to competition, because it would take away that accountability and review by the tribunal.

The bill would strip away powers from an independent body that ensures competition in the airline industry, a body that would at least examine those issues and bring them to the minister, who would basically have the final say. That is problematic because when we look at the fact that the government has to deal with issues related to competition in the industry, not only domestically but internationally, with this bill we would be taking away an opportunity for increased competition in Canada. Indeed, we would potentially see some greater mergers take place, with less competition, and probably less routing. We have seen some development in medium-sized markets. There would be a disincentive to doing that now. It is important to note that we would be taking away what is currently being done, that lens of review for consumers. We are abandoning it.

The Railway Safety Act would also be affected by this legislation by adding video and voice recorders, but there is very little description on how that will take place, how they will be used, and what they are for. I think they are going to be used to reduce these positions while potentially increasing the hours for conductors and engineers as we have seen in this industry in the past.

We know from past independent reports that employees face a culture of fear and intimidation. These are the independent tribunal commission's own words as they relate to the safety management system.

With respect to the safety management system, people are expected to report problems in the workplace without any repercussions. Imagine doing something important at work for customers and realize there is a safety issue that could affect workers or customers, and that safety issue is brought to the attention of the person in charge. There is no accountability with respect to what happens to that information. We have seen the same thing federally. Whistleblowers have been fired and maligned in the public, because they have brought forth a number of cases relating to consumers. Imagine the intimidation.

We can even look more recently at some of the stuff that is happening with TD Bank. They are not necessarily life and death matters, but rather matters of privacy violations. A whistleblower spoke of privacy violations taking place in the bank, and that whistleblower is concerned about it.

The safety management systems that are in our rail systems right now are not conducive to good environments. It has been proven by an independent panel that workers are often blamed for bringing forward their safety concerns, and they face repercussions for doing so. That is the reality we are faced with today.

The Canada Marine Act would also be changed by this proposed legislation. It is important to note that ports are going to receive more autonomy, and have access to funds in the infrastructure bank, funds put there by taxpayers. Ports are fiefdoms onto themselves. They can often override municipal acts, or not follow them at all, in terms of environmental, and other planning practises that are necessary to ensure there is cohesiveness between the port, the municipality, and the areas around it.

They have the luxury of this type of environment that really creates quite a bit of conflict or animosity, because of the fact that individuals who sit on boards of various ports are political appointments. Ports are patronage bastions left from the dark ages of democracy. We only need go to the website, locate a person's name, and we will find the amount of the donation. We can see which riding association he or she belongs to, provincial or federal. It is quite interesting. I hope some thesis student is listening to this who would like to do a project on political appointments. This is low-hanging fruit which is easily accessible. In my experience, I have found some good rewards.

The Coasting Trade Act is also challenged in Bill C-49. Foreign registered ships would be allowed to have more freedom in Canadian waters. These are unaccounted ships. There is a problem with that. International ships are allowed to change flags for convenience to avoid human rights and worker rights issues on their ships and vessels, but also the way they can get oversight done with flags of convenience in particular. We had a case with former finance minister Paul Martin, who liked the Bahamas and Bermuda for flagging Canada Steamship Lines to gain tax advantages. This is no different than the current finance minister's use of those offshore avenues as well. This is very concerning because environmental issues and worker issues are at the forefront of that.

I will conclude by saying this is a missed opportunity. It is a dog's breakfast of legislation on so many serious issues. It is unfortunate, because it is an economic loss for us in terms of the operating systems we could put in place that would make us more competitive as a country.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to expand on his comments in one particular area.

I questioned the parliamentary secretary earlier this afternoon on the same issue, and that is on concerns that railway employees, particularly unionized employees, may have about privacy violations or potential privacy violations.

We heard the transportation safety agency is planning to install video and audio recorders as a safety measure, and I can appreciate that. If there were an accident, whether it be a Lac-Mégantic or something of a lesser degree, investigators would like to know exactly what happened and, hence, their access to what we know as a black box in the airline industry, but as a video and voice recorder on the trains.

What impact, however, might that have on employees, whether they be conductors, engineers, or the like, knowing their actions are being recorded, and there might be at least the potential for disciplinary action taken against them in an unrelated matter simply because they were being recorded? Is that not, in the member's view, a violation of their privacy rights?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it goes back to what I am pulling from memory as the Wilson report. A commission went across the country and identified that CP Rail and CN Rail had, under the so-called safety management self-reporting system, created a culture of fear and intimidation. The transport committee addressed this when I was transport critic. It involved the issue of confidence in employees.

Yes, there are some benefits on the surface for video and audio recordings, but the problem is that there are no sets of rules in place on how that information would be used and managed, including the context of it. It becomes very problematic in terms of the confidence of employees and, most importantly, whether it really improves safety at the end of the day.

My concern, from what I have seen in the past when inspectors moved inspections of brakes and so forth to these types of systems, is that instead of actually doing the physical, hard inspections on the machinery and equipment themselves, the inspectors would now rely upon visual and audio equipment, which has degraded safety, in my opinion, and I think it also shows that scientifically.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

The Lac-Mégantic derailment is before the court in Sherbrooke. This criminal trial against three employees of MMA, the owner of the railway at the time, is bringing the railway safety management system's flaws to the fore. One of those flaws is that employees report any problems they see with equipment to their superiors within the company. In the case of MMA, the major problem was that one of the heads of the company failed to keep a locomotive that he knew had mechanical problems off the rails the night of July 5 to 6, the night of the tragedy.

Does my colleague think that the bill before us addresses the serious problem of self-reporting and fixes the safety management system that trusts companies to identify and correct problems themselves? Does he believe the bill will fix this clearly problematic situation?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that makes it worse. The member for Sherbrooke is quite right to cite the cases that took place, and I thank him for that.

The reality is that we are moving more to a self-regulating process by getting away from oversight that is necessary for an industry. The term “being railroaded” did not just pop out of nowhere for no reason. It came about, because of the historical problems we have had with the laws that allowed railroad companies to have dominance.

I have always said we have municipal governments, provincial governments, and a federal government, and then we have the railway companies. That is kind of where it lays in the old laws of Canada. The flexibility and the ultimate accountability they have is quite right, and so it is an onerous proof. I understand this situation is only going to get worse, because we are again moving toward self-inspections. Sadly, that has not been good enough.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House again to speak on Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act. As we know, this omnibus bill would substantially amend 13 different acts and have consequential impacts on three modes of transportation: rail, air, and water. It should have been broken up, yet the Liberals across voted against the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek when she made recommendations in committee to break this up and study each one in greater detail in order to cover some of the problems we have in Canada.

This bill is in response to the Canada Transportation Act review, which was tabled in 2016 by the Liberals, but was initiated by previous Conservative minister Emerson in 2014. The review Emerson did was looking ahead 20 years to 30 years to identify priorities and potential actions in transportation that would support Canada's long-term economic well-being. We recognized that transportation and the economy were changing, and had to make sure the legislation was up to date. The Emerson report was submitted to the minister almost 18 months ago, and provided the government with 60 recommendations to address a range of changing conditions and challenges across Canada's transportation sector. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to launch another consultation process and are only just tabling the legislation this year.

I am not going to say there are no good parts to this bill. There are good parts and there are bad parts. They missed the mark in a few areas, and I would like to address some of those. I am going to address the good ones too.

I will deal first with railroad. In going through Bill C-49, the creation on new long-haul interswitching regulation has a lot of good facts. That followed suit from the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act that was brought in by the Conservative government. I am not going to go into too much detail, but there are good parts of it and there are some bad parts. I know it has been debated a lot in committee, and I think they worked pretty well on that.

One area I would like to comment on, which I think was positive, is that the Canadian Transportation Agency would gain the power to order a railroad to compensate any shipper that would be adversely affected for a railway's failure to fulfill the service level obligations under the new definition. It would also allow the Canadian Transportation Agency to try to inform these settled disputes between railways and shippers, and would mandate 90-day rulings by the CTA.

I was very glad to see this. CN runs through my riding of Yellowhead, and is a major east-west corridor for it. Over the last three or four years, I have received many complaints from major companies in forestry, coal mining, gravel hauling, fracking sand hauling, grain hauling, etc. about the railroad company committing to have a train at a specific location or facility at a certain time. These companies would have a crew of 10 people ready to load that train, yet no train would show up, and sometimes would not show up for a day or two. They are paying these crews, have shipment orders that might be going to the west coast or need to connect with a ship to get to an overseas port, and yet the railway did not consider that in good faith. This portion of the act is excellent to see, and hopefully it will resolve those types of issues.

Another concern I have that was not addressed in this omnibus bill is the length of trains that are now running in Canada and the lack of proper crews on those trains. Trains are running that are probably two to three times larger today than they were 10 or 15 years ago. It puts a lot of stress on the train crews and on communities. I am going to give an example, but before I do, I want to read a section of the Grade Crossing Regulations. Section 97(2) states:

It is prohibited for railway equipment to be left standing on a crossing surface, or for switching operations to be conducted, in a manner that obstructs a public grade crossing—including by the activation of the gate of a warning system—for more than five minutes when vehicular or pedestrian traffic is waiting to cross it.

It went on to say in section 98 that if there is a repeated issue with trains blocking a crossing, it should be resolved through collaboration between the rail company, local road authorities, etc. If that does not work, the local authority can send a letter to the minister to request a resolution.

Rail crossings have been brought up a number of times and the government and the committee failed to address those concerns. I am going to give an example.

The town I live in is Edson, located in the centre of Yellowhead riding. Our town is divided by the railroad tracks. We have two-mile trains that come in and stop, whether it is for crew changes, whether it is for checking brakes, or whatever. I could stack on my desk the number of complaints that the train is stopped for 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour. When it does that, people from the other side of that track cannot get into town. We have had ambulances stranded and emergency situations. We keep bringing this up with CN, but we do not see changes.

CN is monitoring the crossings, but we still continue to see blockages. This is a problem. CN says if we phone it in, that CN will break a train. Try to break a train two miles long at a crossing. It is virtually impossible. If a person has a heart attack on the other side of that train and needs an ambulance, that person's life can be in jeopardy. That is the situation we are facing in our community and other communities throughout our riding.

CN says people can talk to the railroad company, then go to the minister and look for results. I did that as the member of Parliament. I called a meeting of CN and Transport Canada. The Transport Canada officials said, “We have really long trains. Disregard the five minutes, it is not a big problem. Ten or 15 minutes, so what?” We have big trains and Transport Canada is not interested in looking after it. That is a failing in the new regulations. It should have been addressed.

Creation of air passenger rights regime is right. We all know that over the last few years we have seen a lot of bad things happening in airlines and we see a lot of bad things happening in Canada: delays, lots of times the airlines say they do not have a crew, people cannot go to a smaller community, or the flight is cancelled.

One thing that was not addressed and is very important to Canadians is the cost of air travel. As an example, I go back and forth to my riding almost every weekend. It costs me four times as much to go to my riding than to go from New York to Los Angeles, which is 1,000 kilometres shorter. We need to look at the costs incurred by Canadian air travellers.

We are looking at parts of the new air regulations allowing CATSA to be increased at certain airports to improve the flow of people going through and security measures. I do not disagree with that. I spend a lot of time going through Ottawa and Edmonton airports, but that cost should not be deferred to the air traveller. I believe it should be incurred by the Government of Canada, which is requiring the security recommendations.

I want to quickly deal with marine ports and the ability for them to borrow money from the new infrastructure bank. I believe that is totally wrong. The infrastructure bank would say it would lend $100 million or more, but what about the small communities like Edson, the city of Fort St. John, small cities across this country that are looking for infrastructure money to assist them in their infrastructure needs? We are going to take that money and squander it in the large centres and large seaports, which is not the right way to do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's last comments in terms of infrastructure program. For the first time we have a government that has dedicated hundreds of millions of infrastructure dollars for rural communities in every region of our country to be spent. That is true. It is money that has been allocated to support our rural communities.

I wonder if the member opposite would make that commitment to support that aspect of the budget at the very least. He seems to be concerned about rural infrastructure. We finally have a government that is genuinely concerned about building urban areas and ensuring that smaller communities receive infrastructure dollars. Could he share his thoughts on that program, which I believe is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not talking just about rural communities, I am talking about small cities as well. Looking back in my riding, what I have had in the last two years is probably a quarter of what I had in the two years that we were in government. I am not saying that there is a difference there. However, it is hard for the smaller communities to go after infrastructure funding. If large amounts of money go to seaports and major infrastructure in bigger cities, the smaller communities will be left out.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a question for him about the air passengers' bill of rights, which does not really amount to much in the legislation. It is not even described in the bill. We know almost nothing about it. It will be determined later by the Minister of Transport when he decides to publish regulations on the matter.

What does my colleague think of the government's boasting about its much-discussed air passengers' bill of rights in light of the empty shell that we ended up with? We have no assurance that this bill of rights will actually protect Canadian consumers.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not clear.

I will just step off the subject for a minute to look at the regulations pertaining to the railway, and the little black boxes inside the engines. It is not clear exactly what the government is doing. It came up with this idea to put them in for safety. I agree for safety it is probably there, commercially. I know about the black boxes in larger aircrafts and the need for that facility.

Let us go to public air transportation. Are they looking after the public? No. Yes, they put in some regulations. However, it should be affordable to travel in your own country. I lived in northern British Columbia and it used to cost me more to go from Fort St. John to Vancouver than it would cost me, once I was in Vancouver, to go to Europe. People in this country should have the opportunity to travel with a reasonable amount of funds from one part of this country to the other part of this country.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yellowhead for his speech on this and his knowledge about travel around this country.

We have heard how this bill is not complete. There is so much that is being left to regulation and total power within the minister's discretion of how the regulations are passed. Would he like to comment on how this compares to some of the other legislation we have seen through this House that is poorly prepared, ill-thought-out, incomplete, and left up to the public or others to worry about afterwards? There seems to be consistency here.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is being consistently rammed down the throats of people without proper consultation.

When we look back again to voice and video recorders on locomotives, there are concerns. I do not believe that there were proper consultations done with the employees of the railroad, the railroads, and the communities. They just decided to do it because they wanted to do it. If they had had better consultations, I do not think that there would be as much mistrust by the railroad employees. They do not know what will happen and how it will affect them. If they had better consultations with the little guy, not with the big guy up there all the time, and remembered the little guy, and talked to that little guy, it would probably solve a lot of these problems.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I think that Bill C-49 is a very poorly written bill. There is a host of things wrong with it. There is a lack of detail and a lack of specificity in many areas, which I will get into in just a few moments. I will only have a chance to address perhaps two or three of the elements of this bill that are poorly crafted.

I will start with the airline passenger bill of rights component of the bill, but before I get into those comments, I have to say that every time I hear someone speaking on an airline passenger bill of rights, it brings a smile to my face. I recall an exchange several years ago in this place, and many of my learned colleagues who have been around this place for a while may remember the exchange I am referring to. It happened between an NDP member of Parliament—I believe his name was Jim Maloway—and a minister of the government at the time, Mr. John Baird. It was on a Friday morning. Sittings on Friday mornings, as most members know, are usually not that well attended. Many times, subject material comes out of left field. We were in government at the time this exchange took place. We never really knew what questions would be coming from members on the opposition benches. Because so few members attended, it meant that many members who had never had an opportunity to ask a question before could get up to ask something that was of local concern to their constituency. As a result, many of our members did not have direct answers for the questions. In this particular case, Mr. Maloway got up and indicated that he had introduced a private member's bill for an airline passengers bill of rights. In his question to former Minister Baird, the member pointed out that reports had indicated that in Europe a number of airline authorities were thinking, as a cost-saving measure, of charging airline passengers a fee to go to the washroom. Mr. Maloway asked Mr. Baird whether he thought it was right that airlines would be able to charge passengers to go to the bathroom. Mr. Baird, without a moment's hesitation, responded, “Depends”. Members may have to think about that for a moment, but it was one of the cleverest quips and retorts I have heard in my time, and one that I will never forget.

Let us talk about this bill and its suggestions for an airline passenger bill of rights. Once again, there is a lack of specificity and a lack of detail. The bill is suggesting that any passengers who feel aggrieved by an airline or who wish to file a grievance against an airline for a host of different reasons would potentially be able to receive monetary compensation from the government. That means that if a passenger had a poor flight and the airline lost that person's baggage or if passengers were stuck on a runway or the tarmac for several hours for whatever reason, or if passengers felt aggrieved in a number of different areas, they would be able to go after the airline for monetary compensation. This bill suggests that the minister responsible would then have the ability to set a monetary compensation level, but it is completely open-ended. It does not set down any clarity or any rules surrounding this compensation, such as what would prompt it, what would curtail it. The bill merely states that a minister would have the ability to arbitrarily set a monetary level of compensation for a passenger who felt his or her rights had been violated. On that basis alone, I do not think most members in this place could support the bill, because it is too vague. There is no detail illuminating exactly what the responsibilities of the airlines would be and what the responsibilities of the passengers should be. It is poorly written and I would encourage all members to at least go back to their own caucuses, talk to the minister and suggest that he look to at least amend or rewrite that portion of the bill, because it is poorly written.

Also, in a section in the bill dealing with air transportation and screening, in particular, whether or not airports would be able to avail themselves of additional screening devices. On the surface, it appears that might be a legitimate consideration for airports if their traffic were increasing and they felt they needed more screening devices to be able to properly screen passengers. It is something that most members here would think is a legitimate consideration. However, the bill also suggests that if an airport avails itself of a new screening apparatus, then the airline might end up paying for that screening device and passing along the additional cost to the passenger. In other words, rather than the airport authority paying for a screening device, it may pass that cost along to the airline.

The airline would want to recover that cost and would then pass the additional cost on to the passenger. What is that? It is a tax. There is no other way I can define it. It is simply a tax. Canadians are being taxed enough right now. The government, of course, wants to tax them even more, but that is perhaps a debate for another day. However, this provision is poorly thought out, poorly designed, and might end up, as an unintended consequence, taxing airline passengers even more than they are taxed today. It is another example of how the bill is not only poorly thought out, but poorly designed and poorly worded.

I will talk for a moment about another provision in the proposed act, the suggestion that locomotive railways would be able to put in voice and video recorders so that if an accident, God forbid, ever happened, the investigators would be able to determine, through examination of the voice and video recorders, what happened. The government is framing this as a preventative matter and and safety matter. However, I do not agree that it really is. While it may be of some benefit in the case of a major disaster, a major train derailment, for example, it really is not, in my view, a safety-related matter as much as things like brake inspections are. What it would do is open the door to the potential for abuse by railway investigators, who may take that voice and video recorder and use it for other purposes, perhaps for disciplinary action against locomotive, engineers, or union members who happen to be on that railway.

There are privacy laws in this country for a reason, and I am afraid that this particular provision, which may intend to address a safety issue, may have unintended consequences and end up violating Canadians' basic privacy rights. For that reason alone, together with the fact that I think the bill is poorly written, it should be defeated.

I can assure the House that members on the official opposition side will certainly be voting against Bill C-49.

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 16, the Minister of Transport introduced Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, to bring our government's vision of a state-of-the-art national transportation system to fruition.

All Canadians want their transportation system to be safe and secure, green and innovative, while supporting economic growth and the creation of jobs for Canada's middle class. Bill C-49 meets all of these objectives, as well as the government's commitment to develop a fair, accessible, reliable, and efficient transportation system for 2030 and beyond.

One very important element of the bill is the proposal for strengthened air passenger rights, which would be reinforced by regulations. As more Canadians use their air transportation, thanks to increased services and lower fares, recent events at home and abroad have demonstrated the need for strengthened rights for air travellers. Canadian travellers want to know that when they purchase an airline ticket, the air carrier will, in fact, provide the services they have purchased. If the air carrier cannot deliver the purchased services, then the traveller must be provided with a certain standard of treatment and, in some cases, the traveller must receive compensation from the air carrier.

Canadian travellers also expect that they should not have to fight to get the service for which they have paid. As such, air passenger rights must be easy to understand and apply consistently to all airlines, domestic and international. They must apply to all flights from and within Canada and benefit all travellers.

Should Bill C-49 receive royal assent, the Canadian Transportation Agency will be mandated, in collaboration with Transport Canada, to develop a set of clear regulations to ensure a consistent framework for air passenger rights applicable to all carriers. As our government is committed to ensuring this regulatory process moves forward in an open and expeditious manner, further consultations will take place with stakeholders throughout Canada.

The regulations would enshrine standards of care and compensations in a variety of situations faced by air travellers. They would address some of the more frequent irritants, such as providing passengers with clear and concise information about air carriers' obligations and how to seek compensation or file complaints; establishing standards of treatment for passengers in cases of denied boarding, delays, and cancellations, including compensation for inconvenience in situations of overbooking; standardizing compensation levels for lost or damaged baggage on both domestic and international flights; developing clear standards for the treatment of passengers in the case of tarmac delays; ensuring children under 14 years of age are seated in proximity to a parent or guardian at no extra charge; and requiring air carriers to define their policies on the carriage of musical instruments.

Canada is not alone in legislating or regulating specific practices of the airline industry by establishing a framework of passenger rights. Other countries have developed guidelines or regulations to ensure that passengers receive a standard level of treatment for compensation when their flights are delayed or cancelled. This government, however, is committed to establishing air passenger rights that would make our country a world leader in how such irritants would be to be addressed.

For instance, under the regulations that would be developed for air passenger rights, provisions would be included to ensure that no passengers could be involuntarily removed from an aircraft after they boarded as a result of overbooking. If the airline cannot find a volunteer to give up his or her seat, it will need to pay compensation to remedy the inconvenience it has caused. The Minister of Transport has made this commitment and the government intends to fulfill.

Bill C-49 seeks a balanced approach as it relates to air passenger rights, one that would ensure the passenger would be treated fairly, but also one that would allow the air carrier to operate its business in a manner such that it could remain competitive and profitable. For example, the legislation clearly outlines that the requirement for compensation would be utilized only in instances where the air carrier would be directly responsible for the denial of boarding, delay, or cancellation of the flight. While recognizing that overbooking is a standard practice which allows air carriers to keep ticket prices low, passengers who are denied boarding should receive fair compensation when this occurs. This level of compensation would be clearly enshrined in regulations.

This government, however, recognizes that air carriers operate in a complex environment and that there are significant costs associated with safety and security, both in the air and on the ground. Increased competition and pressure from consumers for lower ticket costs have also resulted in a more complex business model for air carriers. There are also factors that are outside an air carrier's control, such as weather and medical emergencies, that may result in a flight being delayed or cancelled. We recognize that these factors must be taken into account when developing an air passengers bill of rights.

In cases where a flight is delayed for reasons beyond an air carrier's control, such as weather delays, passengers have a right to be provided a standard level of treatment, including ongoing communication by the air carrier.

Further, Bill C-49 also contains provisions to increase data collection from air carriers and others in the air travel sector. This would allow the government to measure air carriers' compliance with the regulations and to take corrective action if needed. Both government and air carriers can learn from these data, allowing for decisions to be based on solid evidence.

Should Bill C-49 receive royal assent, Canadian travellers can look forward to strengthened provisions that will better protect their rights. These passenger rights will ensure that Canadians are entitled to a world-leading standard of treatment and compensation.

For these reasons, I ask my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-49 to ensure air passenger rights for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, maybe my colleague could provide some additional thoughts on the importance of this legislation.

We went through the committee process. The government, always looking for ways in which it can improve upon legislation, brought forward a number of amendments. Many of those amendments came from the Conservative Party and were successful. Today we have good legislation. Many of the residents who I represent were anxious to see action taken on an air passenger bill of rights. Finally, after years of hearing virtually nothing, we have something tangible and we are moving forward. This is good news for those who travel through our airlines.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts on how important it is that we move forward with the legislation?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the transportation system is very vast, very complicated, and is of national importance to Canadians. As was suggested, I sit on the transportation committee and I was very pleased that we worked collaboratively and adopted at least six of nine amendments. We also came back a week early. The process was very smooth, it went well, and Canadians will benefit from the collaboration with all sides of the House.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the compensation people will receive when they have some kind of a travel fiasco, as I understand it, the legislation calls for them to sort out whether it is the airline's fault or the fault of another government agency. I am concerned about the administrative burden of this. Those kinds of things will have to be proven for every claim. Does the member have any idea how much additional resources will be needed to address this administrative burden?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that comes forward will further stipulate any recourse. With respect to the operations of air carriers in relation to those of the consumer, we cannot burden air carriers for things for which they are not responsible. For example, as mentioned in my speech, we cannot hold an air carrier to account if there is an act of weather or a security risk on the ground. Air carriers will be responsible only for those situations for which they are directly responsible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I note my colleague's remarks focused primarily on the air passengers bill of rights. I know the member sat through many days of testimony as one of my committee colleagues. I would like to ask about a different portion of the bill.

I know the member is from Ontario. When it came to transportation for freight rail, one of the key features of the bill was long-haul interswitching. Previously, a regime was in place that pertained only to the transportation of western Canadian grain. Bill C-49 would expand to different industries and different parts of the country. Being from a different part of the country, does the member see the value in this extended long-haul interswitching as opposed to the simple regime that was in place simply for western Canadian grain previously?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I previously stated, our transportation system is vast and is of national importance. The previous bill did not take all of that into account. What we have put forward now is of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It certainly creates a lot more competition, which will help everybody in the industry.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide some comments on the transportation modernization act, Bill C-49.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, I want to start by applauding the work of all of my colleagues on the committee. We dedicated a full week in early September to studying the bill, hearing key witnesses, and working through a clause-by-clause analysis that produced well-considered, well-debated and productive amendments.

While Bill C-49 contains important aspects in marine and air travel services, notably, as my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville just commented on, the creation of our air passenger bill of rights, I would like to focus my comments on the freight rail provisions. Modernization in this area was, in my view, an important step forward to creating equity for shippers across Canada, while balancing our national interest in ensuring a healthy rail sector.

Bill C-49 would ensure that service agreements establish, as much as possible, equal performance obligations between rail companies and their customers, better conflict resolution, and mechanisms. Therefore, balance is vital. Our producers, shippers, and others need reliable rail service to meet their obligations to customers at home and around the world. In the case of our international customers, it is critical that Canada, as a trading nation, build and protect a reputation as a reliable trading partner.

At the same time, we have to acknowledge that our class 1 rail services, CN and CP, must have the financial ability to maintain and modernize their capital assets across this vast and geographically-challenging nation. As we think about the struggles we had as a nation to see our railways built in the first place, we have to recognize that despite those challenges our country presented, our shippers enjoy among the lowest rates in the world.

Bill C-49 seeks to achieve equity and balance in three important areas: first, by creating a more competitive environment for shippers and producers across Canada when it comes to shipping rates, especially for those who were otherwise captive customers of one rail company; second, by creating service level agreements that establish a level playing field; and, third, by creating measures to improve transparency in the business relationship between the railways and their customers through a more transparent sharing of performance data and service capacity forecasts.

Creating a more competitive environment for otherwise captive customers involves a mechanism known as “interswitching”. Therefore, in response to my friend from Central Nova, here are more details on that.

Simply put, Canada has for years allowed customers within 30 kilometres of a transfer point between rail lines to have one company hand off its shipments to another if that other company offers better rates. The government sets the rate a rail company receives for transferring cars to another carrier, a rate that includes an allowance for the capital investments that the rail company requires for the line's state of good repair and improvement.

In 2013-14, we saw a record prairie grain crop, followed by one of the worst winters in Canada's history. Faced with service shortfalls by our railroads, the previous government expanded the interswitching limit to 160 kilometres, clearing the way for more captive grain shippers in the Prairies to access other rail services, including lines in the U.S. While it appears no shipper actually used the full 160 kilometre limit, the ability to shop for better rates led to improved performance by our railways, both in services and rates.

Bill C-49 introduces “long-haul interswitching”, a 1,200 kilometre limit open to all rail customers, except in two corridors where CN and CP both provide services, those being the Quebec City to Windsor corridor and from Kamloops to Vancouver. In our study of Bill C-49, I was pleased to introduce an amendment to the exclusion corridors that opened up long-haul interswitching to producers and shippers in northern Quebec, as well as both north and southeast of Kamloops in British Columbia.

Bill C-49 would take interswitching, a mechanism that in a limited way provides a competitive shipping rate for grain producers in the Prairies, and make it available in a big way to mines, mills, manufacturers, and producers across Canada.

Bill C-49 would also correct a long-standing inequity between the rail lines and their customers. Until now, a rail company has been able to penalize shippers for delays in loading or unloading cars, but there has been no reciprocal penalty against the railway for failing to provide the agreed to number of cars at the agreed to time.

When we think of the costs involved in keeping a ship waiting in Vancouver harbour for a train to arrive, not to mention the reputational damage we suffer when we do not deliver to customers on time, establishing equitable performance obligations between shippers and the railways makes sense. That is what Bill C-49 will do.

Finally, shippers and rail companies will more properly share responsibilities for the efficient and timely movement of goods. They will do this by accepting the consequences of non-performance in service agreements through reciprocal penalties.

Recognizing that issues will arise in negotiating and performing commercial agreements, Bill C-49 amends the Canada Transportation Act, allowing the agency to provide confidential, informal, low-cost, and expedient dispute resolution assistance. This has the potential to spare rail companies and their customers from the need to pursue expensive and time-consuming remedies. Similarly, access will be expanded to a summary, paper-based final offer arbitration process as a way to resolve disputes. Formerly this was available only when the freight charges involved were less than $750,000. Bill C-49 increases the threshold to $2 million, making this process available to more small and medium-sized shippers.

In our standing committee's study of Bill C-49, and previous studies, witnesses consistently called for more transparency in the performance data that the railroads release. This is important to ensuring that service standards are kept. This, of course, is of interest to producers and shippers because it allows them to fulfill contracts with customers. It also opens the way for them to collaborate more effectively in the management of the rail-based supply chain. The government is also keenly interested in this data because our reputation as a reliable trading partner is of national importance.

Bill C-49 will require the railroads to provide timely waybill information on the shipments they carry. This is data that shippers can reference in their negotiations for service agreements and rates with the rail companies. The data will also be used by the Canadian Transportation Agency to set the interswitching rates that the rail companies will be paid to move shipments to transfer points. Canada's two national railways have extensive operations in the United States, where they have been required to provide waybill data for some time, so this measure in Bill C-49 will put Canadian shippers on an even playing field.

As well, in the interest of transparency, CN and CP will also see new requirements to report in advance on any plans to close rail sidings or connection points, or to abandon sections of track.

Finally, referring back to the importance to farmers, shippers, and Canada's trade reputation of having reliable grain shipments, Bill C-49 will require the railways to provide a report before the start of a crop year which assesses their ability to meet their grain movement obligations. Then, before October 1, the railways will have to review the state of the year's crop and forecasts for the upcoming winter, and provide the government with its contingency plan to move grain in the event we see another scenario like the one we faced in the winter of 2013-14.

Bill C-49 has been an exercise in listening to some long-standing issues in Canada's freight rail system; considering, debating, and refining long-sought measures to make the system more equitable; and achieving a balance that will preserve the health of our rail sector while improving performance for our producers and shippers. It has sought a win-win result, with the greatest win being for Canada itself as the source of high-quality products and resources, and as a reliable and trusted trading partner in the world.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at Bill C-49 and seeing what essentially looks like some missed opportunities to do more to rationalize the relationship between shipping by rail and shipping by sea.

I have a specific point that I want to raise and get the member's thoughts on, and we can perhaps get back to this with other legislation. We have very poor communication and advance planning. The hon. member mentioned better information from the grain growers to know when they are able to ship. However, when they are able to ship by rail, there is often not sufficient capacity.

We then have large container ships coming into the Port of Vancouver. They have as many as four separate compartments that they need to fill with grain. They will hang out in the Port of Vancouver, come in and fill one hold, and then they have go out and wait again. Where they tend to wait are in legal anchorages, for which the Gulf Islands receives no compensation for the use of the space, or the annoyance and inconvenience of the noise and the lights. They wait in anchorages in my riding and in the riding of the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith until they can go back to the Port of Vancouver.

This is inefficient, costly, and an annoyance. I wonder if Transport Canada could not do more to create better planning, which would be an advantage to the shipper and the grain grower, and certainly an advantage to people living adjacent to those areas where container ships are backed up and waiting. That is due to the inefficiencies of our loading and unloading in the Port of Vancouver and connectivity to the trains that deliver the grain.

I hope the question is not too complex for my hon. colleague. I am sure he is familiar with the problem as well.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the efficiency of our systems means dollars, absolutely Those dollars are quite often passed on to the farmers, because they are price takers. As well, there is the damage to our reputation that we suffer when we cannot deliver our goods and services on time to our international customers. Therefore, it makes all the sense in the world for Bill C-49 to lead toward the more transparent sharing of performance data.

As well, there are provisions I did not talk about that would allow Bill C-49, through the rail companies, to ensure there could be investments in additional capacity. Our rail hopper fleet is wearing out. We need the railways, and perhaps government as well, to contribute to the refurbishment of that fleet with more efficient cars. That is all included in Bill C-49, so that everyone is paying their fair way in order to get an efficient system that would prevent the kinds of issues my hon. friend raises.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how Bill C-49 contributes to the overall strategic plan, in the broader picture, with respect to the minister's most recent announcement on transportation 2030.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a building block toward a foundation we need in place in the country to ensure that the whole supply chain, from start to finish, is working efficiently and in a synchronized way. Just as our transport committee studied Bill C-49 to ensure it was meeting the goals and objectives we needed for it, the transport committee will be taking on further action to look at the rest of the supply chain, including the efficiency of our ports. This is something I am looking forward to, particularly in the context of Port Metro Vancouver, which, as we know, is the busiest port in the country. They clearly all have to work together, and that is the objective of our studies.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a similar question to my colleague that I did to the previous speaker. During the committee studies, the member put forward an amendment to ensure that parts of British Columbia were not necessarily having their resources tracked because of certain exclusion zones where competition exists. Under the previous iteration of transportation legislation involving freight rail, the extended interswitching only applied for 160 kilometres, and it only applied in the context of the western Canadian grain industry. Knowing that parts of the province the member represents could be unlocked by the bill, I am wondering if he could comment on the importance of long-haul interswitching, which is quite different, and in my opinion more favourable, for the transportation sector in Canada.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the measures in Bill C-49 do two things. First, it extends the limit to 1,200 kilometres, which opens up the opportunity for a shipper, who would otherwise be captive, to use the rail line that is there but hand off to another company that would give them a better rate or service.

In addition, while the original Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act focused on the Prairies and the 160-kilometre limit to allow grain to move more effectively, Bill C-49 opens it up to lumber producers and mines. Anyone who needs to ship anything by rail would have more access to competitive rates. The amendment we brought in specifically opens up areas of northern and southeastern British Columbia, as well as northern Quebec, to these better rates.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about Bill C-49.

First I would like to talk about a topic that has been mentioned a couple of times already, which deals with the locomotive voice and video recording. Many members of the House have met with Unifor and Teamsters members to discuss some of the issues around the video and voice recording.

The genesis of this has been real accidents through the years, particularly one that occurred in 2012, which killed three people, unfortunately. One of the recommendations was video and voice recording to aid in the critical minutes leading up to an accident. There is already a black box in the unit itself, and people at headquarters can track the movement in real time, such as braking and many other moves that the engineer and conductor would do. However, there are questions on this video and voice data. Who will have control of it? Where will it be stored? How will it be used?

If this data is to be strictly used for purposes of the final 15 minutes, or even one hour, leading up to an unfortunate accident, then I have not heard any issues from the workers. However, the issue they have is on whether the large rail companies would have the ability to use this data as a tool for HR monitoring or surveillance. For somebody who may be working an 18-hour shift, that is not what this is meant for and not what it should be used for.

For a lot of it, the minister has said to leave it up to them and it would be dealt through regulation through the safety board, etc. However, the workers doing the job want a little more clarification on that. Anyone who has ever worked knows that when someone is looking over their shoulder, it is never when they perform their best. The employees are trained and they have tests every year, and these are one of the most complex signage and lighting rules and regulations in the world. Therefore, I think the government needs to take another look at this, talk a little more with Unifor and the Teamsters, and make sure it is doing it right.

I would also encourage the people doing these jobs for companies like CN or CP to come forward. Once the bill is implemented, if they start seeing these video and voice recordings being used for disciplinary or worker surveillance purposes, bring that forward to members of Parliament and their union reps. They are not to be used for that purpose. That is not why the legislation is there.

Another point I would like to bring up is that the minister mentioned in his speech or response to a question that he has heard nothing but positive comments. That is obviously not true. There have been consumer groups, air passenger groups, who have expressed “cold comfort”, I think was the quote, for some of the passenger rights on airplanes. Another comment that the minister made, which I think he needs to expand upon, was his reference to the United Airlines incident. There was more than one incident, but specifically he mentioned the one where an individual was dragged off the plane. I do not believe that situation is addressed in the bill. If one is waiting on the tarmac in the airplane for over three hours, I believe it is dealt with, but as far as physically dragging somebody out of an airplane, I do not believe that is dealt with in the bill. He would perhaps like to provide further clarification on that at a later date.

Others also have concerns. I think Air Transat expressed a concern around the joint venture side of things, which is another area that needs to be fleshed out and further examined. With respect to foreign ownership, we always have debates on the proper threshold and amount of capital for a Canadian airline. It is set at 49%, and any individual entity can only own 25%. We will see how that unfolds.

If we are trying to modernize the act, some people would probably think that landing rights should be looked at as well. Over the last nine or 10 years, airlines like Emirates and others have requested more landing spots. Pearson, for example, would be one, and I do not believe that is addressed here either. As far as competition and pricing go for international flights, certainly competition has proven time and time again to bring in the best price and the best service.

The other criticism I have, and I am open to someone else proving me wrong, is the part that deals with the proposed air travellers bill of rights, including with in regard to flight delays, damaged or lost luggage, or passengers being on the tarmac for more than three hours. The bill does not specifically spell out what that compensation would look like. It does mention minimums, but those are left to regulation. I notice this is a recurring theme in some of the bills the government puts forward. Part of this will be gazetted and people will have an opportunity to comment on it, but if the minister feels so strongly about this as one of the key parts of the bill and an election promise, if he has been thinking about and focused on this for a long time, the least he could do is to provide air passengers or flight groups some framework or numbers from which they could work. That is the least he could do.

In addition, we all understand that there will be days like today or a couple of months ago when there were hurricanes in the U.S., and some of that weather came up to Toronto and Ottawa and messed up all the flights. People understand there are going to be adjustments made because of weather and that there is nothing we can do about it. However, from the time they recognize there is an issue, airlines can work with the people. That said, I do know know how we could compensate someone who takes take a week or eight days off and has two of those days messed up, one because of the weather and one because of the airline. From what the minister said, we are going to leave that up to the department and the agency.

Another issue concerns CATSA. A lot of money collected by the government is not put back into security screening at the airport. Anyone who goes to Pearson airport on a Monday morning will know it is pretty treacherous and that the standard of 95% getting through in 10 minutes is certainly not the standard on a Monday morning. It might be that 95% do not get through in 10 minutes and 100% may get through in an hour. If whatever money came in was put back into security, into CATSA, into further screening, these are the types of simple things that we could do to create a modern system to get people through, and to help Air Canada, WestJet, and other carriers deliver on their promises. We also know that in 2021, there will be 69 million travellers coming through, so we want to make sure we have that ready.

The other thing I would like to talk about before my time is up deals with rail and pipelines. The government set up a regulatory regime that makes it almost impossible for pipelines to be built, which in turns puts further stress on the rail lines. In consequence, rail lines are carrying a tremendous amount of oil when they could be carrying a tremendous amount of crops to ports and to markets. With a crop this year in the west within 10% or 12% of being a record, there will again be a tremendous strain on the railway system.

I would like to talk about the long-haul interchange, as other members have also discussed. Some members purport that it is a great thing. However, with the NAFTA negotiations ongoing right now, I question the logic of why the government would give that up when it could have been negotiated in NAFTA.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, as a fellow member of the transportation committee, transportation 2030 would ensure that Canadians benefit from a safe and reliable transportation system. Transportation 2030 would also ensure that the Canadian transportation system supports economic growth and safety, as well as environmental concerns raised on a national basis. That said, it does meet the triple bottom line lens we look through.

With respect to my colleague's emphasis on the passenger bill of rights, would it meet the mandate of a triple bottom lens, so that passengers would be a lot better off with respect to their safety, with respect to the environment, as well as with respect to the economic basis of where and why they are travelling?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

To be quite honest, Mr. Speaker, more money would be contributed toward infrastructure.

We heard on the news today the the government is having difficulties delivering on all of its infrastructure promises, whether ports, rail, or airports, throughout Canada. I mentioned CATSA as well. Those dollars would help to get people and products moving.

I will go back to the pipeline discussion. More trains carrying oil would not be good for the environment and rail safety. It would be better to have a regime in place that provides certainty to pipeline builders and operators so they can move oil to port by pipeline instead of rail. These are a couple of examples of where we could have created a safer transportation system.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There will be three minutes and 15 seconds remaining for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this topic.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to be here today to debate this extremely important bill. I want to start by thanking the minister for his work and for the vision that he has shared with Canadians regarding this bill. I also want to thank the Canadians who were consulted and who gave us a lot of information about Air Canada.

The three main topics I want to discuss today are passenger rights, joint ventures and, of course, foreign ownership.

Before I begin speaking on those three points, I want to say that Canadians love to travel. They travel for pleasure, but also for business. When they do travel, they often mention certain areas that they feel we must do better in. One, of course, is the cost. The cost is very high in Canada compared to that in many other countries. It is an area where we need to make some improvements.

Canadian travellers also speak about their rights and ensuring that they are recognized in the many things they face while travelling. If it is simply a matter of delays, knowing the reason behind the delays would be extremely important. If it is overbooking, that is a different story altogether. They are looking for improvement in those areas, and it is obvious that Bill C-49 will answer many of those concerns.

I am the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, and in Nova Scotia we have a fabulous airport in Halifax. It is a very important full-service airport in Atlantic Canada. It is always important to remember the importance of these types of companies that generate over $2.7 billion to the economy, which is extremely important for Nova Scotia. It is also important to mention that there are over four million travellers taking flights to and from Halifax. That, in itself, is very impressive.

Let us talk about the air passenger bill. This legislation will address very important issues that Canadians face and that we need to deal with, including consistency between our airline carriers, which is extremely important; passengers' rights; industry or carriers' rights as well; and when there are issues, the compensation. We need to bring some standardization to compensation, because it is not obvious if Canadians are being compensated for some of the challenges they face.

As I indicated earlier, we need to consider denial of boarding, delays and cancellations, baggage that is lost or damaged, tarmac delays, seating with family members or delicate cargo, such as musical instruments, etc. Those are major issues that we need to look at as a government. This bill will help us reach that objective.

Let us look at the issue we had last summer when a flight from Belgium to Montreal was diverted to Ottawa. The passengers stayed on the plane. They were told by the carrier there would be a delay of about 30 minutes. The 30 minutes continued on and on, and at the end of the day had become six hours. Throughout those six hours, the passengers were not able disembark from the plane, and the air conditioning stopped or broke down. They were running out of food and water. These are all critical things that passengers should be able to access at all times. Not being able to do so showed disregard for the passengers and their rights. We need to do something about that.

Not so long ago, we also saw on television a United Airlines flight on which a doctor, again because of a mistake by the carrier, was removed because of overbooking. Who did the overbooking? Again, it was the carrier that was at fault, yet the passenger was the one who was denied his rights. We need to make improvements in that area.

As far as adding to the bill of rights is concerned, we could also look at the question of official languages for Air Canada.

We need to ensure that people who want to use French or English have equal opportunities to do so. This is essential.

That is the important piece with respect to the bill of rights that I wanted to talk about.

We have to keep in mind that the air transportation sector is a challenging one today. There have been many changes. Many people choose to travel by air. It takes a huge capital investment by companies, yet results in a small profit margin. Therefore, we need to find ways to maximize efficiencies. It is already happening to some extent, as there are all kinds of different agreements. However, we need to do more. One approach that would really work well is the joint venture, with two or more companies working together to give better service to Canadians here in Canada and abroad. If a company or various companies want to have a joint venture today in Canada and to amalgamate to offer a better service, they normally have verify this with the Commissioner of Competition. That was the main analysis required. However, we need to look at the wider benefits for Canadians. With Bill C-49, these companies can now make an application to the minister, who would consult with the Commissioner of Competition, but who would also look at the other benefits that Canadians could take advantage of. To some extent, that would be the measurement we would use to make that happen. This process will be much better than what we now have and allow Canadian companies to benefit from global trends and to realize efficiencies. It will also allow Canadian travellers access to a wider range of destinations, provide for easier in-bound travel, increased tourism, and increased flight options. That is another big piece of Bill C-49 that will be very helpful.

With respect to foreign ownership, previously foreign investors were only allowed to own up to 25% of the voting rights. Now they will be able to own up to 49%, putting us in line with many other countries in the world. However, no single investor would be able to own more than 25%, which is crucial, as well as no more than 25% for other carriers as well, which is essential.

We are paying way too much. Many people are travelling across the border to take flights with JetBlue, allowing them to travel from Boston to Florida for $99. We need to do better, because last year five million people crossed the border to take flights in the United States. We need to do better in this area, and we are well on our way with this new bill.

In conclusion, Canadian travellers are a priority for our government, and this transparent new process will allow us to see many changes. We will see smaller airports, such as in Atlantic Canada, Fredericton, P.E.I., Cape Breton, etc., become more important because there will be more choices. With the new provisions for joint venture we will see more flights in smaller rural communities, lower fares, more choices, and improved services and connectivity. This bill is well in line with that. I wonder why it has been so long in coming, because this is extremely important to making us more competitive and ensuring that Canadians have better access to better transportation.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's enthusiasm for this bill. He referred to changes with respect to the air passengers' bill of rights. I wonder what rights he thinks passengers would have on a plane. The bill sets up a policy that discusses events and how someone else would establish the reasons for the events and the compensation to be paid. In the bills of rights in the United States and Europe, there are set standards, and when certain things happen the passengers know what they will receive compensation for. However, Bill C-49 is silent on that, especially as it talks about defining the causes of the problem after they have taken place. I wonder if the hon. member would respond to that particular issue with this piece of legislation.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the bill of rights is extremely important, but we must take one step at a time, one block at a time.

Right now we are creating some implementation regulations. We are going to look at standardizing and finding out exactly what compensation to give. That is the next step. I am glad you are asking that, because that next step should have been done years ago but was not. It is about time and our government will move forward to get it done.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I would remind my hon. colleague to address his comments to the chair, because when a member says “you” or “your”, it sounds like the member is referring to the Speaker. I do not think the member meant the Speaker in this case.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like the member I also represent many small regional airports and have serious concerns about this legislation. I am concerned about the fact that the bill would pass passenger security screening to small regional airports rather than increasing funding for CATSA. The imposition of the cost recovery principle on these small airports will mean they will simply not be able to offer international flights. These are serious concerns.

Could the member please tell us a bit more about these concerns and what impacts there will be on small airports?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, right now many of these small airports are not being used and are not very efficient. Air Canada just changed some flights from here to Halifax and passengers will have to stay overnight because there are no available flights before the next morning.

We need to find ways to make these small airports viable, and the only way to do that is by creating funding through foreign investment or joint ventures. That would create more prosperity and investment and make things better in small rural communities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a really important airport in my riding, the Victoria International Airport. It is a superbly run airport. It is smaller than the Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

I discovered that the airport authority handles some things and Transport Canada regulates, but in-between there is this entity called Nav Canada. I was distressed to discover that it has been several years since Nav Canada removed air traffic controller supervisors. Nav Canada does not have a single air traffic control inspector who has ever worked in civilian air traffic control, and there are significant issues of concern to air traffic controllers in my riding.

Has the hon. member heard any similar concerns from air traffic controllers in the Halifax area?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear of any specifics in my region concerning air traffic controllers, but I have heard them before. It is an issue that we need to keep in mind as we move forward with this legislation.

As I said, this is a first step and there are other steps to follow. We will be able to capture some of those issues as we move forward.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak at the report stage of Bill C-49. This bill covers a range of amendments on the transportation sectors.

During my campaign, I heard loud and clear from many of my constituents that people were tired of omnibus bills from the previous government. There was an increased desire for accountability and transparency, yet here we are again discussing an omnibus bill that is moving through this House, with amendments to 13 acts, without giving parliamentarians adequate time for debate.

Because of the broad range of topics in this bill, I will keep my comments to air transportation, CATSA, and will quickly touch on marine transportation.

As many do in this House, I fly often. Over the last several months, we have seen stories of people being dragged off planes, stalled on the tarmac, and having to call emergency services. Too often, settlements are swept under the rug, and the industry continues with business as usual. I think Canadians are fed up. They are tired of waiting on the tarmac endlessly and are tired of overbooking.

The NDP introduced a bill that clearly set out the steps needed to establish a passenger bill of rights. The transport minister supported our bill and could have followed our example by introducing concrete measures to protect airline passengers. For example, when a flight is cancelled, the airline would have to offer passengers a choice between a full refund and re-routing under comparable conditions. Air carriers that failed to comply with this rule would have to pay $1,000 in compensation to every passenger, in addition to the refund. If an aircraft was held on the ground for more than one hour, the airline would have to provide passengers with adequate food, drinking water, and other refreshments. For each additional hour during which the airline failed to comply with that rule, it would have to pay each passenger $100 in compensation.

We also asked the government to implement protection measures immediately instead of delaying them until 2018. However, the minister chose not to propose concrete measures. Instead, he included provisions in the bill. The government sold it to the media and to Canadians as a passenger bill of rights, but that is simply misleading. The minister is delaying what needs to be done by handing over the responsibility for regulations to the Canadian Transportation Agency. When the CTA enacts inadequate regulations, it will give the minister a way out. That is not the political leadership Canadians expect.

What is disappointing is that the Liberals rejected our amendments without studying them, folding under pressure from the airlines.

The facts are clear that flights subject to the European regulations have a cancellation rate of 0.4%, which is four times lower than flights subject to the current Canadian regulations.

We have seen this government continuously abdicate its responsibility for airports. While the federal government does not manage them directly, it is up to the government to ensure a strategic vision, especially in a country as large as Canada. This vision must include every single size of airport, from Pearson to the local airports in my riding.

The communities of Campbell River, Comox, Port Hardy, and Powell River have expressed serious concerns about this continued pursuit of the for-profit privatization of our airports. These airports are essential elements of the social and economic infrastructure in our region. Representing many medium-sized and rural communities, air transportation provides a vital link that connects families and communities and promotes economic growth.

As a representative of the third largest riding in British Columbia, I have landed and taken off from several airports in my region, going to or returning from Ottawa. This is how I get to community events across the riding when travelling to and from this place.

These communities need these services, and as the government continues this privatization creep, they are connecting with me about their concerns. Campbell River recently shared with me that these privatization plans delay much-needed effective action on other issues, such as the burden of federal rents and fees on airlines and air travellers. These stand in the way of more competitive and economical air transportation in Canada.

There is still worse news in this bill regarding remote and rural airports. I think members can understand why I will not be supporting this bill as it stands. Bill C-49 would amend the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act. Instead of supporting the growth of regional airports, the government would use Bill C-49 to pass the buck for security screening to regional airports or the municipalities that own them. This policy would hurt rural economies, as the cost of security screening is so high that almost no small airport would be competitive if it had to pay the bill. The government is clearly stepping back from funding and developing regional airports.

Currently, the commissioner of competition has the power to determine whether a joint venture arrangement between airlines is anti-competitive and can subsequently apply to the Competition Tribunal to prohibit the joint venture. However, Bill C-49 would strip this power from the commissioner of competition. If Bill C-49 is adopted, the Minister of Transport would have the final word on proposed joint ventures between airlines. Once an arrangement was approved, the Competition Tribunal would no longer be able to prohibit it.

If Air Canada proposed an arrangement to merge its operations with those of an American company, even if the commissioner found that the agreement would lessen competition among airlines and increase ticket prices for passengers, the minister could approve the arrangement if the minister was satisfied that it was within the public interest. This is why the NDP proposed deleting clause 14 of Bill C-49, as it would expose consumers to unfair increases in airline ticket prices.

A decision by the minister to ignore the commissioner's advice could be influenced by political considerations to favour an airline at the expense of consumers. In addition, the bill does not spell out what is meant by the “public interest” as a basis for a decision by the minister to approve a merger of two airline operations. The concept of public interest is so broad that the minister could consider factors that are not in the interest of Canadians but rather in the interest of the shareholders of major airlines.

Bill C-49 would impact two elements in the marine industry. First, the bill would allow foreign-registered vessels to compete unfairly with Canadian shipowners. We are requesting that Canadian-registered vessels continue to have preferential access to government contracts, carriage of goods by container, and repositioning of empty containers. In addition, the government did not consult with stakeholders who would be affected by this measure.

Second, the Canada infrastructure bank would be permitted to provide loans to port authorities. Instead of assuming responsibility for directly funding the development of port facilities, the federal government would transfer that responsibility to private investors. Investors would charge high rates of interest on their loans, and once again, the consumer would foot the bill. The cost of the required return on investment could affect consumers, since many goods transit through ports.

If private investors such as Morgan Stanley acquire port facilities, Canadians would lose control of their port infrastructure. In fact, the government has asked Morgan Stanley to study a port privatization scenario, even though a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley is earning millions by buying and reselling parts of Canadian ports.

The concerns I have raised today were also brought up by our transport critic in committee and in the House. The bill is simply not good for Canadians, and for that reason, I cannot support it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. I think it is worth noting that we have a substantial piece of legislation. A great deal of effort over the last couple of years has gone into it, and it went to committee. As many members know, in committee there were a series of amendments, the majority of them opposition amendments, to improve the legislation. I think that speaks volumes in terms of the willingness to try to improve the legislation.

The member, as I did, sat in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when we didn't have any opposition amendments. However, we had six opposition amendments pass. I can see that my Conservative friends do not necessarily like that, but it is true.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

That is not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would challenge the member across the way to demonstrate a piece of legislation that Harper ever passed when there were six opposition amendments while he was in a majority government situation.

[An hon. member]

I was on the industry committee, and we passed tons of amendments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I invite the member to share with the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have some other debate going on here that is not necessarily directed to the Chair. I encourage hon. members to listen while other members have been recognized and are arguing their points here in the House. They will have an opportunity to respond perhaps in another segment of questions and comments.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting discussion on the floor. I am not sure what the question actually was.

I am happy to point out the fact that there were many amendments added in this conversation at committee, and many of those amendments were absolutely ignored. Where we have to look specifically is at the passengers' bill of rights.

What we wanted to see in this legislation was something concrete that would set a direction, and we did not see that. Again, this is wishy-washy legislation that does not really give direction. It certainly does not assure Canadians that their rights are going to be honoured and that we are going to move forward in this country and actually have a bill of rights for passengers. Sadly, we do not see that.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the price of an airline ticket. I am a little concerned when I see some of the provisions in the bill that would allow the airport authorities to basically buy screening services. I worry. In my riding, for example, there is only Air Canada. It is a monopoly situation. The price of a ticket there is nearly $1,000 to get to Ottawa, compared to being able to go to Florida for $200, if I wanted to.

Is the member concerned about the increase in airline ticket prices?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be very concerned about what we are seeing, which is the downloading of services and increasing privatization, which will specifically hinder regional, small airports across this country.

I think of my riding of North Island—Powell River. Many people come to the beautiful region for tourism. It is a huge part of our economy. We love to see people visit and appreciate the beauty of the surroundings. However, if our regional airports cannot be competitive, that is going to create a huge barrier to economic development.

Again, we have to make sure that we see a slowing down of the government's fast-tracking towards privatization. We have to make sure that we look at being competitive and make sure that those airports are successful so that our communities can be successful.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about rail safety in the context of Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, which proposes to amend the Railway Safety Act. This is an important step in strengthening Canada’s comprehensive approach to rail safety.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedication that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has demonstrated in its thorough analysis of the components of Bill C-49. Improving transportation safety and, in particular, enhancing the safety of the rail transportation system, is a priority for this government.

To this end, the government is proposing to amend the Railway Safety Act to mandate voice and video recorders in the locomotive cabs of federally regulated freight and passenger railways in Canada.

The approach proposed in Bill C-49 builds on the 2016 report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada which confirmed that data from combined voice-and-video recording systems would help investigators understand the sequence of events leading to an accident and in identifying operational human factor issues, including those that may have been a factor in the accident.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada also stated in its safety study that, when used proactively as part of a safety management system, the information from voice and video recorders can provide significant benefits to help identify and mitigate risks before accidents occur.

The proposed changes to the Railway Safety Act reflect careful consideration of the best way to maximize safety benefits while safeguarding the privacy rights of railway employees.

In essence, the amendments would require companies to install and maintain voice and video recorders in locomotives but would also establish specific limits on how the recordings can be used.

The result of the proposed legislative requirements would be, first, objective data that would allow Transport Canada, companies, and safety investigators to better understand events leading up to, and during, an accident or incident.

Secondly, the information could also be used in a proactive way, but within very clear limits, to identify safety risks before accidents occur. For example, data would allow Transport Canada to perform trend analysis to inform future safety rules and regulations. Companies could use the data to develop new or improved training programs, to strengthen existing operating procedures, or to establish new ones to address identified safety gaps.

This government understands that the proposed amendments have privacy implications, in particular for operating crews. These implications have been recognized throughout the study of this bill.

I can assure the House that safeguarding the privacy rights of railway employees has been a key consideration in the development of the proposed amendments. This is why Bill C-49 imposes strict and clear limits on the use of the information from video and voice recorders, as well as strict and clear provisions on how information must be handled, all to safeguard the privacy rights of employees.

For instance, any recording used for safety management must be selected through random sampling. Regulations that would follow royal assent will outline objective parameters for random sampling. They will also outline requirements for data protection that companies would be required to comply with, such as standards for encryption, data storage, and retention periods. Companies would also be required to develop and implement policies and procedures to respond to record-keeping requirements and managing access to the information, in particular how they will safeguard against unauthorized access.

During the committee’s study of the bill, one other issue we heard about is the issue of discipline. We heard from parliamentarians and some stakeholders concerns that data from locomotive voice and video recorders might be used for disciplinary purposes. I can assure this House that the fundamental purpose behind the proposed regime is safety. It is not about, nor does it allow for, the monitoring of day-to-day performance of employees. In this context, it is not meant to facilitate disciplinary measures.

However, it is possible that, in certain egregious circumstances shown by the recordings, disciplinary measures might be the most appropriate means to address a serious safety concern. The regulations will define what is meant by egregious circumstances so that this is not left to the discretion of railway companies.

Consultations with stakeholders, including individuals, companies, unions and other interested parties will be an integral part of building the regulations to ensure we get this right. The proposed regime clearly provides that no company shall use or communicate the information that is recorded, collected and preserved unless the use and communication is done in accordance with the law.

As is the current practice, Transport Canada would conduct inspections and audits to monitor compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements. In the event of non-compliance, Transport Canada would have the authority to take appropriate enforcement action, including imposing administrative monetary penalties.

I would like to reiterate that mandating on-board recording devices has one purpose and one purpose only: to strengthen the safety of Canada's rail industry for all Canadians, including railway employees. The recordings will help explain what happened after an accident, but, more importantly, they will have the real potential to allow us to identify and address safety concerns in order to prevent accidents from happening.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I had the opportunity to work on the committee together. The member said that he could assure the House that the information collected through the video and voice recordings would absolutely not be used for disciplinary purposes. Previous to that comment, he said that the details of how the legislation would be monitored would be articulated in regulations. I am not sure how he can assure the House of something that is not written in the bill.

The committee received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner, outlining a number of serious concerns he had with the bill and how the bill might be interpreted. Would the member like to comment on that as well?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Let me reiterate that the installation of voice and video recorders on locomotives is something the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has been calling for for a long time. TSB officials appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to reaffirm their support for this measure and remind us of the critical role that recorders can play not only in helping investigators understand an incident, but also in preventing future incidents.

The TSB has added locomotive voice and video recorders to its Watchlist of key safety issues the transportation system needs to address.

As for the privacy issue, as I mentioned in my speech, Bill C-49 imposes strict limits on how the recordings could be used, and the regulations to be developed will have to take into account the important issue of privacy rights.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very telling of the Liberal government when it says that it will make it safer for the public by going after engineers. Year after year, there has been underfunding of site inspections. After the Lac-Mégantic disaster, CP got rid of 500 safety and maintenance workers. Past derailments have been the result of poor track maintenance, poor on-site inspections, and problems with maintenance and oversight. However, the government is telling Canadians not to worry because it will be recording the work of the engineers. These engineers are running massive trains, without backup, because the government made a change, allowing a single driver on a train that could be carrying all manner of volatile combustibles through major cities.

I would like to know this. If public safety is such an important issue and the use of video recorders, which will contravene the Privacy Act, is important, why has the government not added video recorders for senior management at CP and CN? Following cut after cut in jobs, why is the government targeting the people who are doing the front-line work?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Our government is committed to rail transportation safety. That is why we are moving forward with this measure that takes a reasonable and balanced approach to strengthening rail safety.

I would also like to remind my colleague that representatives of the Transportation Safety Board appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to reiterate their support for this measure and to talk about how important recorders can be in understanding how an incident occurred and preventing future incidents.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-49, the transportation modernization bill.

First I would point out that this is another omnibus bill. There are things in here about rail and air traffic safety, and all kinds of different things. This was the government that said it was not going to do omnibus bills. I want to point out that this is another broken promise.

I will spend some of my time talking about rail, and then I will move on to air traffic. As members may know, I am the co-chair for the parliamentary rail caucus. In that role, I interface with associations that work in the railway industry, and I had had an opportunity last week to meet. Of course, rail safety is always a topic of conversation.

The conversation went like this. In terms of rail safety, I asked about their biggest concerns right now. Their biggest concern was not any of the things in this bill. They asked how the government could be talking about transportation modernization when it is legalizing marijuana. It recognizes that it is dangerous for people to drive a vehicle when they are impaired by drugs, so the government has allowed a bill that brings forward mandatory and random testing for car driving. However, people are driving trains, and that is an even bigger hazard, but workplace employers are not allowed to do that kind of mandatory and random testing. That was the concern that they brought forward as being a big deal in rail safety. I would encourage the government to address that concern.

I will speak to some of the things in this bill that are concerning. First, we have heard some conversation today about locomotive voice and video recorders. I know that the Teamsters and Unifor are quite concerned. I am concerned myself. I heard the last member who delivered a speech say that these things would not be used for disciplinary action, and then went on to say that if it were an egregious enough thing, then perhaps that would be the right thing to do. Obviously there is potential for it to be used in that way. I know that the Privacy Commissioner has raised a number of concerns. None of those things appears to be addressed in the bill.

We keep hearing that it will be in the regulations. We have not seen the regulations. It seems that there are a lot of vague, unclear, undefined parts to this bill, which we are supposed to trust that the regulation will address. I am not sure that will happen.

In my own riding of Sarnia—Lambton, we have a number of rail safety concerns that I do not see addressed in this bill. The Minister of Transport had decided that people needed to upgrade the rail crossings, for example. That takes a lot of money. I have one rural part of my riding that has eight rail crossings and 2,300 people. To fix those eight rail crossings to the new standard would be upwards of $5 million, and the 2,300 people are not going to be able to come up with that money.

With the Liberals being so far behind on their infrastructure spending, if they really wanted to modernize and cared about rail safety, I would have imagined they would be spending a lot of money updating the rail crossings across the country. We know that is a place where huge money needs to be spent. Another opportunity that was missed would be to do the high performance rail we have been talking about between Quebec and Windsor. There is zero money in the budget for that. While there is a lot of ideology in this bill, there is no follow-up action in terms of the infrastructure spending.

I would like to talk about one other thing. I have CF Industries in my riding. This is a company that makes fertilizer. I am aware that Fertilizer Canada appeared at committee to testify about this bill and to express their concerns. There is a long-standing principle in the rail business called the “common carrier principle”. It is a principle that shipping companies cannot discriminate or refuse service on the basis of the type of good. One of the things that is used to make fertilizer is ammonia. In the history of the rail industry, they have not had any incidents with ammonia. However, because this bill is bringing exclusions that would impact the fertilizer industry, that will drive them to change to a different mode of transportation, such as trucks, which would mean four times as many vehicles travelling, with a higher incident rate of collision. That actually increases the risk to the public rather than reducing the risk to the public. Again, although the bill is supposed to be about bringing more rail safety, in fact it is doing the opposite.

Fertilizer Canada has asked specially for proposed subsection 129(3) and section 136.9 to be altered so that it is not discriminating against the fertilizer industry, which is 12% of the supply that we use here in Canada and also 80% exported to other countries. It is a big contributor to the trade surplus, $4.5 billion. We ship our fertilizer to 70 countries around the world, and this update to the rail rules will negatively impact that business and increase costs to farmers in Canada. That would be a concern for me as well.

In terms of some of the air traffic changes in the bill, the air passenger rights regime, I have spent about 30 or 35 years travelling around the world, so I have certainly experienced all the outrageous things that can happen to passengers, including delays, cancellations, lost or damaged baggage. I had a flight recently on an airline that was not Canadian, I am happy to say, but my bag arrived with the corner torn right off and I had to replace the luggage myself. There was no compensation for me on that one.

I am not sure that this, although well intentioned, will be able to be easily implemented. For every claim for compensation, it has to be determined whether it was the airline's fault, the government agency's fault, the fault of the weather. That is a huge administrative burden, and that usually means increased costs. Those increased costs typically get passed on to the people who are buying the airline ticket. I have a concern that some of the provisions, although well intentioned, will result in higher airplane ticket fares. We already have some of the highest fares in the world. If I think about flying to Ottawa from Sarnia, it is nearly $1,000. I can fly to Florida out of Detroit for about $200 or $300 Canadian. We are already paying huge fees, and I do not see that the bill is going to address that in any way. I am concerned that the prices will go up.

I have a concern about the foreign ownership increase to 49%. I am concerned with all the changes that the government has introduced, the infrastructure bank, for example, where Liberals want to sell the eight major airports to foreign investors. There is something to be said for national security, for owning and controlling our own assets like airports that are so critical to the country, so I am not a fan of that at all.

The consumer groups and passengers who have been looking for a passenger bill of rights are not happy. The feedback is that they do not think the bill addresses their concerns. It fell short on that as well. In addition, I am a little concerned about the joint ventures phraseology in the bill. Basically, it is taking the authority away from the competition bureaus and giving that authority to approve joint ventures to the Minister of Transport. We have seen the government time and again go without parliamentary oversight, so, for that reason, I am not a fan of that section.

The bill falls short in many different ways. The Liberals need to take their time and go back to the drawing board on this one.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the themes I keep trying to hit on, being from the eastern part of our country, is that Bill C-49 has changed the rules around transportation on freight rail in a fairly dramatic way. Under a different iteration of legislation that dealt with the transportation on freight, Bill C-30 previously, it dealt only with the ability for shippers of western Canadian grain to move product up to 160 kilometres That was in response to some unique circumstances that arose in 2013. One of the things we see in Bill C-49, by contrast, is a shift towards long-haul interswitching. This would see the ability of shippers in different industries in different parts of the country take advantage of a new regime that stimulates competition around the negotiating table and gives a remedy to captive shippers to make sure they can get a market price.

Does the hon. member support the expansion toward long-haul interswitching, which serves different provinces and different industries, including Ontario?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the ideology of the long haul is one thing, and I would not be against that, but the number of exclusions in this bill are such that no one can take advantage of them. It used to be, under a previous bill of the Conservative government, that the concerns of western grain farmers were addressed; I believe it was Bill C-30 at the time. That was allowed to sunset by the current government. Then, inadequate measures are put in this bill that are vague and, as I said, include so many exclusions that people cannot take advantage of them. The execution was not acceptable.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a comment that is of interest to me. She mentioned the sunset clause or reviewability. One thing a lot of the witnesses talked about was the time frame for reviewing this after having been implemented for two or three years, and a sunset clause, neither one of which are in the bill. This is critically important when making such a massive change.

I wonder what the member's opinion might be on the idea of reviewability and a sunset clause.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is more important to get the bill right in the beginning. I do not want a flawed bill being put in place and then reviewing it three or four years down the road. I am not opposed to reviewing bills. I want to make sure that the one put in place to begin with is not flawed, or is not so vague that all of the details are left to the regulations that will be under the direction of the Minister of Transport, with no parliamentary oversight. That is what I would be opposed to.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a small town in her riding that has five rail crossings. Like her riding, there are six railway crossings in my riding of Nepean. For them to have grade separation, the total budget required is in the range of $500 million.

She mentioned that the budget requirement in her riding is about $5 million. Is the member aware of the rail safety improvement program that is currently available for improving rail crossings?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fund and had recommended that we get some money out of it, but was refused. The problem for this part of my riding is that if the rail crossings are not upgraded, the roads will be closed, which would isolate the community totally. This is a case where 2,300 people cannot possibly afford it, and the government has refused to provide the money. I do not understand why the government has refused to provide the money when the member opposite and his party are so far behind in their infrastructure spending. I would be happy to help them out. We are very good in Sarnia—Lambton in executing projects. I spent 32 years in engineering and construction and can say that the riding could help the Liberal government spend infrastructure money, which I believe was the whole point of going into deficit in the first place.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my esteemed colleague. I think many of us in the House look forward to putting great projects forward for infrastructure funding consideration as we move forward.

It is a privilege for me to address the House today on Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the key measures the bill that propose to ensure Canada's freight rail system remains among the most efficient in the world.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I want to thank all committee members for their diligent work in reviewing this important legislation. The co-operation we had at committee from all parties at the table in reviewing Bill C-49 and ensuring it was the best it could be was a real tribute to the members who were there. Everyone's co-operation was very much appreciated.

As a result of that spirit of collaboration, the amendments to the bill will strengthen Canada's freight rail policy framework and maintain the delicate balance that Bill C-49 is meant to achieve.

Our freight rail system is a critical component of the Canadian economy. It directly creates and sustains thousands of Canadian jobs, while connecting Canadian businesses to international and domestic markets. Over $280 billion worth of goods move through our rail system every year, underscoring its major contribution to our economic well-being, something that is very much taken for granted by others.

Canadians are dependent on a reliable rail system to move their products to market across this vast land. A guiding principle for our legislation has been to sustain the commercial orientation that has allowed our system to rank among the most efficient and Canadian rates to be among the lowest in the world. Canada's economic growth and future prosperity is dependent on preserving our national advantage.

For this reason, in May 2017, the government introduced Bill C-49 to support a transparent, fair, and efficient freight rail system that would meet the long-term needs of Canadian shippers and facilitate trade and economic growth for the benefit of all Canadians. The bill aims to deliver outcomes aligned with the government's long-term transportation vision, including fair access for shippers, a more efficient, competitive rail system, greater transparency, and sustainable investments.

The bill would introduce a number of fair access measures to help balance the playing field between shippers and railways. While we support the commercial orientation of our rail system, we recognize that the remedies are required when commercial agreements cannot be reached. These are not easy things to accomplish.

In our consultations, we heard that remedies could be too complex, lengthy, or costly for all shippers to pursue. For this reason, the bill would improve access to and shorten the timelines of the Canadian Transportation Agency processes to settle service and rate disputes. This would result in more balanced outcomes for stakeholders and more timely and accessible remedies, something we heard from many people who came before the committee. Governments continue to have a very extensive process of forms to be filled out and applications to be submitted here and there, which makes it very difficult for a lot people when they try to achieve their goals.

This legislation would also provide clarity to shippers and railways by defining what “adequate and suitable” rail service meant. In our consultations with freight rail stakeholders, we often heard about uncertainty regarding a railway's service obligations. Bill C-49 would clarify that a railway would have to provide shippers with the highest level of service that could reasonably be provided in the circumstances, taking into consideration various factors, including the railway's obligations under the Canada Transportation Act. This would be a major help to all shippers.

The bill would strengthen competition to help create a more balanced and also efficient freight rail sector by introducing a new competitive access measure called “long-haul interswitching”. Long-haul interswitching will give captive shippers across regions and sectors of Canada access to a competing railway at a rate set based on comparable traffic. The committee has proposed adjustments to long-haul interswitching that will provide captive shippers across sectors in British Columbia, Alberta, and Northern Quebec with access to a remedy. These changes would maintain the long-haul interswitching's important balance between giving shippers competitive options and preserving network investment and efficiency for the benefit of all shippers.

During consultations leading up to Bill C-49, we also heard that shippers did not have enough information from railways on the location of functional interchanges. To address this concern, Bill C-49 would require railways to list their interchanges. Railways would also be required to provide advance notice of their plans to remove an interchange from this list, something that could have a tremendous impact on shippers and on local communities.

The committee has proposed to extend the notice period from 60 days to 120 days to allow shippers sufficient time to file and obtain a level of service ruling against the removal of an interchange, if necessary. As well, the committee has proposed an amendment that would require railways to notify the agency of an interchange removal to ensure shipper concerns would be adequately considered and reviewed.

Furthermore, Bill C-49 would greatly improve transparency throughout Canada's freight rail system. The availability of accurate and timely information is necessary to ensure the effective operation of a commercially oriented rail system. The bill would require railways to provide service and performance information on a weekly basis in line with what they provide in the United States about their American operations. This information would be made publicly available to all freight rail stakeholders on the Canadian Transportation Agency's website.

As well, railways would be required to provide rate data to Transport Canada, which could be shared in aggregate form with shippers. This rate data would also be used by the Canadian Transportation Agency to help calculate long-haul interswitching rates.

The committee has also proposed amendments that would ensure this data is provided in a more timely way to all rail stakeholders. The changes would require railways to begin reporting on service and performance metrics in 180 days rather than a year, and would require railways to submit metrics five days after each reporting period rather than two weeks. Furthermore, the committee has proposed that the Canadian Transportation Agency publish the data on its website within two days of receiving it.

Finally, Bill C-49 would help encourage investment in the freight rail system, which is critical to encouraging its long-term growth. For example, the bill would modernize the maximum revenue entitlement regime by making adjustments to incentivize hopper car investments and reforming its methodology to better reflect individual railway contributions.

As well, the bill would relax Canadian National Railway's majority shareholder ownership limit to facilitate investment in a network that is critical to Canada's economic performance. The committee has introduced a minor technical amendment that would make this change effective upon royal assent, allowing CN to more easily attract capital from its majority shareholders.

The measures in Bill C-49 would position Canada's freight rail system to compete globally for years to come. The proposed amendments that the committee has made will advance our government's goal of strengthening fair access, efficiency, transparency, and, very important, investment in Canada's freight rail system.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member she said that the government spoke with freight stakeholders. That raises a concern for me. It did not speak with stakeholders from the agriculture sector.

Producers I have spoken with over the last few months are concerned with Bill C-49 and the fact that it does not entrench the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which our Conservative government enacted in 2015. This policy would ensure that grain growers had access to rail transportation when they had a real glut from huge harvests such as the one 2013-14. We are seeing this again in a lot of the western Canada provinces, with a very strong harvest this year. The concerns I hear from grain producers is that the access to grain act is not part of this legislation. It sounds like the government did not have any conversations with agriculture stakeholders, but simply listened to what the rail companies wanted to see in Bill C-49.

My question to my esteemed colleague is this. What conversations has the government had with agricultural producers and why did it not entrench the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act as part of this legislation?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that through our committee hearings, everyone on the committee was especially sensitive to the issue of the shippers, the agricultural community, and what needed to be done.

Once Bill C-49 is passed, moves forward, and hopefully gets royal assent, people in the agriculture area will have certainty about getting their grain to market when they need to do that. That is an important part. It was important for every member who sat on the committee. We heard more from the agricultural side than we heard from the railway side. Clearly, the committee wanted to ensure we did this right and ensure that the farmers had the ability to get their grain to market as quickly as possible, without any additional problems.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the transportation modernization act would represent a first step to provide Canadians with a safer, more reliable, and efficient transportation system to better facilitate trade and travel across our great nation. It would respond to the needs of Canadians and their expectations for services to allow Canada to take advantage of international opportunities and contribute to a highly productive economy.

I thank the member for her leadership as chair of the committee. As a member of that committee, one of the concerns I heard was with respect to LVVR. Could she explain what LVVR is, and what the conclusions contained upon bringing the bill back to the floor of the House of Commons?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, LVVR refers to cameras that would be put into the front part of the train, exclusively from a safety perspective. In the event of an accident, people could go back to the camera and see exactly what went on in the front of the locomotive prior to the accident. It would not go into the hands of the human resources branch for any kind of disciplinary action. This would strictly go to the Canadian transportation department when it required it or if it needed to check on something. It cannot be used in any way, shape, or form for discipline among the members. The clear intent is to protect the safety of the passengers and to ensure they are well aware of what goes on at all times. Ensuring the safety of our railways is extremely important.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and offer some comment on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

I had the pleasure of sitting through an inordinate amount of witness testimony as we went through this important bill, which really is the first step in implementing the minister's transportation 2030 strategy to make transportation more efficient in Canada.

I will start by offering a few comments on the importance of transportation to our country.

In the 21st century, we know that Canada is a trading nation. We know that in order to maximize our economic output, we depend heavily on global markets. When we are trying to maximize the economy in Canada, it does not take long to realize, with our skilled workforce and natural resources, that we have the capacity to produce more than we have the ability to consume domestically. As such, getting our goods to the world market is of extraordinary importance if we are going to succeed and thrive in a 21st century global economy. This is where Bill C-49 comes in. We recognize that to get our products to market in a timely way, we depend on the efficiency of the transportation system. We know that customers around the world are waiting anxiously for their products, and if they cannot find a reliable supplier, then they are going to go elsewhere.

The Canadian transportation system has a number of different important links along the way, and Bill C-49 addresses a few of them. Specifically, it deals with certain measures in the rail sector, air sector, and the marine sector, which has been the subject of little debate thus far, but it really does enhance efficiency of getting products to market or improve the experience of Canadian or international travel for Canadian travellers.

I will start first with the rail transportation in Bill C-49.

The importance of the rail sector in Canada cannot be overstated. Of course, before Confederation, north-south trade was of extraordinary importance, but as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, getting products to global markets is becoming increasingly important. Of course, the rail corridor from east to west is of extraordinary importance as well.

The key part of the measures dealing with rail transport really has to do with the concept of long-haul interswitching. When I looked at the rules we had embedded in law before Bill C-49, they were not sufficient to deal with getting products from different industries and different regions to market in Canada. What we did have, and we heard this in a number of questions from members opposite, was Bill C-30, which dealt with the transportation of western Canadian grain to market.

Bill C-30 came in 2013, when there was a unique set of circumstances. We dealt with one of the worst winters in modern memory, and at the same time dealt with an unimaginable grain overproduction at the time, which really put our producers and shippers in a bind. If something were not done to get the product to market in a timely way, the economic output would have been significantly lessened. To the credit of the government at the time, it took some action to deal with that and implemented a system that simulated competition where there was none.

In Canada, it does not take long to realize that when we are dealing with rail transport, we are dealing with many captive shippers. There is essentially a duopoly in Canada with two major class I railways. However, for many shippers, there is only one option. If one is living in the northern prairie provinces, one does not always have access to competition, which can drive rates up. Therefore, measures in the previous legislation stated that within 160 kilometres of an interchange point, one would be allowed to essentially treat the monopoly holder as though it were competing, and one could create a bargaining circumstance around the table when there was none. It was not used all that frequently, but we did hear testimony from witnesses that it had made a difference at the time.

However, there is a key problem with that short-term fix, which was needed at the time. It did not consider that the Canadian economy depends on more than western Canadian grain. Bill C-30 did some good things for that industry in that region, but it did nothing for forestry or mining, and it did nothing for provinces such as Ontario and Quebec. Of course, the province I am from, Nova Scotia, does not necessarily have the same problem, with not having the class I railways present.

My point is that long-haul interswitching has come in to solve this problem because it provides opportunities for captive shippers who might not be within 160 kilometres of an interchange who might be in the industry of producing natural resources outside of grain in western Canada. This would provide an opportunity to simulate a competition around the table for so many different producers and this is a very important thing.

In addition to this significant change in the way that products can be transported on Canadian railways, we see a number of measures that were implemented in Bill C-49 to recognize that shippers sometimes have a tough time getting their products to market. We see reciprocal penalties. Previously, there was no remedy necessarily for a shipper whose service obligations were not being met by the railway. In this instance, we can imagine the brand recognition that it does and the cost of having goods waiting to get to market and having no way to transport them. Now the penalty is cut both ways and it encourages everyone to meet his or her obligations to ensure that goods get to market.

We also see a definition of adequate and suitable service. We are seeing enhanced data disclosure. We are seeing that the maximum revenue entitlement has been retained. We are seeing efficiencies embedded into the arbitration process, which creates the equivalent of a small claims process for disputes of less than $2 million. We are seeing agency authority to regulate service-level agreements going forward.

Quite a big focus of our testimony over the course of our committee study on this issue went to the rail sector. However, I do not want to ignore the other important sectors that really do make a difference in the communities that I represent as well.

When we look at marine transport, some of the nonsensical features that we had embedded into Canadian law previously included that international shippers did not have the ability to move empty containers within the Canadian ports system. This might put people who are shipping from Europe to a port in Montreal, for example, in a place where they are not able to take that container from Montreal and move it to the port of Halifax to help local exporters in the province I represent get their products to Europe. When we put it to them to say, “Is this a big Canadian industry right now? Are we going to be interfering with local jobs?”, we heard that in fact this is not being done right now. However, to protect the economic interests of Canadian workers, Bill C-49 would only allow this kind of practice to go forward on a non-revenue basis. Essentially, if I am a European shipper, for example, and I want to move my own empty containers between Canadian ports to make the transportation system for Canadian exporters more efficient, I would be able to do that under Bill C-49.

Of course, one of the key parts of Bill C-49 was the air passenger bill of rights. There are a number of substantive rights that were built into the framework, although a lot more of the details and specifics are going to be embedded in regulation that follows. One of the reasons that this has gotten a bit of uptake in the media is that so many of us, when we see those viral videos of passengers being hauled off planes, become frustrated because we have experienced the ordinary frustrations of air travel ourselves. I have personally experienced having my luggage be damaged and come off one size-16 shoe at a time on the carousel. We know what it is like to see that someone is going to be charged more to sit next to his or her infant. When people are travelling with a musical instrument, if it is not handled properly there can be severe damage and that damages some musicians' livelihoods. A number of these problems are being addressed in Bill C-49 and we are going to require that airlines make it known to the public how they can seek recourse when an airline falls below the standard expected for travellers who paid for quality service on their flight.

In addition, there is a key part of air travel that I wanted to hit on as well. We have changed the foreign ownership limits from 25% to 49%. This is going to encourage more investment by international companies in the Canadian air sector and potentially drive the cost of air travel down. We have already seen two discount airlines, when they qualified for this kind of an exemption under the previous rules, announce that they were going to be making investments in Canada to service secondary markets and offer cheaper service.

To wrap up in the little time that I have left, Bill C-49 is the foundation of the minister's strategy to enhance the efficiency of the Canadian transportation sector. It would see products move in different industries in different regions of our country to get to global markets more effectively. It would protect the rights of passengers who are travelling in the air sector. It would, important from my perspective, make shipping a more efficient part of the international transportation system. It would help exporters in places like Nova Scotia get their goods to market in a cost-effective and efficient way. This is a good bill and I hope the entire House supports it.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has very important changes that have been made, for example, allowing foreign vessels to reposition the empty containers between various locations in Canada. This would make Canadian trade more attractive to global logistics companies.

As well, enabling Canadian port authorities to have access to the new Canada infrastructure bank would help critical investment that is absolutely required.

More importantly, the liberalization of international investments in air carriers from 25% to 49% is quite significant. However, I understand that the bill does not provide for any single foreign entity to monopolize the entire 49%.

I ask the hon. member to explain the restrictions that would continue on any single foreign entity from owning 49% of the Canadian air carriers.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on a few different items and, first, I will deal with the marine portion of his question.

Importantly, he touched on one piece I did not mention in my remarks. It is with respect to changes in eligibility for different kinds of financing that have been made available to Canadian ports, and specifically the Canada infrastructure bank. Right now there are hundreds of millions, I think we are deep into the trillions, of foreign capital that is currently invested in negative yield bonds.

The Canada infrastructure bank is going to open the market that will see global capital come into interest-bearing investments. They are usually for profit-generating infrastructure, such as Canadian ports. By expanding the financing eligibility to Canadian ports for the Canada infrastructure bank, we can see significant port expansion. When we are engaging in deals like CETA, or dealing with new international trade agreements around the world, we will see investments that will grow our ports and expand our ability to get our goods to market.

Also, the hon. member mentioned the foreign ownership restriction that has been moved from 25% to 49%. We are already seeing discount airlines come into Canada. This is bringing the price down and increasing service to secondary markets that are not very well served or not served by discount airlines today.

The final question that he referenced was the need to prevent one person from monopolizing that 49%, which would give them close to an individual majority control. This is an important limit on power.

We see similar kinds of limits in the rail sector with CN, for example, to prevent one foreign interest from snapping up a large enough portion that they could control the decisions of a company. This is important when dealing with competitors south of the border that might try to drive traffic from Canadian airports south of the border, as it could defeat the purpose of an efficient transportation system in Canada.

With these limits in place, I am very comfortable we will improve service for Canadians.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, through the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, the government allowed this agreement that is critical to grain farmers in western Canada. It ensures they have an opportunity to get their product to market.

The hon. member is right that this issue arose in 2013 when we had a harsh winter and a great harvest. That is why we brought in the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act to ensure that interswitching abilities were there and that they had the opportunity to get their product to market.

However, what concerns me and ag producers across Canada is that this government allowed that agreement or that act to sunset in August, despite much feedback from the Conservative opposition and stakeholders across Canada to try and extend that act before coming forward with Bill C-49. Right now, that option is not there for a grain farmer, should some of these issues come up again this fall now that harvest is complete.

I ask my colleague from Central Nova, if we start hearing from grain producers about issues in terms of access and the lack of grain cars, will the Liberal government and the minister of agriculture step in to address this prior to Bill C-49 being given royal assent?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this is an urgent issue. I met with agricultural producers and shippers who said we need to do this. Their top recommendation during the course of the study was this could be a little better, that could be a little better. All sides have different things that they would like to see improved. That is a good sign to signal that we have achieved a balance. The number one recommendation that I heard was to get it done quickly.

We have revisited Bill C-30 prior to sunset at the transportation committee and extended it initially. The status quo is that there are no rules in place. What we need to do is step on the gas with every member of this House, I hope, to signal clearly to the other house that we need to move this legislation through quickly. I anticipate that we will be voting on this issue before too long and I hope we have the support of the entire House to ensure that shippers from across Canada have remedies to get their product to market, indeed before winter sets in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

That will finish this five-minute period for questions and comments.

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Canadian Coast Guard; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Veterans Affairs.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-49 is an omnibus bill that creates an air passengers' bill of rights, and introduces a new regime for railways and rail shippers.

This bill would establish a new air passengers' bill of rights and liberalize the international ownership restrictions on Canadian air carriers. As well, it would allow the Minister of Transport to consider and approve applications for joint ventures between two or more air carriers providing air services.

Further, it would amend regulations governing Canada's freight rail system, and mandate the installation of locomotive voice and video recorders in locomotive cabs.

Bill C-49 would expand the Governor in Council's power to require major railway companies to provide information relating to rates, service, and performance, and amend Canada's Marine Act so that port authorities are eligible for loans through the infrastructure bank.

In total, this bill substantially amends 13 different acts and would have enormous consequences for all three modes of transport.

My first concern with Bill C-49 is that this legislation drastically weakens legislative protections for western Canadian shippers and farmers.

Instead of making travel more expensive and unattainable for many Canadians, we need to focus on proactive measures to make travel less expensive and more convenient for all travellers. Maybe we should start by repealing the carbon tax, instead of legislating reactive compensation that only a small portion of passengers will benefit from.

Further, this bill provides few specifics on the proposed air passengers' bill of rights, and is not supported in its current form by many airline passenger advocates, including Gabor Lukacs and Jeremy Cooperstock from the Consumers' Association of Canada. They oppose this bill, as they consider its measures of little value to support passengers. If advocates for an air passengers’ bill of rights do not support this, it speaks volumes to this legislation.

Port authorities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries will be able to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. My Conservative colleagues and I strongly oppose the creation of an infrastructure bank.

A further concern that is raised by this bill is that of staffing. The Canadian Transportation Agency and Transport Canada will require significant new staffing to handle all the additional data collection and regulatory powers this legislation introduces.

This bill would lead to drastic changes in every means of transportation. With respect to air transportation, in particular, I have a few concerns. This bill does not specify the compensation levels for passengers under the proposed bill of rights. Voting for this bill would give the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency a blank cheque to set monetary compensation for passengers in the future with no oversight. That is wrong.

The bill also raises a concern that the Minister of Transport will have significant new powers to approve or overrule proposed joint ventures between airlines. This will lessen the role of the independent and non-partisan Competition Bureau.

Further, the bill would allow airport authorities to charge airlines and passengers for extra security lanes. This has the potential to lead to new airport security changes on top of the air traveller security changes presently levied by the Government of Canada.

There are also going to be major changes to rail transportation and safety, which the government cannot ignore. Unfortunately, the rail portion of Bill C-49 is a major reversal of the policies introduced by former ministers of agriculture and transportation in our Conservative government in 2014.

The first issue I would like to draw attention to is interswitching, an operation performed by railway companies whereby one carrier picks up cars from a customer or shipper and hands them off to another carrier that performs the line haul or transports them the majority of the linear distance of the overall railway movement.

The new long-haul interswitching remedy created by Bill C-49 is a renamed copy of competitive line rates, which are hardly ever used. The new long-haul interswitching rate will be more difficult to use for shippers and will not serve as a useful tool in negotiations with the railroad. This will be a problem. The entire long-haul interswitching program can be waived by the Minister of Transport if the minister believes that the railroad is in financial distress. I cannot support this.

Further, the 30 kilometre interswitching rate will be set each year. It will take into consideration the railroads' infrastructure needs across the entire network. I want to highlight that this will likely increase the regulated rate paid by shippers for interswitching and discourage the practice.

For toxic inhalation hazard material, shippers will not be able to apply for the long-haul interswitching remedy. This will negatively impact hundreds of shippers.

While long-haul interswitching will extend to 1,200 kilometres or 50% of the total haul distance, the first interswitching location for many captive shippers in northern Alberta and northern B.C. would be located within the Kamloops—Vancouver corridor where interswitching is not allowed beyond 30 kilometres, therefore removing their ability to utilize this remedy to increase railway competition. We should not be stifling competition in this country. It is this sort of legislation that is making it more expensive and less attractive to do business in Canada.

It is clear that Bill C-49 would create surrounding air and rail transport, but it does not stop there. Marine transport will also be impacted if the bill is passed. My concerns here are twofold. First, the Canada Marine Act will be amended to permit port authorities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. Second, the Coasting Trade Act will be amended to allow ships that are not registered in Canada to move empty containers between Halifax and Montreal. This is simply illogical.

It is for these reasons that I will not be able to support the legislation.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the important things the bill has brought forward. One is allowing foreign vessels to reposition their empty containers within Canada. This will make Canadian trade corridors very attractive to foreign logistics companies.

Second, the bill would enable the port authorities to have access to Canada's infrastructure bank, will result in very critical investments being made in port infrastructure.

Third, the bill liberalizes the ownership of Canadian air carriers by increasing the foreign ownership limits from 25% to 49%, at the same time as ensuring that no single foreign entity will have the control at 49%.

Finally, the bill would provide the much needed air passengers' bill of rights.

Why does my colleague not support these excellent measures?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is very little to the airline passengers' bill of rights. If someone is stuck in Toronto international airport or somewhere else, what will the compensation be? Nothing clear-cut is said in the bill on what the compensation would be. The Minister of Transport and the transportation company would set it.

The point is that the infrastructure bank was created for small and medium-sized companies. It is a Liberal creation, and if the stuff is not moving, they are pushing it onto these things. There will be a huge infrastructure bill to pay to fix these railway lines and all of these things. If the $100 billion in infrastructure money is used or scooped up by the railway lines or rails, what will happen to the small and medium-sized businesses? These are the reasons we will not support the bill.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to infrastructure and the infrastructure bank, but we also heard at committee about infrastructure for short-lines. Short-lines are a critical piece in our country, given where they exist, and hopefully the infrastructure would be supported by the infrastructure bank. However, it is not apparent in the bill.

I would like the member to further comment on what he was suggesting.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank was created for small and medium-sized businesses. That money should be given to them. Furthermore, Bill C-49 is not supported by the stakeholders, neither the customers nor the railway lines. There are 50 flaws in the bill. I am strongly suggesting that we go back to look into the questions from the railway lines, the airlines, and the people who are questioning the bill. We should go back and re-evaluate the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member across the way would agree with me that in virtually all regions people who fly have expressed great concerns about some of the discomfort and problems they have faced with the airlines. Now we have a piece of legislation that would enable us to address many of the problems our constituents are raising with us. How does the member across the way reconcile his opposition to this bill with the fact that many of the constituents we represent would like to see this air passengers' bill pass so that we at least have a process in place to protect them?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend makes it look so good, but my question once again is what is the compensation? We are looking for crystal clear stuff. This all depends on the minister or his staff, or the airlines. We are doing this now. Why would we want to go back again tomorrow? Let us finish the job once and for all and make it crystal clear what is in the bill, instead of the dance here, the dance there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to a couple of aspects of Bill C-49. I have had the opportunity to express a number of thoughts, a few of which I will go over, but I want to look at a very important issue. Even though the legislation deals with transportation in general, I want to focus my opening remarks on something that I think is really important.

It was not that long ago when we talked about the important role that standing committees play in Parliament. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did a great job of listening to the different stakeholders that made representations with respect to this legislation. Ultimately, through those hearings, I understand the committee reported to the House early in order for the bill to pass clause by clause. The encouraging thing to recognize is that this is yet another piece of legislation that went through the process with a number of amendments. We often hear about government amendments on a bill that passes, but in my years in opposition in the House, it was very rare. I could not recall one occasion where opposition amendments were accepted and ultimately passed. I was quite pleased that out of nine amendments, there may have been six from the opposition, though I do not want to be quoted on that. That demonstrates a great deal of goodwill on the part of the government, and in particular the minister.

The minister has done an incredible job in bringing forward legislation that deals with tangible issues, and I want to focus on two of them specifically. One deals with the situation that many farmers have found themselves in over the years. When I was in opposition, I recall hearing from farmers first-hand about the piles and piles of wheat being stored outside because their containers were full. They could not get the rail service they required in order to get that commodity to port. I understand that there were empty ships outside of ports that wanted to transport that commodity, but unfortunately the disconnect was through the railways.

The member for Wascana at the time, along with myself and many others, was exceptionally frustrated. We felt that the farmers were not being listened to by the government of the day. We did not know why there was not more action, and why the producers, the ones putting so much of their sweat equity, finances, and resources into producing the world's best commodities, were not able to get their commodities to port in a more timely fashion. When I was briefed on this legislation, it was one of the issues that stood out. It is important to have mechanisms that enable service agreements to be arbitrated in a fairer fashion, so that there is a better quality of service for the producers.

As an MP from the Prairies, I am quite pleased that we as a government are able to do something that the former government, which claimed to have a significant representation in the Prairies, was unable to do. It speaks volumes about the sense of commitment that the Prime Minister in particular has, and that the government as a whole has in building rural communities. This is one of the ways that I think it is fairly well received. This legislation covers a number of areas, but that one really came to mind for me.

The other area is airlines and the idea of having an airline passenger bill of rights in place. This legislation contains a mechanism that would enable that bill of rights to happen. I see that as a strong and encouraging aspect of the legislation.

Most MPs do a considerable amount of flying, some more than others, depending on their proximity to Ottawa. I do not know how many stories I have heard over the years in regard to issues that have arisen between airlines and passengers. Passengers are quite upset because of the lack of recourse. Airlines have some restrictions in place that often lead to complications. Things are beyond one's control when it comes to nature. However, in many cases, airlines need to be held more accountable. That is why it is encouraging to see within this legislation things that will protect the interests of consumers and ultimately producers.

My colleague raised the issue of the Canada infrastructure bank and the opportunities there for our ports and others. He also talked about how this legislation would enable future investments. These things are critically important.

If we take the time to do this right and we invest in things such as infrastructure, or offer opportunities for investment in infrastructure through things such as the Canada infrastructure bank, then we will be creating all sorts of opportunities. We can talk about those opportunities in terms of the jobs directly affiliated with the construction of a particular project; they are tangible and easily seen. However, the jobs that can be created as an indirect result are equal to or quite often greater than that, especially if we are talking about issues surrounding our ports.

There is a huge demand for modernizing and improving our ports, and it would be at a substantial cost. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Bringing in legislation that could potentially enhance that development opportunity, the flow of goods both into and out of our country, is a positive thing. That would assist us in creating good, solid middle-class jobs that are necessary to drive our economy.

I am pleased with the policies that this government has put in place over the last couple of years, and their impact on Canada, on our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and on those who are finding it more challenging. At the end of the day, literally hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created. We are seeing many benefits in terms of full-time jobs that are being created.

Bill C-49 would do many things, and I could list some of them, but I will not have time because I know the Speaker wants me to sit down. The point is that the bill caters to our airlines, our ports, and our railways, and members opposite would be best advised to get behind this solid legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would never want the hon. parliamentary secretary to sit down, but at the end of his time perhaps we will signal for that purpose.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while you may not want my colleague to sit down, many on this side are very happy to have him sit down.

One of the campaign promises that the Liberals made was to champion the so-called passenger bill of rights for air travel. There is some movement in that direction with this bill, but it is clear that they are short on details in the legislation as it relates to preserving the rights of air passengers.

Currently I serve as the co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, and I am very much aware that a lot of regulations developed subsequent to legislation often end up creating some issues to be dealt with. It certainly prolongs the process of getting the bill and its regulatory framework into practice.

My question for my colleague is, why would the Liberal government, after championing this idea in their campaign, be so weak on details as it relates to preserving the rights of air passengers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that it is quite the opposite.

The member is right. We agree on one point. The Liberal Party, prior to the election, made a commitment to work towards getting an air passenger bill of rights. In a relatively short period of time, we are now debating and ultimately passing legislation that is going to assist in enacting that protection for our airline passengers.

We recognize that in good part it will be done through regulations. There is nothing wrong with doing that, and working with the many different stakeholders and individuals who have a lot of good ideas in terms of how it could best be done. The member is right, in one sense. We are not saying that fines are going to be x amount of dollars and so forth, incorporating that into the legislation. However, we are enabling it to take place.

That is what Canadians want. I would suggest that with the passage of this legislation, we will see yet another election platform issue being acted on, committed to, and ultimately passed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is much that we need to do in national transportation policy.

The minister has been holding consultations with members of Parliament. There is a lot to be legislated that is still missing in this bill. As we touch on rail service in this piece of legislation, Bill C-49, I wonder if my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, has any comments on the critical importance of maintaining passenger rail service through VIA Rail? We have not legislated VIA Rail, ever, in this place.

There are some changes to that legislation contained in Bill C-49, but it is a missed opportunity not to legislate for VIA Rail in the same way that in the U.S., Amtrak has a legislated mandate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if the member were to talk to the minister responsible for the legislation, he could probably come up with a half dozen or more other things it would have been wonderful to incorporate in some capacity in other pieces of legislation.

I look forward, in the months and years ahead, to seeing what other initiatives will come out of the department. I would like to think that all members of this House see the great value of the idea and the principle behind VIA Rail. It is something I would love to see expanded in some areas of our country. There is really no threat. Passenger rail is exceptionally popular and well utilized. In some of the other more remote areas, there are some legitimate concerns. It would be a wonderful thing. I do not know if the transport committee has even considered having that discussion, or if it has had that discussion in recent years.

Canadians as a whole support VIA Rail. If there are things that the government could do, as has been demonstrated in the committee on this particular piece of legislation, we are open to ideas and thoughts. Let us have a discussion about it.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again this Parliament has been presented with a poorly and hastily crafted omnibus bill that would undermine workers' fundamental rights to privacy and protect the rights of investors.

It is hard to see any difference in policy between the current government and the one that went before. The disparity between Liberal election promises and Liberal actions in government is painful. Where is the promise to end the use of undemocratic omnibus legislation, so decried by the Liberals in opposition? Like the Conservatives before them, the Liberals are subjecting Canadians and members of this House to unworkable and flawed, now Liberal, omnibus bills.

Bill C-49, for all its omnibus bulk, contains only two measures New Democrats can support. We believe in the measures that would improve the rights of air travellers and the protections for grain shippers. These ideas are positive improvements to the status quo. For that reason, we are calling on the government to sever these two initiatives from the pointless and ineffective remainder of Bill C-49 so they can be studied at committee and passed into law.

As for the rest of Bill C-49, we will vote against it, and I will tell members why. Bill C-49 would amend the Canada Transportation Act, giving the minister of transport the power to approve joint-venture arrangements between airlines. This is worrisome, because that type of arrangement could proceed with the minister's approval even if the commissioner of competition found that it was anti-competitive, and it could increase the price of airline tickets. Let me repeat: it would give the minister of transport the final word on proposed joint ventures between airlines, and once an arrangement was approved, the Competition Tribunal could no longer prohibit it.

The NDP proposed deleting clause 14 of Bill C-49, because it would expose consumers to unfair increases in airline ticket prices, yet that clause remains. The bill would also increase the limit on foreign ownership of Canadian airlines from 25% to 49%, despite a University of Manitoba study, published on Transport Canada's own website, that demonstrated that this measure would have no positive impact on competition.

Most concerning, Bill C-49 would amend the Railway Safety Act to allow railway companies to use video and voice recorders, and despite the fact that the bill would risk violating section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by authorizing the government or employers to collect private information without instituting adequate protections, the Liberals rejected NDP amendments to limit the use of these recorders.

Locomotive voice and video recordings should be accessible only to the Transportation Safety Board. There is nothing to stop individual railway companies from using them to attack workers' rights. In fact, there are a number of precedents in which CN and CP have attempted to attack workers' rights and privileges. New Democrats object to clause 14 for this reason.

If the government were truly serious about improving railway safety, it would revise the standards regarding train operator fatigue. Train operators are under pressure from employers to work unreasonable hours, and as such, this demand by employers represents a real danger to the safety of workers and the public.

There is a better way. Canada needs and deserves an affordable, accessible, reliable, and sustainable system of public rail transit, and Canadians have the right to the highest levels of service, protection, and accessibility of travel that can be provided. Instead, we see the erosion of infrastructure due to the neglect and corporate offloading of maintenance responsibilities, and passengers are subjected to the cancellation of rail services across the country.

Canada has a growing population, families with children, disabled Canadians, and senior citizens who need to travel. At the same time, Canadians are conscious of the environmental legacy we are creating for future generations. With proper stewardship and a visionary plan, we have the very real potential to revive our once thriving rail-travel industry. However, that kind of vision requires a federal government focused on national stewardship, rather than what both Liberal and Conservative governments did when they sold off national interests and pandered to those who bankrolled their campaigns.

It is because we need reliable rail service that I have drafted and tabled Bill C-370, which would create a clear mandate for VIA Rail Canada. Canadians are weary of the refusal by the current government, as well as Conservative and Liberal governments in the past, to acknowledge the economic and environmental benefits of a truly enhanced, integrated, accessible, and sustainable rail transit system that would far outweigh and outlive short-term political gain. Past governments have failed to understand that everyone, from the youngest Canadian to the seasoned commuter, benefits if rail travel is part of our future. I can tell members that this reality is not lost on the citizens of London and southwestern Ontario. They are the people who suffer from what is described, in the network southwest action plan, as the “mobility gap”.

Bill C-370 would provide the opportunity for Canadians and the current Parliament to evaluate cases where VIA Rail planned to eliminate a required router station. In addition, my bill would provide a legislative framework for VIA Rail's mandate as a crown corporation to make services mandatory, set minimum frequencies for certain itineraries, and increase levels of service with regard to punctuality. It would provide a transparent and democratic means to evaluate any proposed cancellation of service routes and a framework for managing and funding VIA Rail. It would help prioritize passenger trains where and when there were conflicts with freight trains and would create efficiencies. I encourage members on all sides of this House to support Bill C-370 when it comes to the floor for second reading.

In a previous parliament, the NDP introduced a bill setting out clear steps to establish a passenger bill of rights. The current Minister of Transport supported our bill. He could have followed our lead and introduced concrete measures to protect airline passengers but instead handed off responsibility for making regulations to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The NDP proposal for a passenger bill of rights included measures to ensure that airlines would have to offer passengers the choice between a full refund and re-routing under comparable conditions when flights were cancelled. Air carriers that failed to comply would have to pay $1,000 in compensation to every passenger affected, in addition to the refund. Also, when an aircraft was held on the ground for more than one hour, the airline would have to provide passengers with adequate food, drinking water, and other refreshments, as well as compensation of $100 for each additional hour the flight was held on the ground.

Witness testimony tells us that such measures could result in flight cancellation rates four times lower than those experienced in Canada. The Liberals heard this testimony in committee, yet they rejected amendments from the NDP based on this solid evidence. It leads me to wonder what their motivation was and where their loyalties lie.

It is unacceptable for the government to shift the responsibility of protecting passenger rights to the Canadian Transportation Agency. Passengers and airlines need clear measures to discourage overbooking, and we need those measures now. The minister promised them for sometime in 2018. That is not good enough.

While our objections to Bill C-49 are many, I want to focus on one final point. Omnibus Bill C-49 would amend the Canada Marine Act to permit 18 port authorities to obtain financing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. My New Democrat colleagues and I have spoken on the dangers of the Infrastructure Bank and will continue to do so as long as it exists as a loophole for selling off publicly funded infrastructure projects and public services to private corporations. We know that this transfer of public assets will allow private corporations to impose user fees and tolls on Canadians who have already paid hard-earned tax dollars for their public services.

Bill C-49 would allow private investors to provide loans to port authorities using the Infrastructure Bank. It would allow those private investors to charge high rates of interest on those loans, with the consumer footing the bill. In addition, ports whose building projects were valued at less than $100 million may not be eligible for Infrastructure Bank loans and so would be left without any resources. The cost of the required return on investment by these lenders could affect consumers, since many goods are transported through our ports.

New Democrats are wary of any legislation that shrouds the poisoned pill of selling off our valuable public assets and services to private corporations. Governments do not exist to serve private profits. At best, it appears that Liberals do not seem to understand that. At its cynical worst, they do understand and hope Canadians will not notice as they sell this country off to their corporate friends without any consideration for the public good. Either way, Bill C-49 is a flawed and poorly crafted piece of legislation that New Democrats cannot and will not support.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I quite often come to the nation's capital on the plane together, so we quite often talk about transportation between London and Ottawa. We both are very interested in the future of transportation in our country.

I want to make sure that I understand that she would at least agree that the bill represents a first step. That is really what we are talking about here. Is it to provide Canadians with a safer, more reliable transportation system, whether it be air, rail, or whatever. This is the beginning of a longer process that we know is necessary for our country.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been around this place for 12 years, and I am tired of tiny steps. I want something substantive and meaningful that is going to work for the travelling public of our country. In terms of the passenger bill of rights in the airline industry, it needs to be better and stronger. First steps are fine, but we do not get many chances. It is important to do it right the first time.

In regard to rail passenger service, we have an opportunity, with the Minister of Transport, to make real and definitive changes. We need a mandate for VIA Rail. We need it to serve the people of the country. In the last 25 or 30 years, all we have heard about are cuts in service, the closing of routes, and the elimination of the kind of service people would use and would enjoy using and would feel good about, because it would help our environment.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things covered in the bill is the joint ventures. Perhaps she addressed this and I did not catch that part. I was wondering if she could give her thoughts on the changes to the legislation in terms of joint ventures.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very leery and concerned about joint ventures. If he is talking about the infrastructure bank, I have profound concerns in that direction. We have experienced P3s in Ontario. They are more expensive, they are slow, and they do not provide the kinds of services that are intended.

In the case of the infrastructure bank, we would be partnering up with corporate entities that are designed to invest to make profits. Public services are for the public, and they are financed by taxpayers, the working men and women in our country. They should never be subject to extra tolls or extra costs to use their own services. Public services must remain public.

It is like Ontario Hydro. Who in their wildest dreams would have believed that any government would sell off a public entity like Ontario Hydro? This is all part and parcel of that selling out the public for private corporate good.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to discuss Bill C-49.

However, before I get to the meat of the bill, I want to quote from liberal.ca/realchange, which says, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny. Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” It goes on to say, “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” However, what do we have before us? Like budget bills and others before it, the Liberals have introduced an omnibus bill.

In the bill, there are air passenger rights, with subsections on liberalized international ownership rules; joint ventures between air carriers; increased access to security screening services; rail initiatives with subsections under locomotive voice and video recorders; freight rail policy framework; and another area under marine initiatives that includes items such as would amend the Coasting Trade Act and the Canada Marine Act to permit Canada port authorities to access Canada Infrastructure Bank loans and loan guarantees to support investments in key enabling infrastructure.

We also know the infrastructure bank was introduced in a different omnibus bill. Ironies of ironies, the Liberals put time allocation on this omnibus bill after promising to never do either. The Liberals said that they would never be so cynical as to introduce omnibus bills and they were so sure they would never use them that they made it a campaign promise to show Canadians they were so different from Stephen Harper. With this broken promise, it once again shows that the student has become the master.

While I am on broken promises, I will review some of the other broken promises of the government, such as a revenue-neutral middle-class tax cut. The Liberals said this tax cut would pay for itself by increasing taxes on the wealthiest. Unfortunately, it has not. The tax cut is costing all Canadians $1.2 billion annually from the federal treasury. It is like borrowing against a line of credit and saying we just got wealthier, but it is not.

The Liberals promised modest deficits. They said that annual deficits would be just $10 billion a year, but they blew that out of the water pretty fast. Even with the economy doing well, the Liberal deficit will still be almost 100% higher than they had promised. They promised balance budgets. They said the budget would be balanced, probably balancing itself, with a $1-billion surplus in 2019-20. Now we know they will not commit to a balanced budget ever.

The Liberals promised revenue-neutral carbon pricing. They said the plan would be revenue neutral for the federal government, but we know that is not true because they are charging GST on the provincial carbon taxes, which is expected to cost Albertans and British Columbians almost a quarter of a billion dollars over two years.

On electoral reform, we were famously told that the 2015 election would be the very last using the first past the post balloting system. On this side, we have always said that if the government is going to fundamentally change the way citizens elect their government, there should be a referendum. Therefore, I am not that sad to see this promise broken, but it still shows a pattern.

The Liberals make promises to get elected and then throw the promises under the bus faster than, say, the revenue minister threw Revenue Canada employees under the bus over her mess-up with taxing minor employee benefits.

The government promised an open and transparent government. This one is an omnibus of broken promises.

I will read from the mandate letters to ministers, which state, “You are expected to do your part to fulfill our government’s commitment to transparent, merit-based appointments”. Here are some of the merit-based appointments. The former chair of the Liberal election campaign in Ontario was appointed to an ambassador role. A failed Liberal nomination candidate was appointed to the VIA Rail board. Another failed Liberal candidate, who already said she would run again, was appointed as the director of the Hamilton Port Authority. A Liberal described as a friend of Gerry Butts, who ran twice for the Liberals unsuccessfully, was given a plum government position in San Francisco at double—yes, double—the official pay scale.

The finance minister's mandate letter includes this doozy, “your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.” Here we have the finance minister, who, before entering politics, lobbied for a change in the pension system that would benefit his company, Morneau Shepell. What did he do after he was elected and became the country's top financial regulator? He sponsored the very bill he lobbied for before entering politics, but excuses it by saying he was following the letter of the law.

There is also the failed Access to Information Act we debated just recently. The Information Commissioner herself said that she was very disappointed with the act, that it was being used as a shield against transparency, and that it was failing to meet its policy objectives to foster accountability and trust in our government.

I will now move on to Bill C-49. It is unfortunate the government has once again chosen to break its promise and presented yet another omnibus bill to the House.

Bill C-49 is like a game of three card monte. That is where the dealer shows that one of the cards is the target card and then rearranges the cards quickly to confuse the player about which card is which. Except in the case of Bill C-49, instead of the queen of hearts, the minister is presenting the passenger bill of rights as the target. He hides the flaws and omissions of the bill under the guise of passenger protection, referring constantly to the much-reported United Airlines incident where someone was dragged from the plane, as if something like that had happened here.

He also tries to pretend that government regulation is what is needed to prevent those situations in Canada. We all have our own horror stories of airline travel. What would address this issue is not half-hearted regulations, but more competition.

Changing the foreign ownership limit to 49%, up from 25%, is a good start, but why limit it at all? If we want improved service and other issues, then open up the market to more competition. We saw how this worked when WestJet entered the market. Nothing has done more to force better pricing and service from airlines across the country than having WestJet expand across Canada.

Why not focus on this, instead of measures that are rolled out populist-style to take advantage of consumer sentiment influenced by a viral video.

A University of Toronto report has found that relative to Americans, we often pay between 50% and 100% more for comparable travel between Canadian cities. Various expert reviews of the airline industry, including by the Competition Bureau, have recommended allowing a right of establishment for foreign carriers on domestic routes to put pressure on our airlines to improve.

The airlines might argue that foreign carriers would only operate on lucrative routes. However, Canadian carriers are under no obligation to fly to money-losing destinations currently, and there is no proof that the airlines are presently cross-subsidized to operate otherwise unprofitable routes.

One of the problems of this part of the bill is that it amends the Canada Transportation Act with regard to joint ventures, taking away decision-making authority from the Commissioner of Competition, and places the power in the hands of the minister. Yes, giving the minister the power to interfere for political reasons is just what is needed to improve airline service and lower rates—said no one ever.

The CAA, the Canadian Automobile Association, notes that the Bill C-49 relies on a complaint from a passenger in order to trigger action. The Canadian Transportation Agency cannot initiate domestic investigations on its own. Advocates and organizations can not intervene and each complaint is handled as a one-off, adding time and delays.

It is worth noting that the CTA was able to initiate hearings into the recent infamous Air Transat situation only because it concerned an international flight. The CTA would not have the authority, even under Bill C-49, to decide itself to hold a hearing into a similar situation if the flight occurred within Canada. Nor would the CTA be able to examine any broader systemic issues the CTA might note that did not come from a specific complaint and would have to ask the minister for permission to investigate them.

Noted passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs, says the bill is “smoke, mirrors and has no teeth”, and contains no provisions about the enforcement of rights of the passengers. He says, “This strikes me as an an attempt to shield airlines from complaints and further prevent the public from ensuring their right.”:

He says that Bill C-49 contains no provisions about the enforcement and that it passes the buck to the Canadian Transportation Agency to establish standards at some point in the future. What we need is more competition, not relatively toothless regulations basically responding to a United Airlines' video that went viral.

We do not need regulations that will increase airport costs and thus ticket costs, which will happen as airports expand screening services and are permitted to independently decide how to cover costs. We all know how that will end: with consumers paying more.

There is quite a few other issues on this bill. We would have preferred that it be broken up into several bills to address.

It is unfortunate that once again the government is hiding poor legislation in an omnibus bus, and Canadians will be the poorer for it.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, why can my hon. colleague not support the excellent measures proposed in the bill?

The bill would allow foreign vessels to reposition their containers between locations in Canada. This would make Canadian trade corridors more attractive to global logistical companies. It would also allow Canadian port authorities to have access to the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. That would enable them to make critical investments in port infrastructure.

The bill would liberalize the ownership of air carriers, from 35% to 49%, while ensuring that no single foreign entity or group of airlines could own more than 25% of the airline stake. At the same time, it would ensure that speciality air carriers, like firefighting air carriers or aerial photography air carriers, would have no change in foreign ownership. It would still be limited to 25%.

Why can the member not support these excellent measures?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I outlined a lot of reasons why I could not support the bill. It is an omnibus bill that should have been broken up and presented separately in the House for review. There are quite a few reasons. There are privacy issues with the locomotive voice and video recorder. The Privacy Commissioner said that it could potentially encompass employee output measurement or other performance-related objectives. The bill could open the door to potential misuse of the data or function creep.

The problem with the bill is that it would not do enough to increase competition. Rather than allow more competition, the government seems to think more regulation, more government interference will make Air Canada or WestJet deliver better service. It strikes me as odd. If Liberal members went to a Tim Hortons and saw a lineup, I wonder if they would decide they needed to regulate that as well instead of allowing more competition.

The bill is flawed. It would do nothing to service Canadians better.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the legislation addresses in clause 14 is joint ventures and the putting in place of a ministerial component or a political lens.

Does my colleague have any comments on that section?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock asked an important question about taking away a non-partisan oversight and handing it to the minister. The government interfered with energy east and killed it. It has interfered in a lot of other things for political reasons.

It would be a disaster if we allowed the government and a minister to decide, for political reasons, what should be decided by the market.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, a brief question, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way gives the impression that there is nothing in the bill for which he could vote. I would think his constituents would be pleased to know the bill would enable the department to work toward having a passenger bill of rights. I would think his constituents would want the member to at least say some encouraging words about the importance of those regulations.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, you recognized my colleague and said “a brief question”. The two really are oxymoronic, but I would like to thank him for the quick question.

Some things are in this omnibus legislation that I am sure a lot of us could get behind. The problem is that they are all wrapped up into one large bill. There are issues with the interchange with the rail. There are problems with the infrastructure bank and port authorities. There are problems with the bill. By throwing it all together, it is difficult to get behind it without getting a lot of real bad legislation and regulations rolled into it.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, as it often happens, the Liberal government's bills first and foremost protect big businesses, at the expense of the rights of workers and consumers. By amending 13 acts, the omnibus Bill C-49 is no exception. There is certainly no doubt that the Liberal members are going to support this bill, but I would still like to remind the House why the New Democrats want to oppose it.

After two years of waiting, the minister wants us to rush through a bill that is deeply flawed and primarily favours the interests of foreign investors, while violating the rights of workers and consumers. I will explain all the reasons why the New Democrats oppose Bill C-49.

First, in 2012, the NDP tabled Bill C-459, which clearly outlined the measures to be taken to create a proper passengers' bill of rights. This bill set out concrete measures, for example, providing for appropriate compensation for passengers who were denied boarding. That could have amounted to $600 for flights of 3,500 km or more. However, the Liberals voted against the amendment that proposed to include this bill of rights in Bill C-49, without even trying to study it.

Why did the Minister of Transport reject our amendment? He could have taken a page from our proposal, which included concrete measures to protect air travellers. It is even harder to understand when we consider the findings of a study showing that 0.4% of EU-regulated flights are cancelled, which is four times lower than the cancellation rate of flights under current Canadian regulations. It seems clear that the Liberals are giving in to pressure from the airlines and turning a blind eye to the studies on the issue.

Bill C-49 would also require railway companies to install voice and video recorders in the locomotive cabs. This seems to make sense for dealing with accidents, but it must not prompt the railways to use this information for surveillance or disciplinary purposes. That is why we are calling for the use of these voice and video recordings to be reserved exclusively for the Transportation Safety Board.

The provisions of Bill C-49 are not clear enough and do not spell out how the train conductors' private information will be used by the railways. For example, the minister could decide by regulation that a train conductor's hourly productivity is something to take in consideration in a safety review. Following that reasoning, Via Rail Canada could use this data to manage employee performance, for example, during a stop at the Saint-Hyacinthe station.

The employees are refusing to give up their right to privacy. The government is not listening to the testimony of people like Roland Hackl, vice-president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. According to him, the bill, as currently drafted, goes against the employees' rights as Canadians, and he is right. Bill C-49 might be in contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it would authorize the government or employers to gather private information without providing adequate protections. What is more, according to the findings of a Transport Canada working group, voice and video recordings are not part of proactive safety management.

The NDP therefore proposed a series of amendments to ensure that only the Transportation Safety Board could have access to the recordings in the event of an accident. Our amendments would also guarantee that the minister and the railways would not be able to use the voice and video recordings. Obviously, the Liberals in committee once again summarily dismissed these proposals.

I would like to talk about the change in the agreement between the airlines included in Bill C-49. Currently, the competition commissioner may make an application to the Competition Tribunal to propose the rejection of a merger of airline companies that stifles competition. The Competition Tribunal therefore has the authority to cancel a merger or a part thereof. However, under Bill C-49, the Minister of Transport will now have the final say in the matter.

As soon as the minister approves the agreement, the Competition Tribunal can do nothing to stop it. The NDP is opposed to clause 14 of the bill because it gives the minister the power to supervise and authorize joint ventures between airlines.

Imagine if Air Canada submitted a proposal to merge with United Airlines. Even if the commissioner found that the agreement would reduce competition among airlines and could raise ticket prices, the minister could still approve the merger if he or she deemed it to be in the “public interest”. I challenge the minister to provide a precise definition of that term. In Bill C-49, it is so vague that the minister could include reasons that are not in Canadians' interest but in the interest of shareholders of major airlines. The Liberal government is trying to erode our consumer watchdog's authority.

Bill C-49 would also amend the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the CATSA act.

Instead of designating new airports and helping regional airports grow, the government is passing the cost of security screening on to them.

Why did the government not propose a fairer model in which CATSA is responsible for funding screening and security services?

The government has been withdrawing funding from this area for a long time. Statistics Canada data shows that the former government collected $636 million from the public but that it allocated only $550 million of that amount to air security. The Liberal government is no better, since it has continued to underfund CATSA. Clause 69 of the bill provides for the addition of subsection 30.1(1) to the act, under which any airport can enter into an agreement with CATSA to provide new screening and security services.

Everything is fine up to that point. However, it is up to the airport to pay for these new services, which means that passengers will be the ones to foot the bill. In contrast, the NDP proposed that public funding be put in place for the development of regional airports. Our amendment would have also prevented designated airports, such as those in Montreal and Toronto, from being forced to absorb the cost of enhancing security services.

Indirectly, our amendment also sought to ensure that the cost of enhancing security is not passed on to passengers via ticket prices. All of our proposals in that regard were also rejected. Unfortunately, that is not surprising. That is how the government has been withdrawing funding from regional airports and screening and security services in large airports.

The government wants users to cover the cost of its own policy of underfunding. Bill C-49 also creates a loophole in the Coasting Trade Act in clauses 70 to 72. We are asking that these clauses be deleted from the bill. Canadian shipowners and sailors' jobs—and I should point out that my son is a sailor—must be protected from unfair competition from ships registered in the European Union.

Why would that competition be unfair?

Simply because labour on EU-registered ships is not subject to the same requirements as labour on Canadian ships. Under the provisions of Bill C-49, crew costs for European ships authorized to navigate in Canadian waters are 30% of Canadian crew costs. What is even more appalling is that there is no reciprocity whatsoever. In fact, the minister could decide to allow the repositioning of empty containers by ships registered abroad, while Canadian ships will not have reciprocal access to the EU market.

We would also like to see clauses 73 and 74 deleted from Bill C-49, as those clauses authorize the Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide loans to port authorities.

Lastly, with regard to Bill C-49, I want to point out that we fully support improving the rights of air travellers and protections for grain shippers. Many grain farmers have acknowledged that Bill C-49 is a step in the right direction.

Grain farmers have, however, proposed measures that go even further.

I will close by saying that we strongly oppose Bill C-49.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very excited to see that small airports will have a chance to attract smaller new air carriers to their facilities. I was on the advisory board of the Waterloo airport for many years. One of the issues we had was trying to attract smaller carriers to our regional airport. The new act would allow international carriers to now own up to 49% of a Canadian air carrier versus 25% as it currently stands. Does the hon. member not see this as a great way to attract international investment into the Canadian marketplace to get better coverage for small facilities and small communities?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, the whole issue of regional airport development is crucial. It is of concern to me, as well, as there is a small airport in my riding that would like to expand. However, as I said, these small airports cannot be asked to bear the burden of security costs. It is important that we have very clear public funding mechanisms in place to support the work these airports do.

We are living in an age when transportation is vital. In Acton Vale, a town in my riding, there is a transport logistics company that is demonstrating how companies must increasingly embrace multimodal transportation, the idea of transporting goods by a combination of truck, ship, and plane.

Transportation is too big an issue to cram into an omnibus bill that seeks to amend 13 vastly different acts at once. We need to focus on these elements. We need a true bill of rights for air passengers. The bill contains some important provisions about grain transportation, but they are eclipsed by the many provisions that put far too much power in the hands of the transport minister.

This bill needs to be split up so we can study all of its aspects in depth, because the transportation issue is far too big.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very good speech. I have many concerns about this bill. I have only one question to ask my colleague. What does the NDP think is the worst part of this bill?

I personally think there are some parts that are perfectly acceptable, but there are also some serious problems.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

What worries me the most about Bill C-49 is that it does not make Canadians' interests a priority, whether it is customers, consumers, or even the people who work for these companies.

It seems as though this bill is going to serve the interests of large corporations and foreign investors. The government is ignoring the fact that some of the measures, such as the one calling for audio-video recorders in locomotives, will be in violation of workers' rights. The government is ignoring the fact that consumers will be the ones to suffer the consequences of this bill.

Our role in the House of Commons is to vote in favour of legislation that contributes to the common good and that serves the interests of our constituents. We need to pass legislation that respects charters of rights and freedoms.

When we were debating this bill, all of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities were telling us that the experts were unanimous on some issues but that the amendments put forward to address those experts' concerns were still not adopted by the committee at report stage. We must ensure that the bill that we pass respects the rights of workers and consumers.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about what I term the “treat and trick” bill. It is in keeping with the season that is upon us. I call it that as it is being brought through as a bill of rights for passengers. It has been a topic of debate beyond this place, around the coffee tables and coffee shops in northern Alberta, particularly after some events in the media.

Here we are debating a bill of rights for passengers. One of the things that is beautiful about Canada is that we live in what we think of as a free trading country and no one is under any obligation to provide or buy services. Free trade and active competition allow us to travel fairly cheaply.

However, the bill of rights that would result from this bill may impede our free will or ability to choose a plane to fly on. As we impose a bill of rights upon airline carriers, it may be difficult for them to provide the same level of services they currently do at the same rates. We already have some of the most expensive air traffic rates in the world. With an increased burden upon them, the air carriers may increase the price.

That is definitely the main reason why I call it the “treat and trick” bill. While everyone likes the idea of a bill of rights, we do not really know what it will look like. The bill only lays out the framework to write it, not the actual details. There are many other things that slid underneath the first page of the bill, such as rail safety and interswitching.

Up in northern Alberta, rail is a big part of our transportation system. A lot of grains, cereal crops, and canola are grown in my riding. I heard from the Canola Growers Association of Canada that my riding might be the largest canola producing riding in the country and we utilize the rail system.

The interswitching that was brought in before, of 160 kilometres, worked very well for the grain farmers. However, given that my riding is 700 kilometres from top to bottom, people felt that it should have been increased much beyond 160 kilometres. Some of the grain that is grown in my riding is 700 kilometres from Edmonton or the nearest terminal in Westlock. Increasing the competition may bring the rail up north more effectively, perhaps to a loading terminal or that kind of thing.

Interswitching is a big deal. I have heard from my constituents that they are disappointed that the particular method that had been brought in by the previous Conservative government was not continued in this bill. The Liberal government talks about interswitching and making it better, but the regulations and different scenarios that have to be in place are convoluted and have many loopholes. Producers in my riding are concerned that the interswitching proposed in this bill would not have a positive effect on getting their products to market.

We heard very eloquently from the member for Central Nova about how it is imperative that we get the products that are produced in Canada to market. That is the stated goal of the bill as well, yet we see that it is not going to happen with the interswitching as it is laid out in the bill.

Finally, I want to talk about section 14 of the bill, particularly joint ventures. I understand a joint venture is where two airlines happen to fly similar routes between two cities and could get together in a joint venture and say they will fly to some cities together rather than competing with each other. When two airlines get together, the Competition Bureau must do an assessment and say they can work in a joint venture or no, it is going to lower competition and that would be detrimental to the public interest or to folks flying on the airplanes.

The bill proposes to change that requirement not only to have the Competition Bureau look at it, but also have the minister put a political lens on it. The term that the bill uses is “in the public interest”. I would say that the ability to use the airline, the ability to be able to afford to use the airline, and to ensure that everything is done safely would be in the public interest.

Most of these things can be dealt with. The safety aspect definitely needs to be addressed by the government, but the other two can be adequately addressed by competition. We need to ensure that there is more competition. Some of the things that the bill proposes to do are going to make it more difficult for airlines to come into the fore when it comes to rates at airports. We have seen the government in the area when it comes to conflicts of interest. We would like to see the minister sign-off be taken out of the bill because, as we have seen with other ministers of the crown, they have not been able to avoid conflicts of interest. This would place a potential transport minister in a conflict of interest when he has to judge on joint venture deals.

The government would like us to think this is all about a passenger bill of rights, but we see there are a number of other things in it that would do nothing to improve passengers' rights and would also perhaps place ministers in conflicts of interest.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned joint ventures. Talking about air carriers, the bill would allow the liberalization of the ownership of airlines from 25% to 49%, while actually making sure that no single entity, no single individual, or no two carriers would have more than 25% stake on any Canadian carrier. Also, the bill would not not allow ownership of specialty air services like firefighting, aerial logging, and aerial photography to rise above the current 25%.

Would this increase competition in the Canadian air sector, increase the choice available for Canadians, and increase the creation of jobs?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, for sure that is a very positive thing, if we can spur on the investment within the Canadian airline industry. What I am concerned about, however, is that the joint ventures have to be signed off by the minister. We already have a system that works and has worked very well to ensure competition and improve competition. I do not see how the bill would work at all in terms of enhancing the current situation when it comes to having the minister sign off on joint ventures.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, thinking of the prairies, where I came from, transportation every year seemed to have less and less choice. Rail companies were pulling out of small towns. Airlines were pulling out of small airports. We did not have access to the travel options that we used to have back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Could the hon. member comment on the need to revamp Canada's transportation system, and how it is all interconnected so that we cannot separate one from the other without having impact?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would not disagree at all with the member when he said that we need a revamp. However, I would definitely say that the bill before us does not look like a revamp.

What we have in Bill C-49 looks more like crony capitalism or paying off somebody. I am not sure what the whole bag of goods is intended to do, but for me, the ministerial sign-off on the joint ventures raises a red flag. It would give the opportunity for the minister to bypass the board, and the opportunity to participate in what I call crony capitalism.

What we need in northern Alberta and northern Canada is more competition. What we need is more of the government getting out of the way so that our resources can be developed. As we have seen in northern Alberta, hundreds of flights are being cancelled, because there is no economic activity any more. When there was a lot of economic activity, there were choices for a person who wanted to fly out. There was a flight every hour that left the Fort McMurray airport. Now I think there are only four every day flying to Edmonton. This is one of those things that we need to ensure, that we can get the economy going again, and then there will be a lot of choice when it comes to transportation, provided the government can get out of the way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is more of a follow-through. As I have highlighted consistently throughout the day, it is important that the government provide some sort of opportunity for more justice for passengers on flights, whether through regulation or legislation. Would the member not agree?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, on more justice on flights, the government is definitely in the business of justice, which I think is the primary role of the government. What we need more of in this country is more competition within perhaps the air industry, and everywhere else. One of the ways to drive competition is to lower regulations on businesses so that the barriers to entry are lowered, and therefore we can get more competition in this country.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today, on behalf of many of my colleagues, to Bill C-49. I had the opportunity and pleasure, and privilege, to work on this, starting before we came back to the House. I worked with many great people on the committee and with witnesses and delegations that came to take part in the discussion.

There is a bigger picture. I have heard a lot of comments today in the House. Although we dug a bit deep in the weeds, I want to speak, in a broader sense, to the strategic plan for the future of transportation in this great nation, that being transportation 2030 and how Bill C-49 would actually contribute to that overall strategic plan.

This bill would be in part an enabler of a national transportation strategy. The minister worked very hard throughout the past year to put together transportation 2030 and a train corridor strategy as part of that overall strategy. It became evident, when speaking with many of our partners throughout Canada, that modernizing rail, air, marine, and road is a critical component of that overall national transportation strategy. Bill C-49 would be a critical component of that.

When we looked at the bill, we recognized quickly that a lot of the particulars relate to how we are going to ensure that Canada's transportation system is strengthened to give us an ability globally to perform better with respect to our economy and the economies of our partners. We also recognized that we had to hear from everyone across the House of Commons. It was not just about the Liberal side of the floor. It was also about listening to the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, and other folks, as I mentioned earlier, who were a great part of this entire process.

I want to highlight a few components of the report. The report states that, transportation 2030 will ensure that Canadians benefit from a safe, reliable, clean, and efficient transportation system that facilitates trade and the movement of people for years to come. That includes every method of transportation: rail, road, air, and, of course water. Transportation 2030 would also ensure that Canada's transportation system supports economic growth, job creation, and Canada's middle class while promoting a sustainable environment. We can see a trend here as it relates to a triple bottom line, that being economic, environmental, and social.

In a vast nation such as ours, Canadians rely on economically viable modes of transportation to travel and move commodities within our country, across the border, and to our ports for shipment overseas. The time has come to modernize our policies, not just in our own jurisdictions but with jurisdictions throughout Canada and with our trading partners, ensuring that we have a seamless method of transportation to move global trade. These practices also include a safe, greener, more competitive, and more respectful system that can respond to market conditions and to Canadians' expectations, not only with respect to moving trade but with respect to moving people, whether it be through high speed rail or any method of transportation. It is incumbent upon us to investigate those opportunities.

I mentioned earlier today that the transportation modernization act would represent only a first step in providing Canadians with safer, more reliable and efficient transportation, and a system that would better facilitate the trade and travel of goods and people. It would also respond to the needs of Canadians and their expectations for services, as well as allow Canada to take advantage of international opportunities and contribute to a highly productive economy.

When we look at a lot of the effort of the transportation committee now, we are starting to get a little deeper into the specifics of an overall strategy that attaches itself both to transportation and, most importantly, the economy and job creation. We cannot be content to sit back and depend on what we had, but look to what we can have. That is dependent on our strengths as a border country with our trading partners, such as the United States. Within the new trade agreements that we have and will be ensuring are in place, we have an opportunity to include that seamless movement and ensure that the agreements are of benefit to both Canada and our trading partners.

I want to speak as well to the involvement of all members at committee. For those who may not know and are watching this on TV, all three parties participate in the standing committees, the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the NDP. As the chair of the committee so eloquently alluded to earlier in her dialogue with us, we listened to all members of the committee, ensuring that all of their voices were heard. We made amendments, and those amendments came from all sides. The amendments were as follows.

Changes were made to the exclusion zones in Quebec and British Columbia to open up a new long-haul interswitching regime to captive shippers in northern Quebec, parts of British Columbia, and Alberta, which were previously excluded in the agreement put in place by the former government. This will be of particular importance to the forestry and mining sectors.

Changes were also made to the new system of approvals for joint ventures in the air sector to provide for greater transparency in the process, to provide greater service to passengers, and to provide greater certainty when travelling.

There were changes made to the new system of approvals and joint ventures for other methods of transportation, such as by rail, water, and road.

Changes were made to the rules around closing rail interchanges so that a longer notification period and greater transparency were required. As a former mayor for the past 14 years, I can relate to that one simply because of the cost of, as well as the work that has to be done on, some of these interchanges within our own individual jurisdictions.

There were also changes made to the reporting requirements for freight rail, which will result in timelier reporting of data and speed up the implementation of a new system from one year to 180 days. Once again, that will lead to better service, transparency, and accountability.

Finally, changes were made to the amendment concerning the CN Commercialization Act so that CN's directors could apply for a new 25% limit on individual ownership of shares immediately after royal assent.

In closing I want to say that not only is there a bigger picture attached to both the efforts at committee and what the minister and ministry are embarking on with respect to a national transportation strategy, but also that when we go to the next layer we see the minister's announcement of transportation 2030, and in the next layer the specifics of how we are going to accomplish that in Canada by 2030. Bill C-49 is but one component of that and will be an integral part of ensuring that the overall strategy is put in place. It is not just a document that will sit on a shelf and collect dust, but one that will breathe. With that, Bill C-49 will become an enabler to ensure that this great nation has the tools to move this entire strategy forward to benefit future generations.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his very important words. We have had many discussions over the past two years about transportation, and I know how important it is to get this right. I wonder if the member could reflect on how Bill C-49 would help the Niagara area, because I know how important it is to ensure that transportation is increased and improved in that general area.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question by my hon. colleague, who has done a lot of work with me on the transportation strategy.

Niagara is unique. We are a trade corridor. We have a very robust multi-modal transportation system, with the Welland Canal going right up the middle of the region, as well as short and mainline rail. We are a border community, with road and air links shared by both nations. Within a one day's drive, we represent over 44% of North America's annual income. Therefore, the bill, as well as the overall strategy with respect to transportation, not only contributes to Niagara, but because of the strength of Niagara as a border community, it can also contribute overall to accomplishing the recommendations that will be coming out of both the strategy and Bill C-49.

We look forward to its being passed. We look forward to taking advantage of the strengths, as well as the resources, that would be made available to us through Bill C-49.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech. Bill C-49 is a key piece of the plan to implement the transportation 2030 vision announced by the Minister of Transport last fall.

Would the member tell us a little bit about that and explain why it is important?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my great colleague, who also does a lot of work on transportation, in particular on the committee.

Canadians expect a transportation system that allows them to travel safety and to bring global trade through our partners' jurisdictions safely, efficiently, and in an environmentally friendly manner. We want to ensure that where and when a product is moving, it is also moving economically and that jobs are created and preserved. Businesses and customers expect a transportation system they can trust and have confidence in to deliver.

Bill C-49 would become an enabler of the entire transportation strategy, transportation 2030, to become something that will breathe and mature and offer our great nation the ability to perform better when it comes to our economy on the global stage.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to talk a little about the on-board recording device. The unions have visited us at committee and here in the House. They are quite concerned that the LVVR system not be used for disciplinary proceedings. We had assurances from the Canadian Transportation Safety Board and all of the federal departments that this would be used exclusively for safety issues. Would the member like to comment on that issue.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this has been a point of discussion within the committee, as well as on our side. We have had discussions with both unions: Unifor and the Teamsters. The bottom line is that the LVVR devices would not be used for anything other than safety purposes. They would not be used for disciplinary purposes. As mentioned earlier today, they would be used in the case of an accident, which is reactive, but also in a proactive way, using the video and audio recordings for recommendations that may in fact make it safer for the industry well into the future.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to address the House today on Bill C-49. We have covered a lot of ground in the debate today.

The word “omnibus” has been used by both the official opposition and the NDP to describe this bill. The vision that came from committee and the minister is that this bill reflects the nature of transportation. Transportation, as we know, is now called logistics. It is more than just moving goods and people; it is also the data behind the networks. It is tracking packages as they go from one form of shipping to another. Whether it is from a ship onto a container at a transloading facility, onto rail, and then onto a truck, we need a transportation network that has an act behind it that reflects the true nature of transportation.

The acts that this legislation would cover, the CN Commercialization Act, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, would attract investment up to 25% of the ownership of CN or CP being covered by international investment, to look at attracting international capital into Canada.

The Railway Safety Act, as was just mentioned, would include the use of devices for the safety of rail and, as we saw in the disaster in Lac-Mégantic, how to avoid disasters in the future through the use of technologies, so we can make sure that the equipment is operated safely and effectively. It is governed by subsection 28(1) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. We have a backstop. We will not have to focus on conversations in the cab between the engineer and other operators. We are looking at safety and the safe operation of equipment, and we have acts to govern that. We are looking at the comprehensive nature of safety between air travel, road travel, shipping, and rail.

We are also looking at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, to authorize the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to enter into agreements for the delivery of screening devices on a cost-recovery basis. That concern was mentioned by the NDP earlier, but cost recovery can take many forms in terms of financing activities, such as improving screening devices within facilities.

The Coasting Trade Act looks at repositioning empty containers on ships that are registered in any register. There can be tracking of empty containers and a more efficient way of handling the movement of containers across Canada as they become unloaded and go to other forms of shipping, and then eventually get back to the registered owners. It is to make use of the containers throughout the time they are in Canada.

The Canada Marine Act permits the port authorities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to receive loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. That infrastructure bank, which has been discussed in this place on other occasions, looks at how to attract international investment. It looks at how to maintain control of it through our management of foreign capital within our shores, knowing how expensive it is to operate ports, to add rail infrastructure, to build bridges, to improve our transportation network across Canada. There are international markets looking for investment, looking for projects to participate in. As long as Canadians know how we are doing that and we are transparent in the way the conditions of Bill C-44 will be coming forward to Parliament so that it can get royal assent and we can get on with investment in transportation, that is what we want.

There are also other acts, as always, including the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Competition Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Air Canada Public Participation Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, and also the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

This bill is not omnibus; it is omni-transportation. We are not suggesting that we cut down environmental protection in the middle of a budget bill or other things that have been termed omnibus in the past. We are not bringing this forward in any way, other than to make sure we have an integrated act that reflects the integrated nature of transportation in Canada.

When we look at integration and different forms of travel, we also have the competition between freight and people. How do we manage the investments in our infrastructure? In my riding of Guelph, people are trying to get down Highway 401 to Toronto on the train, and the train gets waylaid as freight comes through. Freight makes a profit for rail organizations. Freight always takes precedence over people. People are trying to get to work or trying to get home, and they cannot do that efficiently.

The only way to get past these problems is with comprehensive legislation that allows investment, so that we can get dual tracks between Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo, including Guelph, to have one track for freight and one track for people.

Transportation 2030 is looking at where we are going in the next 20 or so years. We want to have an integrated nature of transportation that can also pave the way to use the new forms of transportation, autonomous vehicles, new ways of moving goods through new ways of port control, and new transloading facilities for rail. We need to have comprehensive legislation, such as Bill C-49, in order to make way for future carriers of people and goods across this great country that we have.

When we look the scope of Canada, we also need legislation that is as broad in scope as we are as a country, so that we can reach northern Alberta, reach Windsor, and so we can have proper control in our major centres of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, and all points in between.

When we look at the joint ventures, attracting the most efficient use of travel, we do not want part carriers on part carriers and two operations losing money, but a means in which they can collaborate and work to the benefit of Canadians under the new legislation.

Competition is essential, and competition, as I mentioned earlier, includes attracting international participants. We can look at countries where there is best practices that we can borrow from, such as China and the United States. Europe has border issues that it has been able to solve. We are are still working on old border issues that will hopefully benefit from this legislation as well, as we open up our roads and bridges and our rail lines to international markets.

Finally, I mentioned in the question section that Guelph is looking at increasing our opportunities for air travel. We have YKF, which is the international regional airport in Waterloo that is partway between Guelph, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge. To come to Ottawa this morning, I had a 4:15 a.m. pickup and a shuttle to Pearson. I had to go through security, so I was dropped off an hour and a half before my flight. I got to my office here for 8:30 a.m., after having left Guelph at 4:15 in the morning. If we had YKF operating and we had a low-cost operator, as we almost had last year—we had it for a very short period of time—I would have been able to drive 20 minutes to the airport and be at the office an hour earlier than I was. I would be able to get home to my family a lot easier once we are finished with the work of the House.

However, we cannot do that without good legislation such as we have before us, which attracts investment, attracts competition, and enhances the network that we have in Canada, bringing it into the next century with transportation 2030.

I will be supporting this bill as it comes forward.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to remember that while he does not call this omnibus legislation, it is a bit of verbal engineering to try to stay away from that.

Another thing that the member mentioned in his comments was YKF, the airport in the greatest riding in all of Canada, Kitchener—Conestoga. It is not in Guelph, but it is very close to Guelph. I remember when we had good service directly from YKF to Ottawa. Certainly, anything we can do to restore that service would be welcomed by many people, not just members of Parliament.

My question is related to the issue of the air transport, and specifically the air passenger bill of rights that this bill includes. It seems very thin on details as it relates to the legislation. This was a campaign promise of the Liberal Party in the last campaign, and yet here we have this legislation with almost no details as to the air passenger bill of rights. All of that is going to be left for the regulatory process later on.

Would my colleague care to comment on why the Liberals did not take a little more time to get it right on the passenger bill of rights?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, YKF will become active again, coming to Ottawa I am hoping in the near future.

It is interesting to note that with respect to the passenger bill of rights, on one hand we are criticized for putting too much into this legislation, and on the other hand we are criticized for not putting everything we could into it.

The legislation lays the groundwork for a passenger bill of rights to come forward. It really is looking at making an integrated approach to all traffic. The airlines would be a part of that and the passenger bill of rights I am sure would come forward in the early new year, should we be able to pass this legislation before then.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. colleague from Guelph that we made a dreadful mistake when we separated out passenger rail, VIA Rail, and gave the tracks in this country to CN and freight. The current length of trains that are bringing freight across this country is so long that they do not fit on any siding, which is why VIA Rail, that does not control the signals, is sent to the siding and passengers have to wait sometimes for as much as an hour for a freight train to pass.

I do not see anything in Bill C-49 that would fix the problem the member for Guelph just identified. What we need to do is make sure we are investing in VIA Rail and investing in tracks for VIA Rail. I do not see that in this legislation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a third rail line, the Guelph Junction line, that also has some shunting yards that move freight between the two major carriers in Canada.

This legislation would open up the opportunity for international investors to see a more efficient network to invest in and attract the capital that we need to pay for the tracks that have to go in to do the dual tracking between some of the major centres in Canada.

Part of the work of this legislation involves attracting attention and investment through the greater efficiencies that it would provide.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Science]

Madam Speaker, talking about transportation in southwestern Ontario always piques my interest. We are talking about the London International Airport of course. We are talking about a new low-cost carrier. We are hoping that will come to fruition and it might help all of us get to our destinations that much quicker.

I wonder if the hon. member could talk about that type of investment and how that would serve southwestern Ontario in general.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we were able to have low-cost carriers in London and in Hamilton at YKF, that would take a large load from Pearson and it would take a lot of traffic off the 401. A lot of our traffic now goes to Buffalo because it is easier to fly out of Buffalo, so the greenhouse gas emissions in our area would be reduced. It would provide further opportunities for people to get home faster and to get to work faster.

If we can get this working in London, in Hamilton, and in YKF, Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph-Cambridge, we will see some terrific advances being made in not only getting traffic off the 401 but also in getting to work on time.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other acts.

This proposed legislation is critically important to help modernize transportation policies and practices to help ensure that we have safe, clean, and efficient transportation across Canada. Of course, Canada is a vast country and we rely on transportation to ensure that our trade happens across the country and that we are able to travel across the country. Therefore, it is critically important.

Last week, we had an opportunity to hear the great news of our fall economic statement. We saw growth in this country that has not been seen in quite some time in terms of our place in the G7. We have seen the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and, more importantly, over 100,000 full-time jobs. Having an efficient transportation system will allow that growth to continue. It will give our businesses, our small businesses in particular, the capacity to get their goods and services from city to city and province to province, and across this great country.

I know that a lot of businesses in Whitby really appreciate the fact that we are looking at transportation. In Whitby, there is always heavy congestion on the 401, just as it bottlenecks into my town. Many of us realize the inefficiencies that can result when we do not pay attention to the intricacies and importance of our transportation networks and to ensuring that we are able to get our businesses' goods and services across the country. This helps broad economic growth. In this we want to make sure that we are taking a whole-of-government approach when looking at ensuring vast economic growth in Canada.

In Whitby there are a lot of families who really like to travel across the country. We have seen various reports in recent times that travel is not so nice for some passengers. The introduction of a passenger bill of rights will give families peace of mind when they are travelling. They want to know that when they have spent their hard-earned money to take a trip across the country either by train or by air that they will be treated appropriately in whatever mode of transportation they take.

However, this is not just about planes or trains. When we think about driving across country on a family trip, it all really ties together. We also want those roadways to be efficient. We want that transportation to be efficient so that people can travel across the country, spend their money, and encourage economic growth when they are going across the country. Again, it is very interconnected, and I think this government has taken a proactive approach of looking at each piece of legislation, seeing that we can build upon each of them in turn and ensure that we do have the economically viable modes of transportation we need to continue to grow the country.

I want to speak a little to the fact that we have adopted some of the amendments brought forward at committee.

When I came to this place, people asked me questions about our capacity to work together across the aisle and to exchange ideas and to ensure that we can put together the best pieces of legislation possible. We have taken the opportunity to put this proposed legislation to committee, and the committee came back with various amendments that we have taken into account. We know that it is very important to the Canadians, including people within my constituency of Whitby, that we serve and represent everyone and take their input into account.

The adoption of those amendments represents a critical opportunity to work together.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 is deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 10, 14, and 15.

The question is on the Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The vote on Motion No. 3 is deferred. The vote will also apply to Motions Nos. 4 to 9, and 11 to 13.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 10, 14, and 15. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #380

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10, 14, and 15 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The motion is adopted.

The question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 to 13.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes with the addition of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Ms. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees and will vote yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the decision to apply the vote and I vote yes too.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to have the vote applied, and I will be voting no.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #381

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 to 13 defeated.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting in favour.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and the Conservatives are voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP also agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and is voting against.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #382

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.