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.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, there are special moments in a politician's life when we get to do something truly transformative.

May 16, 2017 was one of those moments for me. I had the great pleasure of introducing Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, which will help bring our government’s vision of a state-of-the-art national transportation system to fruition.

This legislation breathes life into transportation 2030, a strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada, to promote our government’s agenda for economic growth and job creation.

It fulfills our promise to review the Canada Transportation Act and related legislation. We want to ensure our laws and regulations position Canada to capitalize on global opportunities, thrive in a high-performing economy, and better meet the needs and service expectations of Canadians.

This bill represents a first legislative step to deliver on early Transportation 2030 measures. It consolidates into a single bill some of the essential components required to advance a strategic and integrated plan for our country’s transportation system.

Bill C-49 proposes a range of improvements to better meet the service requirements and overall experience of the Canadian traveller. It aims to create a safe, innovative transportation system that takes advantage of international best practices, opportunities for international investment and contributes to a highly productive Canadian economy.

Bill C-49 focuses on our immediate priorities in the air, rail and marine sectors. It addresses the needs of air passengers for fairer and more transparent rights, the needs of the Canadian air industry for greater investment, the needs of shippers for safer and more efficient rail transportation, and the needs of railways for strengthened trade corridors to global markets.

Specifically, the bill proposes to strengthen air passenger rights; liberalize international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; develop a clear and predictable process for approval of airline joint ventures; improve access, transparency, efficiency, and sustainable long-term investment in the freight rail sector; and, increase the safety of transportation in Canada by requiring railways to install voice and video recorders in locomotives.

Before I explain each of these in greater detail, let me first make clear that action in these areas reflects the priorities identified by Canadians.

We undertook extensive consultations over the past year following the release of Canada Transportation Act review report. We heard from more than 300 Canadian transportation and trade stakeholders, including indigenous groups and the provinces and territories, about how to ensure that the national transportation system continues to support Canada's international competitiveness, trade, and prosperity.

We also heard from individual Canadians in communities, large and small, all across the country regarding their concerns about our transportation system. Canadians have expressed their disappointment with their air travel experiences. I am committed to improving those experiences.

The concerns of Canadians have been highlighted in recent weeks with much-publicized cases of the unacceptable treatment of air travellers both in this country and south of the border. Stories of passengers forcibly removed from flights and other unacceptable industry practices that have significant impact on consumers have made the news headlines.

The bill, if passed, would provide assurance to Canadians that if they choose to travel by air, they would be aware of their rights, and should they feel that their rights have been violated, they would have a clear, simple, and timely mechanism for resolution.

Bill C-49 proposes to mandate the Canadian Transportation Agency to develop, in partnership with Transport Canada, new regulations to enhance Canada's air passenger rights. These new rules would ensure air passenger rights are clear, consistent, and fair for both travellers and air carriers.

I believe that when passengers purchase an airline ticket, they expect and deserve the airline to fulfill its part of the transaction. When that agreement is not fulfilled, passengers deserve clear, transparent, and enforceable standards of treatment and compensation. Under this proposed legislation, Canadians would benefit from a uniform, predictable, and reasonable approach. The details of the new approach would be elaborated through the regulatory process, which would include consultation with Canadians and air stakeholders.

My objective is to ensure that Canadians have a clear understanding of their rights as air travellers without negatively impacting on access to air services and costs of air travel for Canadians. Bill C-49 specifies that the regulations would include provisions regarding the following: first, providing passengers with plain language information about carriers' obligations and how to seek compensation or file complaints; second, setting standards for the treatment of passengers in the case of overbooking, delays, and cancellations, including compensation; third, standardizing compensation levels for lost or damaged baggage; fourth, establishing standards for the treatment of passengers in the case of tarmac delays over a certain period of time; fifth, seating children close to a parent or guardian at no extra charge; and sixth, requiring air carriers to develop standards for transporting musical instruments.

I have been clear that I also intend that the regulations would include provisions ensuring that no Canadian is involuntarily removed from an aircraft due to overbooking. I have issued a challenge to Canada's air carriers on this matter, and that of seating arrangements for minors, that they move to strengthen their practices even before new air passenger rights are finalized.

The bill also proposes that data would be required from all parties in the air sector flow to be able to monitor the air traveller experience, including compliance with the proposed passenger rights approach.

The legislation also proposes to liberalize international ownership restrictions from 25% to 49% for Canadian air carriers, with associated safeguards. For example, a single international investor would not be able to hold more than 25% of the voting interests of the Canadian air carrier, and no combination of international air carriers could own more than 25% of a Canadian air carrier.

I should point out that the policy change would not apply to Canadian specialty air services, such as heli-logging, aerial photography, or firefighting, which would retain international ownership levels of 25%.

Liberalizing international ownership restrictions means that Canadian air carriers, which include all passenger and cargo providers, would have access to more investment capital, which they can use for innovation. This would bring more competition into the Canadian air sector, providing more choice for Canadians and generating benefits for airports and suppliers, including new jobs.

In fact, in the fall of 2016, I exempted from the ownership restrictions of 25% two companies that wanted to enter the Canadian market supported by increased foreign investment. This decision is now permitting Enerjet and Jetlines to pursue their intention to create low-cost carrier services for Canadians. Liberalizing the foreign investment provisions will give Canadians more frequent access to air travel within Canada, and from Canada to transborder and international locations.

Another improvement in the bill is that it proposes a new, transparent, and predictable process for the authorization of joint ventures between air carriers, taking into account competition and wider public interest considerations.

Joint ventures are a common practice in the global air transport sector. They enable two or more air carriers to coordinate functions on specific routes, including scheduling, pricing, revenue management, marketing, and sales.

In Canada, air carrier joint ventures are currently examined from the perspective of possible harm to competition by the Competition Bureau.

Unlike many other countries, notably the United States, Canada's current approach does not allow for the consideration of the wider public interest benefits other than competition and economic impacts. Furthermore, the bureau's review is not subject to specific timelines.

The bill that is before this House proposes amendments that would allow me to consider and approve air carrier joint ventures, where it is in the public interest, taking into account competition considerations. On this latter concern, I would work in close consultation with the Commissioner of Competition to ensure that I am properly informed regarding any concerns that he or she may have with regard to competition. Air carriers that would choose to have their proposed joint ventures assessed through the new process would be given clear timelines for an expected decision.

I am also convinced that providing Canada's air carriers with such a tool would also benefit the air traveller. By joining up networks, air carriers could allow seamless travel to a wider range of destinations and reduce the duplication of functions. For Canadians, this could mean more seamless access to key global markets, easier in-bound travel in support of tourism and business, as well as increasing transiting traffic through our airports, thus increasing flight options.

Globally, airports are making investments in passenger screening to facilitate passenger travel and gain global economic advantages. Canada's largest airports have expressed an interest in making investments in passenger screening, either through additional workforce or technology innovation, and smaller airports have shown interest in obtaining access to screening services to promote local economic development. In the last two years alone, 10 small airports across Canada have requested screening services.

The proposed amendments in the bill would create a more flexible framework for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, known as CATSA, to provide new or additional screening services on a cost recovery basis. This would enable industry stakeholders to enter into agreements with CATSA to increase access to screening services at small, low-risk airports.

In turn, this would support our efforts to maintain an aviation system that is both secure and cost effective. It would also strengthen Canadian communities' competitiveness as they attract new commercial routes.

Bill C-49 proposes significant enhancements to increase the safety of the rail sector, too. Once in place, this legislation would build a safer, more secure rail transportation system that Canadians trust.

As a top priority, the legislation would amend the Railway Safety Act to require that railway locomotives be fitted with voice and video recorders. Mandating the installation of the recorders would strengthen rail safety by providing objective data about crew actions leading up to, and during, a rail accident. Beyond that, the requirement would also increase opportunities to mitigate risks and prevent accidents from occurring.

The updated act would not only require companies to install the recorders. It would limit how the recorded data could be used, within strict criteria. For instance, while the Transportation Safety Board would have access to recorded data for post-accident investigations, Transport Canada and railway companies would also have access to the data for proactive safety management, and for following-up on incidents and accidents not investigated by the Transportation Safety Board.

The specific limits on the use of the data are designed to maximize the safety value of this technology while limiting its potential to infringe on employees’ privacy rights.

Canada's freight rail system is a cornerstone of our economy. Bill C-49 would strengthen the freight rail policy framework to foster greater transparency, balance, and efficiency in the Canadian rail system. The proposed improvements would provide fair access through stronger remedies for shippers on service and rates, promote increased efficiency of the rail transportation system, encourage long-term investments in the railway network, and deliver improved data on rates and service.

As I committed last fall, fair access measures would allow for reciprocal financial penalties in service-level agreements to ensure that railways are held accountable for service failures. They would improve access to and end the timelines of the Canadian Transportation Agency processes to settle service and rate disputes. The new measures would ensure the agency offers informal dispute resolution options and guidance to shippers. The legislation would also broaden eligibility for rate remedies, benefiting small and medium-sized shippers, and allow an arbitrator's decision to apply for two years instead of only one.

We would also create a new mechanism called long-haul interswitching. This would be available to all captive shippers in all regions of the country and all sectors. It would introduce competitive alternatives for their traffic and better position them in negotiations for service options and rates. Other measures would modernize the methodology to calculate the maximum revenue entitlement in order to promote long-term investments in the rail system. Among other things, these improvements would better recognize railway investments, including in hopper cars.

The bill would also make it easier for the agency to update regular interswitching rates so that they adequately compensate railways for interswitching costs. As well, Canadian National's single shareholder restrictions would be relaxed from 15% to 25%.

To enhance transparency and level the playing field, the amendments would require large railways to report some performance, service, and rate data relevant to their Canadian operations. Transport Canada would have the authority to publicly report rate trends.

In the context of these advancements for the freight rail system, the short-term measures in the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act would be allowed to sunset as scheduled. With Bill C-49 we are taking important steps to ensure that the right conditions are in place for a successful winter season in the grain handling and transportation system this year and for years to come.

These are not the only ways we propose to improve trade and global markets. Bill C-49 would also amend the Coasting Trade Act to enhance marine transportation as well.

The proposed amendments would allow vessel owners to reposition their owned or leased empty containers between locations in Canada using vessels of any registry. This is something the Shipping Federation of Canada began asking for as far back as 2009. Extending the repositioning of empty containers to all ship owners would support industry's request for greater logistical flexibility and also would help address the ongoing shortage of empty containers for export purposes.

Equally important is Bill C-49's focus on marine-related infrastructure. The legislation proposes amendments to the Canada Marine Act that would allow Canadian port authorities and their wholly owned subsidiaries to access Canada infrastructure bank loans and loan guarantees. As members are aware, the bank would be responsible for investing in key infrastructure projects. Enabling port authorities to access the bank would support investments in key trade-enabling infrastructure, creating the conditions for companies and communities to build, expand, and thrive.

I am proud to table Bill C-49, the first legislative step toward making Transportation 2030 a reality. I trust I can count on the support of all parliamentarians to seize its immense potential, and to pass these measures as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the air passenger bill of rights is a key part of the legislation, as highlighted in a tweet that the minister put out on Twitter when he introduced the bill.

In the legislation, the Minister of Transport is being given the authority to set the compensation rates for the air passenger bill of rights. How much does the minister think is an appropriate penalty for a delayed flight? Why is this amount not included in the legislation? Why is the Minister of Transport the only person the Canadian Transportation Agency should consult before setting the compensation regime the government envisions?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, we will mandate the Canadian Transportation Agency to give us the specifics of the passenger bill of rights.

They will do this by consulting with Canadians, with the airlines, and looking at practices in other countries, so that they can come up with a bill of rights that is not only fair for passengers but also for the air carriers, and that takes into consideration what other countries are doing.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will prepare this, and they will work with Transport Canada to set the final bill of rights, which will be in position in 2018.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. It is not easy to ask him just one question about an omnibus bill that affects nearly every area of transportation. However, I would like to know more about this air passengers' bill of rights because, not so long ago, when the minister was sitting on this side of the House, he voted in favour of a bill on a passengers' bill of rights.

That bill was introduced by the NDP and contained specific measures in all areas, including cancelled flights, overbooking, wait times on the tarmac, and so on. I therefore expected the minister to build on that bill that he supported when introducing his own passengers' bill of rights. However, there is nothing to his bill of rights. It is completely lacking in substance.

My question is twofold. As a member of the House of Commons, how can I vote for or against something that is not really there, and what does the minister mean when he tells airlines that, in the meantime, he would like them to respect the spirit of the law, which has absolutely no substance?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, I simply want to tell my colleague that he will have many opportunities to ask questions when the bill is examined in committee. I hope that we will have many interesting witnesses who will answer our questions.

Of course, we have said from the beginning that the bill would give the Canadian Transportation Agency the mandate to prepare a bill of rights based on consultations. I am not autocratic enough to think that I have all of the answers regarding this bill of rights. Consultations will be held. The Canadian Transportation Agency will do that work and present us with the results of those consultations later this year. That is when we will be able to define the exact parameters of the compensation that my colleague asked about.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak on this debate for the transportation modernization bill. I recognize that it deals with many aspects of transportation, reflecting in some cases recommendations from the expert panel on transportation created under the previous government and chaired by David Emerson.

We see approaches to improving passenger experience, quality of experience, and passenger rights on air transit, but all the references to rail are for grain and freight. My question to the minister, before diving into the details of this bill as it relates to movement of goods by rail and movement of people by air, is on whether we have abandoned the movement of people by rail. When will we see a modernization bill to bring VIA Rail into the same status that Amtrak has, with a legislated framework, so that we can have passenger rail for the 21st century?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague will know that transport is a vast domain. It covers rail, the marine side, the air side, the movement of cargo and freight, and it also covers people.

I was very careful to point out that Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, is but a first step in transport 2030. I encourage her to read my document, “Transportation 2030”, because we touch on all sorts of other things, including the one that she brought up, which is passenger rail.

That is something we are working on. We cannot do everything in one shot, but I will let the member know that we are working on passenger rail.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the minister on this initiative. I think we have all been horrified by pictures of a doctor being dragged out of a plane against his will when there was an overbooking in the United States, about families being separated on flights in Canada, with children being told they could not fly with their parents, and one member of a family being bumped off a flight.

I have a question for the minister. We all understand that there are maximums in compensation that differ from airline to airline, but will these regulations also consider setting a minimum amount of compensation, as well as the maximums, related to someone being dislodged from a flight?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the intention is that when we talk about compensation, we will be establishing minimum levels of compensation. In other words, it cannot be below that, though it could certainly be higher. For example, where there is an overbooking situation and there has to be a seat freed, or more than one seat, there may be a certain amount of negotiating that will take place for one passenger to agree to offer a seat to someone else. However, there would be a minimum compensation. The maximum is not at this point something we are going to include in the passenger bill of rights.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a moment ago from the member from the Green Party on the movement of goods by rail. Of course, VIA Rail might be important. If we could perhaps get some of our oil cars off of the rail and into the pipelines, that would be a great start.

Talking specifically to the interswitching, the minister mentioned that the current arrangement is going to be sunsetted. I am wondering if he could speak about what the grain elevator associations and farm groups have said about the changes. They looked at the maps and said this is what they need, and now it looks as though there has been an arbitrary 30-kilometre distance put into this. I am curious about what types of things he has been told by those organizations.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague I think is referring to the regulated interswitching that has always been in place and which will continue to be in place, for 30 kilometres. Nothing has changed from that point of view. What we have done is extended interswitching to 160 kilometres, with long-haul interswitching which goes out to 1,200 kilometres and which addresses all captive shippers. The grain industry is extremely important in this country. I know that. I have met with lots of farmers and shippers. It is 10% of what the trains carry. The other 90% very often represents resources that are important to Canadian provinces and communities, but they are captive because they are on the end of one line.

We are extending long-haul interswitching not just to the western provinces, but to all of Canada and to all sectors, so whether it is a forestry product or a mining product that happens to be in a captive shipper situation, they will have better access at more competitive rates. This is the whole plan. We are trying to come up with a long-term solution, not just a solution that will be a band-aid for a few years, but something that is long term and applies to all of the sectors. The reaction of the shippers up until now has been positive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to debate Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, at second reading.

The bill could simply be renamed the transportation omnibus act for the number of different bills being amended, with many of changes being more than just technical in nature. The Air Canada Public Participation Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the CN Commercialization Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the Coasting Trade Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Competition Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the 2009 Budget Implementation Act, and the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act are all being amended.

How this squares with the Liberal election promise not to use omnibus legislation is beyond me. Do not get me wrong, I am not complaining about an omnibus bill, just the fact that the Liberals did and then made a promise they knew they would not keep. Furthermore, when I introduced a motion in transport committee last week calling on the committee to write to the Minister of Transport and his government House leader to ask them to split the bill into the following sections, rail shipping, rail safety, air, and marine, to provide an enhanced and possibly expedited scrutiny, every single Liberal member voted against it without even a single comment as to why.

I found this vote particularly ironic, as it was the Liberal member for Niagara Centre who raised the idea of expediting the passage of the bill in the first place, in order to provide grain farmers with a greater amount of certainty as they negotiate contracts for future shipping seasons.

The more measures that a bill contains, the more time it takes to provide adequate scrutiny. Separating the bill would be the easiest way to facilitate expedited passage, and thus my motion calling on the bill to be split into several parts.

Unfortunately, Liberal members were unwilling to split the bill into these natural divisions. This does not inspire confidence that when the bill eventually does reach committee, the Liberal Party members will be open to any amendments. While Bill C-49 is supposed to be the Minister of Transport's legislative response to the 2015 Canada Transportation Act review led by the Hon. David Emerson, it would appear that what we have before us is a bill that is designed to change the channel from some of the bad news that keeps piling up for the Liberals.

The government's communications strategy for this legislation has overwhelmingly concentrated on the air passenger compensation regime that is being introduced, and not the other very consequential measures. Here is what the Minister of Transport posted on his Twitter feed as he introduced this legislation, “These air passenger rights will ensure that travellers are treated like people, not just a number.”

Like many members here, I travel a lot and only have positive things to say about all the employees working for the airlines and at our airports. Of course, on occasion, flights do not go as we hope, but the Minister of Transport appears to be willing to pit passengers against airlines rather than fixing the structural problems in Canada's aviation regime.

This legislation does not spell out what the compensation regime will be, just that there will be one. The bill states that after consulting with only the Minister of Transport, the Canadian Transportation Agency will make regulations concerning carriers' obligations toward passengers. However, for even greater clarity, subsection (2) of proposed section 86.11 states that the Canadian Transportation Agency must comply with any instruction from the minister with regard to setting regulations concerning carriers' obligations to passengers.

What this means is that the Canadian Transportation Agency is tentatively responsible for setting what financial penalties a carrier would have to pay to the passenger in the case of a service breach, unless the minister is dissatisfied with the level of prescribed compensation that the CTA decides is appropriate, in which case he or she can dictate what that level of compensation will be.

It is noteworthy that the agency will, by law, only be allowed to consult with the Minister of Transport concerning the setting of these regulations, and not with consumer advocate groups, airlines, airports, Nav Canada and other stakeholders in the sector.

I do not understand what the purpose of consulting only the minister is. If the Canadian Transportation Agency is to be an arm's-length organization, this legislation clearly diminishes its independence. If the minister will not allow the agency to independently set the parameters of the passenger compensation regime, he should just spell out in legislation what it will be and let members of Parliament and stakeholder groups decide whether this is a good proposal or not.

If this legislation were truly aimed at reducing the cost of travel for the passenger, while increasing service and convenience, the minister would immediately lobby to have the government's carbon tax, which will make every single flight more expensive, withdrawn. He would reform the air passenger security system, which was universally identified as a major irritant for all passengers during the Canada Transportation Act review by all the organizations that participated in the process.

While it would be preferable to have the sections of the bill dealing with air and rail examined as stand-alone pieces of legislation, I can only surmise that the government's complete mismanagement of the House's agenda has led us to the point where an omnibus transportation bill is what we have in front of us today. At least we have finally begun debating something in the transport sector, now that we are two years into the government's mandate. So far, the only achievement the minister has to show in terms of legislation is the act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Let us talk about Bill S-2, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. This was first introduced by the government's representative in the Senate 13 months ago and passed third reading in the Senate on February 2. The minister claimed that Bill S-2 was a priority in his speech to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce in November 2016, yet it has not been touched since.

On May 12, just days before the introduction of the legislation we are debating today, the Minister of Transport introduced the oil tanker moratorium act, a bill that his own officials conceded would only impact the future development of Canada's oil sands and no other activity in northern British Columbia. Equally concerning about this oil tanker moratorium, which could be renamed the oil pipeline moratorium, is that there is considerable support among first nations on B.C.'s coast for energy development opportunities, but the wishes of these first nations are being ignored. For the Liberals to move forward with this tanker moratorium without properly consulting coastal first nations is extremely hypocritical.

The Liberals go to painstaking lengths to emphasize the amount of consultation they undertake, but it is becoming more and more apparent that their interest in consulting is about being told what they want to hear and not about listening to differing views. If anyone needs further proof that Bill C-48 was introduced only for political purposes, it is that this moratorium has been introduced as a stand-alone bill and not as part of this omnibus package we are debating today.

The Minister of Transport's silence and inaction on critical and time-sensitive transport issues, especially rail transport, is leading to uncertainty for both shippers and the railroads, which both want certainty as they negotiate shipping rates for the season.

That is why over the past several months I have asked many times whether the government intends to renew the sunsetting measures in Bill C-30 before they expire on August 1, 2017. The response I have been given time and time again is that the government recognizes the urgency to get this done and that legislation is forthcoming. Unfortunately, the Liberals have made a muck of this, and the key measures in Bill C-30 will sunset before any replacement legislation can receive royal assent and become law.

Last week in the transport committee, a Liberal member moved a motion calling on the committee to begin its consideration of this bill, Bill C-49, in September, before the House begins sitting, to expedite the study of the sections of the bill that deal with the shipping of grain. While Conservatives have no objection to considering this legislation in September before the House returns from the summer break, government members fail to realize that our producers needed them to turn their attention to this months ago, as the measures will sunset on August 1 of this year. At best, there will be a two-and-a-half-month gap between when the measures in Bill C-30 sunset and replacement legislation is in place.

By the time this legislation has passed, the majority of contracts for this year will have been negotiated with the law in flux. Because of the government's mismanagement of the legislative agenda, these popular measures will sunset without replacement, and shippers will be the worse off.

This is important to note, because for a combination of reasons, including a lack of rail capacity, preparedness by railways and shippers, weather, and the size of the crop, western Canada's 2013-14 grain crop did not get to market in a timely manner. Consequently, the previous Conservative government introduced Bill C-30, which gave the Canada Transportation Agency the power to allow shippers access to regulated interswitching up to 160 kilometres, mandated that CN and CP both haul at least 500 tonnes of grain per week, and introduced a new definition of adequate and suitable service levels. With this extension, the number of primary grain elevators with access to more than one railroad with the extended interswitching limits increased from 48 to 261.

These measures were met with universal support from the members of the shipping community, because even if they did not use interswitching, they could use it as a tool to increase their negotiating position with the railways, as the shippers knew exactly how much the interswitch portion of the haul would cost them.

At the same time, the government announced that the Canada Transportation Act statutory review would be expedited, and it began a year early to provide long-term solutions to the grain backlog of the 2013-14 shipping season and other problems in the transport sector within Canada. The hon. David Emerson, a former Liberal and Conservative cabinet minister, was tasked with leading the review. This review was completed in the fall of 2015 and was on the Minister of Transport's desk shortly before Christmas. The minister then tabled this report in mid-February 2016 and promised wide consultations on the report. As the key measures of Bill C-30 were going to sunset on August 1, 2016, and parliamentarians were hearing from the shipping community that it would like to see these extended, Parliament voted in June 2016 to extend those provisions for one year.

In the fall of 2016, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a study of Bill C-30 and held a number of meetings on the merits of these measures and whether they should be allowed to sunset. We were assured that if we lived with this extension, these issues would be dealt with by August 1, 2017.

The vast majority of the testimony heard was supportive of maintaining the 160-kilometre regulated interswitching limit at committee, which is why the committee's first recommendation was the following:

That the Canadian Transportation Agency retain the flexibility provided under the Canada Transportation Act by the Fair Rail For Grain Farmers Act to set interswitching distances up to 160 km, in order to maintain a more competitive operating environment for rail shippers with direct access to only one railway company.

Anyone who has read this bill will know that the government ignored the committee's main recommendation. At some point during this debate, I hope to hear from Liberal members on the transport committee about whether they believe that the government was right to ignore the committee's recommendations, and if so, whether the entire committee study was just a waste of time.

Basically, what the government is proposing with this legislation is to replace the 160-kilometre interswitching limit with the creation of a new long-haul interswitching tool that would be in effect between Windsor and Kamloops on hauls of up to 1,200 kilometres, or up to 50% of the length of the entire haul. Shippers would be charged the regulated interswitching rate for the first 30 kilometres of the haul and then a Canada Transportation Agency-determined rate, which would be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the price of a similar haul, for the remainder of the distance to the interswitch point. Shippers would only be able to interswitch at the first available interswitch point within the zone.

What the government has done is take a little-used existing remedy, called a competitive line rate, and rename it long-haul interswitching.

Under a competitive line rate, a shipper could apply to the agency to set the amount of the competitive line rate, the designation of the continuous route, the designation of the nearest interchange, and the manner in which the local carrier would fulfill its service obligations. We know from history that this remedy was infrequently used because of the prerequisite that the shipper first reach an agreement with the connecting carrier, and the two main carriers effectively declined to compete with one another through CLRs. What we do not know is what the difference will be at a practical level between this new long-haul interswitching and the existing competitive line rates.

Like competitive line rates, long-haul interswitching is a much more complicated system for shippers to use, and the jury is still out on whether this will achieve the minister's stated objective of improving rail access for captive shippers. When Bill C-30 was first introduced, there was universal support among shippers for the extended interswitching. So far, very few organizations I have spoken to can say that this tool is better.

In conclusion, this much is certain: the key measures in Bill C-30 will be allowed to sunset on August 1, before this legislation receives royal assent. The Liberals have had nearly a full year to get new legislation in place but failed to do so, and shippers will suffer the consequences.

Canada remains one of the most expensive jurisdictions in which to operate an airline, and it is about to become even more so with the imposition of a national carbon tax. This bill does nothing to address the systemic cost issues, which are passed on to passengers, that were identified by the Transportation Act review. As has been the case with almost everything with the current government, optics trump everything, and this bill exemplifies that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have put this question to the minister, but I did not get the opportunity. I also had the pleasure of serving on the committee with the hon. member. Of course, she participated in the very long, intensive review on rail safety. I am sure she recalls when the minister used to stand in the House and say, “Rail safety is our number one priority”, yet that is exactly the measure that is not included at all in this legislation, nor have we seen a single measure tabled in this place to respond to our unanimous report.

What I am deeply troubled by is that the Liberals have hand-picked one of the measures that was highly contentious, which has to do with recorders. There was some concern that this information, if made available to the rail companies, would be used against the employees. However, what they have not dealt with is the issue of rail fatigue, which, according to the workers, is the real concern.

I wonder if the member could speak to whether she shares my concern that we have seen absolutely nothing come forward, apart from this one rather prejudicial measure, to address serious concerns across this country about rail safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question and for the work she did while she was on the transportation committee. I believe she was the member who was pushing for the committee to set in place a timeline for us to conduct the review of Bill C-30 to ensure that we were not bumping up against the deadline that we now seem to be bumping up against.

Definitely, rail safety was one of the first studies we undertook, when we were first elected, as part of our first session.

What is really interesting is that there have been a number of studies and very little action on the studies the committee has undertaken. As the member noted, the minister has stood up many times saying that rail safety is his number one priority. I find it somewhat curious that the ink was barely dry on the government's announcement that it would begin the review of the Railway Safety Act when it included a measure like the LVVR measure in this act, when it was about to launch a review of the Railway Safety Act. I do not know if this is by design or default, but it seems a somewhat incoherent approach to all matters in the transportation file.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech the member was referencing all of the different transportation aspects the bill touches on. Knowing that we have an integrated transportation network within Canada and we are moving toward a transportation 2030 integrated strategy, is there one type of transportation that you would like to see removed from this discussion, such as air transportation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind hon. members to speak through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I think I pointed out at the beginning of my speech that what we have in front of us is an omnibus bill. We actually tried, in committee, to encourage the members to consider breaking out the different modes of transportation so that we could actually study them more effectively, and in fact, expedite those measures that are in Bill C-49, which were meant to replace the measures that were in Bill C-30.

My answer is absolutely not. However, I think that we could have taken a more systematic approach and not had all of these measures included in an omnibus bill, which is probably not going to get the due consideration it needs.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we were talking about is that on August 1, the last legislation we had is going to be sunsetting. However, I think something that people do not recognize is that the start of the crop year is August 1. That is when contract people are working hard to make sure they have their contracts and everything is set up with the rail providers. We now have this uncertainty because we are going to have this gap.

The other point, which I had mentioned to the minister in my previous question, is the difference between the 30 kilometres they are setting up and the 160 kilometres that has been analyzed as we have gone from 48 to 261 sites. It was done for a reason. There was a reason why the 160 kilometres was there, and this was the discussions that had taken place with various shippers and other groups.

On the whole, the legislation is going to weaken the shipper protections against railways and especially the protections for grain farmers in western Canada. I wonder if the member would comment on that particular position at this moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know this is something that is very near and dear to the member's heart.

Coming from Alberta, knowing that the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act was actually addressing issues that grain farmers in the Prairies were experiencing, I can tell members that what we have been hearing from stakeholders, as they have begun to review the legislation and as they have begun to take these two pieces of legislation and compare them, is that they are confused. They do not understand exactly what the changes are meant to accomplish. They believe that the devil is in the details.

While they continue to look at this, they continue to highlight the fact that these measures in Bill C-30 are sunsetting on August 1. There will be a gap. That is why we asked the committee to consider calling upon the minister and the government House leader to break out at least the measures in Bill C-49 that would address the measures in Bill C-30 so that we could at least address the concerns of our shippers and our producers as they are bumping up against that August 1 deadline.

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

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

I want to say what a pleasure it is to work with her on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We agree more often than not on both the form and content of the bills that come before us.

I would like to ask her opinion on something very specific. This bill lacks substance, as I said earlier. It is airy-fairy. Many of the measures in it are so vague that we cannot tell whether they will be relevant or effective. I want to share just one example. The minister is increasing the foreign ownership limit for Canadian air carriers from 25% to 49%. He says this will make the market more competitive and result in cost savings for consumers.

That increase from 25% to 49% is from the Emerson report and was stuck into the bill with no explanation. There is even a University of Manitoba study showing that there is no connection between increasing foreign ownership and lower fares for consumers.

Is the government just making stuff up?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working with the member on committee. As he said, often we find ourselves on the same page when it comes to our responses to the governing members' comments and initiatives.

My response would be that the member is absolutely right. When we take a look at the measures that are included in Bill C-49, for some there are absolutely no real explanation for why they are included, except to perhaps state that they were part of the Emerson report. This is a report that the minister has had in his hands since December 2015.

As committee members, we thought that we were going to be taking a systematic review of that report and dealing with all of the recommendations that Mr. Emerson and his panel had come forward with. We have done none of that. Instead, in the last couple of weeks, what we have gotten is an omnibus bill that has a couple of issues chosen that the minister wants to highlight, rather than a systematic approach to looking at the issues within our transportation sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am deeply disappointed in many ways, as I rise to speak to Bill C-49.

First, the bill was sponsored by the minister whose name I must not mention in the House, but who was an astronaut in his previous career. I admit that I have a virtually unbounded admiration for all Canadians who pursue a career as an astronaut. They are truly remarkable people with extraordinary resumés.

That is why when the Minister of Transport, a former astronaut—once an astronaut, always an astronaut, I imagine—told me in the House that he was studying the bill, that answer had tremendous value to me. I recognize him for the intellectual that he is, and I told myself that his reflections would surely bear fruit.

When I heard him answer that he was thinking about the relevance of the high-frequency train, for example, at first I was motivated and awaited his response impatiently. When the minister told us, month after month, that he was studying the transportation issues in Bill C-49, I told myself that the bill he finally tabled would be a bang-up piece of legislation.

For example, we are now awaiting the results of an inquiry into the events at Lake Saint-Pierre. I am thinking that will also be extraordinary.

However, on this rare occasion where the minister introduces something in the House, Bill C-49 in this case, I must say that my disappointment is as strong as my expectations used to be.

What do we find in this legislation, into which the minister has invested more than 18 months of study, thinking, reading and, I expect, exhaustive consultation? We find three kinds of measures.

I would say that the first category is made up of empty shells and the second, of questionable measures. The term “questionable” does not necessarily mean that they are bad. Some are definitely bad and should be removed. Others may deserve some amendments or would require a better argument to show how they may deliver on the promised Eldorado.

The bill does include a few good measures, which are sadly lost in a sea of measures trying to tackle any and all possible aspects of transportation. As a result, as happens too often in this House, we are asked to cast only one vote and to swallow a lot of nonsense in order to support the few measures that may make a difference. As my colleague rightly said earlier, this bill should be split in two.

Let us then focus on these three categories. I will try to give examples that are concrete enough to see what things could look like. Let us see first what has probably been, in the media, the most high-profile element of the minister's presentation on Bill C-49, the new passenger bill of rights. To me, it is the perfect example of an empty shell.

I said earlier, while asking a question to the minister, that in the previous Parliament, the NDP had introduced a passenger rights bill, which the minister voted for. The bill was complete and skilfully written. It was the result of much hard work. Let me give just one example to see what that bill looked like.

First, let us talk about cancelled flights, something that probably happened to each one of us. Clause 10 of the NDP bill provided for a reimbursement or re-routing. The clause reads as follows:

The air carrier shall offer without charge to every passenger to whom this section applies the choice between

(a) reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made—and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan—together with, when relevant, a return flight to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity;

Furthermore, there was money allocated to all of that. We were therefore talking about flight cancellations and flight delays, with very specific and well-thought-out measures. We were also talking about the rights of passengers who, sometimes, have to wait long minutes, if not hours, on the tarmac because the plane cannot take off for some reason and who, at this time, have no rights. We were talking about passengers being denied boarding, their rights to be refunded or redirected, and their right to information. In short, this bill already contained all the necessary measures.

What does Bill C-49 propose? With regard to flight cancellations, we are going to ask Transport Canada to make proposals. With regard to flight delays, we are going to have to wait for Transport Canada's proposals. With regard to passengers' rights, including on the tarmac, Transport Canada will probably conduct a study on this. We realize that the list is getting longer and that, right now, air passengers have no idea what their rights will be under Bill C-49.

As we say back home, the minister has simply kicked the can down the road, but one day, he will have to deal with the can. The government is going to ask me and all members of Parliament to vote on that according to our conscience? Should I be for or against the total lack of substance? It seems to me like a figment of my imagination or an abstract idea on which I cannot vote. If the minister has not finished his bill, he should do his homework first, then present us with his bill later.

In fact, I find it rather puzzling that the minister asks airlines to comply with the spirit of the law while we are studying Bill C-49 and while the transportation agency will be drafting regulations that the minister could well reject, which would delay the process even more.

Could someone explain to me the spirit of an empty shell? I simply cannot understand it.

The foreign ownership limit for air carriers, which I asked about earlier, will increase from 25% to 49%. What is this decision based on? It is based on a recommendation of the Emerson report, which does not show beyond any doubt, or even with some doubt, the relevance of this measure when it comes to market competitiveness and the results or positive impact that it could have for passengers in terms of air ticket costs, for example.

A study by the University of Manitoba shows the exact opposite. It shows, beyond any doubt, that an increase in the foreign ownership of a Canadian airline cannot be linked to an effect on airfares.

Again, why is the government introducing this measure? I do not know. Bill C-49 is nebulous. I do not think we will be able to solve this issue given the short amount of time that will be available to the committee to study a bill as large as this one. There is another serious problem here, namely the Liberal bulldozer. The Liberals dragged their feet on introducing measures, that is, if there are even any in the bill, and they are now trying to rush the bill through.

I would like to come back to the agreements between airlines, which the minister also talked about. Again, like we have seen many times before, the legislation enhances the powers of the minister. I must say that every time that happens, a little light goes on. It tells me that we should be worried about what is happening. What powers does the minister want, and what good comes from it?

Basically, these joint venture agreements are nothing but a type of partial merger that is approved when rules of competition continue to apply. That is why entities like the Competition Bureau, which is the competition tribunal, exist.

Members will recall the joint venture between Air Canada and United Continental Holdings. These two airlines asked to merge their operations for 15 air routes. At the time, the Competition Bureau approved five of them, and the situation has not changed since then.

That means that even if that is against the rules of competition, in the public interest—another concept that is not defined in bill C-49—the minister could muzzle the Competition Tribunal, and authorize that joint venture for the 15 air routes. Again, there is a lot of uncertainty, and I am unsure as to how to vote on this bill, for as long as I do not understand its implications.

As for the Coasting Trade Act, maybe members will recall that during the elections, liberals had promised not to touch it. That is another example of a broken promise that liberals intend to be flexible on, circumvent, or, more specifically, break.

Therefore, what is being proposed in the bill? We are now told that the repositioning of containers, which was allowed only for Canadian shipowners, will now be permitted for ships registered in other countries. One could say this is meant to promote a competitive market, but we all know that foreign shipowners do not necessarily have to follow the same rules and the same requirements regarding their staff as Canadian shipowners. Chances are that we will never see what I would call fair competition.

Dredging and the carriage of bulk commodities will be allowed between the ports of Montreal and Halifax for ships registered in a member state of the European Union. I suppose this is meant for the government to implement the agreement it is about to sign with the European Union.

However, before making such a public statement, one should specify what the reciprocal measures are to look like. Will Canadian ships be allowed to carry bulk shipments on the other side of the Atlantic? The bill does not say anything about this. The law would also be amended to allow ports to obtain financing from the famous infrastructure bank, which everyone talks about because it would not serve anybody's interest, except the Liberal Party's wealthy friends.

Let me remind everyone that the infrastructure bank is supposed to finance projects worth $100 million or more. Therefore, for an ordinary port like the one in Trois-Rivières, I am not sure that bank is the finding of the century. This is part of the measures that are not very well explained in the program.

As far as the Railway Safety Act is concerned, it would have been interesting to see a clear and precise provision in the bill ensuring that a rail bypass was built for our fellow citizens in Lac-Mégantic. Instead, we are being told again that corporations' interests will prevail over the workers' interests. Among other things, railway companies will have to equip their locomotives with voice and video recorders.

First of all, if the goal is to give the Transportation Safety Board, or TSB, additional tools so it can investigate after an accident and make sure that whatever caused it would never happen again, one could say that the voice and video recorders are the equivalent of the black box aboard airplanes and might be acceptable. The point where things become unacceptable is where railway companies have access to these audio and video recordings for, perhaps, security reasons, but also potentially to monitor the work of their own employees. It bears asking whether such a measure, which enables employers to watch employees through a camera lens all day long, violates the employees' right to privacy. This question has to be asked.

It is especially important to ask how having a voice and video recording device in a locomotive would somehow resolve the issue of conductor fatigue. That is a problem that has absolutely not been resolved. Ostensibly for security reasons, we have completely side-stepped the main issue and the main risk factor, namely human fatigue. It is absolutely unbelievable; so much for that.

The previous speaker spoke at length about grain transportation. There is a glimmer of hope in that section of Bill C-49 that could alleviate some of the long-standing concerns that producers have and potentially address the issue of standards sunsetting on August 1. I have a really hard time understanding this. Given the time necessary to give a bill royal assent, even in a streamlined fashion, I fail to see how royal assent could come down from the Senate like a dove from the sky before August 1.

There an urgency about these measures, and a lot of them seem interesting, but they cannot be demonstrated, and we do not have the time to consult with key stakeholders to see if, for example, new provisions about interswitching fit their needs, and if the new ways to calculate the guaranteed minimum income meet their expectations. There are several.

I want to talk about two things. It is clear from what I am trying to explain, and will not have the time to finish, that supporting this bill at second reading will be very difficult for me. That being said, even if I vote against Bill C-49 at second reading, I will make sure to work as hard as possible in committee to propose amendments to strengthen it. We could even support the bill at third reading if the Liberals can show its usefulness.

For this purpose, in the interest of consistency and to prioritize issues of grain transportation and postpone studying the bill's other sections that do not involve such tight deadlines, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, 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, tabled in Parliament on May 16, 2017, be amended by removing the following clauses: (a) clauses 3 to 13 and 22 to 59, related to grain transportation; that the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do compose Bill C-51, an act to change temporary agreements related to grain transportation; that Bill C-51 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport; that Bill C-49 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-49 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

That is the motion, and it is a simple one. It seeks to remove from Bill C-49 all clauses related to grain transportation, so that we can quickly study the legislation in time for the August 1st deadline. We would look at the remaining clauses later.

That is both my proposal and my conclusion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There is no unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask my colleague, since the bill seeks to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

My question is about protecting the rights of air passengers. Does the member think that these rights are adequately protected when airlines sell more tickets than there are seats available?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

The events we have witnessed over the past few weeks undoubtedly made an impression. I had hoped that Bill C-49 would feature a clause setting out clear, straightforward rights for passengers who are “victims” of overbooking.

We are being told that Transport Canada will submit a proposal to the minister sometime over the coming months, a proposal which the minister will be free to accept or refuse. If he were to refuse it, the question of passengers' rights would be delayed even further. As I mentioned, when it comes to the passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-49 is an empty shell.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the problems the hon. member saw in the legislation.

He mentioned the use of equipment for recording audio and video, and that this had some problems around it. The Railway Safety Act is very specific that this equipment is only to be used under prescribed circumstances defined within the act, and that rail equipment needs to have that equipment on board for it to be operated within the limits of the legislation.

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act says how the information that is collected would be used, how it would be restricted, and who would have access to that information.

Is there part of this that is not getting interpreted or is part of that still causing a problem with the hon. member?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I would be curious to know who the minister consulted on that specific subject. I have a feeling that workers' groups were not consulted.

If such a recording device were available to the TSB to help them get to the bottom of what caused a particular accident, I would not necessarily be against it. What really bothers me is what little we are doing to help prevent accidents from happening in the first place.

Where are the provisions in Bill C-49 that would make it so that accidents are not recorded on audio or video tape because they never happened in the first place? Where are the provisions around train conductor fatigue? Where are the provisions that will prevent accidents from happening or at least reduce their occurrence as much as possible?

Audio and video recording devices will not prevent accidents. They only allow us to understand what happened after the fact and maybe help us reduce or prevent the same type of accident. However, nothing in Bill C-49 addresses the issue of train conductor fatigue.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his hard work on this bill and for raising many cogent points. He did not have the opportunity of participating in the rail safety review, although he is well aware of those issues since he comes from Quebec.

A serious concern that was raised during the previous review on rail safety was regulatory capture. That was one reason that there was unanimous agreement that the government needed to expedite a review of rail safety. The concern was that Transport Canada appeared to be, by and large, from what we looked at, captured by the sector. Now the minister is suggesting that the passenger bill of rights will be developed by Transport Canada. There seems to be a pattern of reverting back to an entity of which there are suspicions that there is regulatory capture.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to that and to his concern that there has not been enough consultation. Perhaps the government should come forward with a clearer idea of what it plans to do in initiatives like the passenger bill of rights, which our former colleague spoke to almost every day in the House when he was elected.

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

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

Tabling a bill without proper consultation strikes me as disrespectful. Consulting stakeholders before tabling a bill is the sensible thing to do. Committees can also hold consultations while they are studying bills, that is okay too. However, when the government says that it is going to hold new consultations on top of studies that have already been done and those that will be done by the committee, it feels like overkill. I do not think that there are so many stakeholders interested in transportation modernization, even if we consider every mode of transportation, that a single round of consultations cannot cover all of them in one go.

My colleague already did all that when she sat on the Standing Committee on Transport. The minister did it as well, and the Standing Committee on Transport will do it again for Bill C-49, and the minister is talking about further consultations.

Are we going to fall for that or will we finally accept that this is all about kicking the can down the road to buy time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent work.

In the Eastern Townships, we are mostly affected by the issue of rail safety, and one of our main concerns revolves around the regulation of this specific area of transportation.

I was wondering if my colleague could comment on the presence or absence of measures that deal with the concerns of my fellow citizens in Sherbrooke regarding the number of operators per train. Does the bill address the problem raised in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy? The lack of oversight is also an issue. Trains are sometimes left unsupervised, without any operator around. Sadly, as was the case in Lac-Mégantic, these trains can go out of control.

There is also the issue of the kinds of materials transported by rail and whether the municipalities can have access to information in real time to deal to accidents. All of these questions regarding rail safety have been raised.

Could my colleague talk about the presence or absence of measures to respond to these concerns, in particular those that feature in the Transportation Safety Board of Canada report that was released after the Lac-Mégantic accident?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Sherbrooke for his question. To paraphrase the minister, “Railway safety is my first priority.” However, according to Bill C-49, air transportation is also his first priority, and so is maritime transportation. Actually, every mode of transportation is the minister's first priority.

Bill C-49 is not exactly ripe with concrete measures designed to prevent tragedies like the one that happened or make sure nothing like it ever happens again.

The only provisions related to rail safety involve audio-video recording devices that are of no help at all in the wake of a catastrophic event. These are among the many questions that we will have to ask in committee to improve the bill and make sure that the opposition does its job and the government's job by making significant amendments to Bill C-49.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

In commenting on Bill C-49, I will be focusing on the liberalization of the international rules of Canadian airlines.

Canadian travellers and their experiences are top of mind for our government. During consultations conducted by the Minister of Transport, we asked Canadian travellers for their feedback and they were clear. They wanted lower cost air travel, more opportunities for leisure and business travel, and they wanted to see Canada become a more attractive travel destination for visitors. They asked for long-term sustainable competition, which would allow for the introduction of additional air services, improved air connectivity, and perhaps above all, more choice. The government has listened and is committed to achieving tangible improvements to the traveller experience.

As a result of the feedback we received, a number of proposals have been introduced in Bill C-49 to help improve the traveller experience in Canada.

For example, the government intends to liberalize international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers. What does this mean for Canadian travellers? Let me begin by briefly describing this initiative.

Like most countries, Canada limits international ownership and control of domestic air carriers. Under the Canada Transportation Act, non-Canadians currently cannot possess more than 25% of the voting shares of a Canadian carrier. Additionally, Canadian air carriers must also be controlled by Canadians, which means they may not be subject to controlling influence by international investors.

Limits on foreign ownership and control of air carriers are the norm around the world. For instance, in the United States, the limit is 25%, while the European Union, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand allow up to 49%, and Japan allows 33.3%. Limits vary depending on the circumstances of each country and the circumstances of each region.

However, Canada's current ownership limits may be acting as a barrier to new services and enhanced competition. Two prospective ultra low-cost carriers, Canada Jetlines and Enerjet, have already applied for and received exemptions to the current limits on international ownership from the Minister of Transport. Both companies successfully argued that under the current 25% limit, there was insufficient risk capital in the Canadian market to support the launch of new services.

Reflecting on this reality and the Canada Transportation Act review recommendations, the government is proposing changes that would allow international investors to own up to 49% of the voting shares of Canadian air carriers by introducing legislation that would amend the act and all other relevant acts.

As mentioned earlier, countries have different approaches to international ownership of air carriers, and our government wants to ensure that Canadian carriers compete on a level playing field. To protect the competitiveness of our air sector and support connectivity, no single international investor or any combination of international air carriers will be allowed to own more than 25%.

The direct impact of higher levels of international investment is that Canadian air carriers would have access to a wider pool of risk capital. This would allow air carriers to be better funded and could allow new carriers, which are otherwise not able to find sufficient risk capital, to enter the Canadian market.

New carriers, including ultra low-cost carriers offering extremely competitive prices, are expected to bring more competition into the entire Canadian air travel sector. This could in turn reduce the cost of air transportation and open new markets to Canadian consumers and shippers.

Small markets currently underserved by existing carriers could also benefit from services by new carriers. For instance, airports in smaller cities that currently offer services to a very limited number of destinations could benefit from the addition of new services, since we know that ultra-low-cost carriers use these smaller airports as their hubs. All of this could lead to more choice when purchasing an airline ticket; more travel destinations for all travellers, including those from smaller cities; and lower prices for Canadian travellers. Additionally, there could also be benefits for airports and suppliers and the entire country as more jobs and more prosperity are added to the Canadian economy.

To finish, let me underscore that the experience of Canadian air travellers is a great priority for the Government of Canada. We know that it is also a priority for Canadians. This is why we have proposed to increase international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers. If this initiative is implemented, we believe it could significantly improve the travel experience for all Canadians. Once in place, it could also help lower prices, support increased competition among air carriers, provide more choice to Canadians when it comes to purchasing an airline ticket, and ultimately improve service and connectivity for Canadian travellers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate on the bill.

As was explained earlier, parliamentarians are being asked to approve a bill containing an air passengers' bill of rights that is not defined. The only information we have are a few quotes by the minister here and there to try to explain it, but in the bill, the air passengers' bill of rights is an empty shell.

How can the member explain that parliamentarians are asked to support a bill of rights without knowing what it will contain? We have been talking about it for a long time.

In the past, one of my NDP colleagues proposed a bill of rights that was well-defined. Almost two years after taking office, the Liberal government has still not defined its own bill of rights. It is always puting it off. What will air passengers' rights be?

How can my colleague explain that parliamentarians are asked to approve or reject a bill of rights that has no content?

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

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

It is very important for the government to have a more competitive air transportation system in which air passengers have more choices. If the air transportation system is more competitive, Canadians will have more rights to decide what they want to do. Let us think, for example, of a family that wants to take a two or three week vacation somewhere. Changing the rules will mean more choices for Canadians. That is very important. Airlines must have the ability to do that. I am completely in favour of making those changes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the agriculture committee with the hon. member.

I am going to go back a few years. Before politics I was on the advisory board of the local airport in Waterloo, YKF. We were trying to attract small air carriers to a smaller community to go to other smaller communities, communities that the larger airlines would never service, communities that we could not get the larger airlines into even if we wanted to because of the cost of their operations versus the cost of the other lower-cost airlines that we are talking about in the bill tonight.

When we talk about choice, there is choice between airlines, but there is also choice at the local level in getting air service into communities. Could the member expand on how this could help rural Canada?

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are a vast country, and as a government we tend to focus on the big cities. Though not exactly in my riding of Steveston—Richmond East, YVR is a little north. The focus tends to be exclusively on YVR, but that ought not to be the case. By increasing the limits on international funding, the bill allows the smaller centres, like Kelowna, Prince Rupert, all over B.C., and all across the country, the opportunity to expand and develop as hubs. They give choice for folks to travel wherever they want to go. I think this is a welcomed improvement on our transportation system.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-49, which proposes amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to advance the efficiency and competitiveness of our freight rail system. This is especially important to Guelph, which is home to one of Canada's three federally chartered railways.

The Guelph Junction Railway was established in 1886 by a special act of the federal government to foster economic growth in Guelph and in the surrounding communities. The City of Guelph has owned the railway since 1908. The GJR operates 38.6 kilometres of track that runs from Guelph Junction near Campbellville, Ontario, to Guelph's northwest industrial park. It is a strategic line that runs between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway.

Canadian exporters today have the advantage of the lowest freight rates in the world, even lower than in the United States, and a track record of significant investment by the railways that is essential for keeping these rates low in the future. However, even the strongest system has room for improvement, and we have heard concerns from both shippers and railways through our consultation process. We have heard in particular about system bottlenecks and other constraints that slow the movement of our goods. We have heard about delays in shipping that can affect our nation's reputation for reliability, and about regulations that dampen investment in the network to everyone's detriment.

Canada's rail system is the backbone of our export trade. It moves our goods to destinations across the country, to the United States, and for export overseas. The conditions we establish now, in 2017, will be essential for our nation's long-term growth and prosperity.

Following extensive consultations, our government is proposing new measures that would lay the groundwork for future success.

The bill would promote greater efficiency and investment in the system for the benefit of all Canadians. First, the bill proposes a new competitive access tool for shippers that would allow them to obtain better options for service and rates. This new tool, long-haul interswitching, would allow a shipper served by only one railway to access a competing railway at a rate and on service terms set by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Long-haul interswitching has been designed to meet the needs of captive shippers across a wide range of sectors: grain, forestry, and mining just to name a few. It would apply at a distance of 1,200 kilometres or more to ensure that some of our most remote shippers could benefit.

By providing competition between railways, this measure would improve system efficiency in moving goods to market, and at the same time, railways would be fairly compensated for their services and for the cost of maintaining infrastructure. The agency would set the rates under this measure based on comparable traffic. This would help prevent the risk that railways might under-invest or even close their lines due to lack of revenue.

As a part of this, we would allow extended interswitching in the prairie provinces to sunset as planned on August 1. Many members will recall that this measure was adopted in 2014 under the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act in response to the unique challenges in the grain handling and transportation system at that time and in that season.

Most challenges no longer exist, and extended interswitching is problematic in many respects. It only applies up to 160 kilometres and only in the prairie provinces. It does not cover other shippers in Canada who have told us about railway service issues. Its rates are far too low to compensate railways for moving the traffic, which would erode investment over time. A key beneficiary of this measure is not the shipper community but the American railway, the railway that scoops traffic away from Canadian railways but makes comparatively little investment in the Canadian network.

Long-haul interswitching is a far better tool as it would apply across sectors and across regions of Canada.

The grain sector would be far better off, as all captive grain shippers would have access to this competitive tool, not just those falling within a specific zone. The railways would be compensated appropriately to ensure that the system runs smoothly and grain moves to market effectively. The proposed new measure is also being carefully structured to minimize the risk of American railways unfairly taking traffic.

Many members will recall that the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act also imposed minimum volumes of grain to be moved by the railways. In our consultations, we have heard that this had negative effects. It benefited specific shippers to the detriment of others. It was good for the large companies, but not for the farmers. More importantly, the unique challenges of 2014, and that growing season, no longer exist. For these reasons, the volume requirements would be allowed to sunset as planned on August 1.

Our government recognizes the importance of moving grain and other commodities efficiently to market. Greater transparency on how well the system is working is obviously critical to efficiency. That is why Bill C-49 would require railways to report publicly every year on their plans to move grain and to manage weather-related disruptions. They would also need to report service and performance metrics that help them measure how the system is doing. The agency would have clear new authorities to hold an inquiry into any emerging issue at the minister's request. These measures would help all parties to keep track of emerging problems and work together to find solutions before the crisis point hits.

Importantly, this bill would provide shippers with the ability to maintain reciprocal financial penalties in service agreements. Applying penalties for service failures would encourage the most efficient service possible. Our rail system can only flourish within the right regulatory framework. To promote system efficiency, the bill would also modernize the Canada Transportation Act. For example, it would update the insolvency regime for railways, which dates back to 1903 and cannot address the complexity of modern business arrangements.

The railway industry must invest significantly in the network to keep it running safely and smoothly. That is why this bill also proposes measures to promote continued investment. For example, it would loosen shareholder restrictions on CN Railway that have been in place since it was privatized in 1995.

Bill C-49 would also fix problems with the maximum revenue entitlement, which caps the revenue per tonne that CN, CP, and Guelph Junction can earn for moving western grain. I just threw in Guelph Junction. It would fairly credit their investments in the network, and encourage them to obtain new modern hopper cars. It would also promote the movement of grain by containers, which is an innovative way to provide service and extra capacity at peak periods when the system is full. Again, this would apply across all regions of Canada, including Guelph.

Together, these amendments would achieve the goals of a competitive, efficient freight rail system, a system in which commercial forces drive efficiency but legislative backstops are in place to ensure that the system is fair, balanced, and transparent, a system in which the conditions are right for low rates, future investment, and future success.

I urge colleagues to adopt Bill C-49 as quickly as possible so that we can serve our farm community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech on grain transportation in Canada, which is an extremely important issue. He is saying that this part of the bill is very important. My colleague from Trois-Rivières has just moved a motion to divide the bill so as to prioritize grain transportation and to immediately send the bill to committee so it can be passed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, when my colleague asked for unanimous consent, several nays were heard from the side of the House where he sits.

Therefore, I find it hard reconcile the priority aspect of this part of the bill that my colleague talked about in his speech with the fact that the Liberals have completely refused to immediately deal with this issue at the transport committee so the bill can be passed as soon as possible.

There is indeed an important deadline, specifically August 1, 2017. How can he reconcile that? The Liberals opposed this perfectly reasonable motion. We were not playing procedural games. The goal was merely to speed up the process for this part of the bill.

How does the member explain that some nays were heard from his side of the House, considering he just said how important this part of the bill is?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can comment sufficiently on the question from the member for Sherbrooke.

Bill C-30 really looked at grain. It was looking at a bumper crop situation and it had to do something. It was really a Band-Aid solution that focused on the grain market.

In the case of today's market and what we propose in Bill C-49, we would also be handling lumber. We are looking at softwood lumber being an issue in the United States. We are looking at new markets in Asia. How do we get lumber to either coast, and a lot of it? Lumber would be something that we would want to address. In the case of mining, resources coming out of the ground, how do we get that efficiently to market? How do we get auto parts to market in southwest Ontario?

It is really more than just a Band-Aid solution for grain. We need a comprehensive solution that is part of an integrated transportation strategy. Bill C-49 addresses that need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that on the interswitching piece of the legislation, the hon. member for Guelph might be able to further explain how that would deal with the efficient allocation of rail to grain shipments so it reaches destinations in a timely way.

I certainly remember in December of 2013 when Vancouver Island was two days away from being completely out of grain to be milled for livestock to keep the livestock of Vancouver Island farmers fed. It was a very desperate situation. They ended up organizing truck fleets. Of course, that increased the price of getting grain to the mills. The mills were normally competitors, but they were actually pooling what grain they had to share it to ensure that everybody could still produce what they could to get it to the livestock. It was a desperate situation that caught the government off guard. It would not have happened if we had the Wheat Board.

I wonder if the interswitching proposals in the bill will really give us the oversight and the ability to organize rail so we match up when grain needs to get to market with available freight shipments.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr, Speaker, the long haul switching looks at a couple of things. We have mentioned a 1,200 kilometre limit, but also it would be able to break off up to 50% of the haul in situations where that needed to be done, something like the emergency the hon. member described.

Each shipment would be negotiated. Therefore, it is important, when we look at the LHI strategy, that each circumstance would be included in the negotiations for each shipment rather than a one size fits all. It is integrated, it covers all types of equipment, and it is flexible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska has the floor.

I remind the hon. member that he has 10 minutes before the expiry of the time provided today for the consideration of the bill, but he will have 10 more minutes the next time Bill C-49 is before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would only have 10 minutes, but it sounds like I will have 20. I will try not to bore you too much and close off nicely this long day that the Liberals have granted us.

The subject of today's debate is the transportation modernization bill. The Liberals have proposed this transportation bill—an omnibus bill, I might add. Bill C-49 establishes new rights for air passengers and liberalizes international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; enables the Minister of Transport to consider and approve joint ventures by two or more airlines; updates the Canadian freight system; requires railways to install audio-video recorders in locomotives; enables the Governor in Council to require large railways to provide rate, service and performance data; and amends the Canada Marine Act to allow port authorities to access Canada infrastructure bank loans. I will focus on that last aspect in a few minutes.

I am saying all this to show how huge this part of the bill is. Unfortunately, we will have little time to discuss it. This part is hidden in an omnibus bill. The government has found a way to muzzle us so that we cannot point out the flaws in this bill.

The Emerson report is a study of the Canada Transportation Act that was led by the Hon. David Emerson. The study was launched on June 25, 2014 to address a variety of changing conditions and challenges, especially in the grain transportation industry across the Prairies.

Liberals tabled this report on February 25, 2016. Then, they launched a new process because the work done by the Hon. David Emerson was not enough for them. This means that today we have very little time to discuss this issue. The bill was introduced after 18 months of work. It built on the work done by the previous government and contained 60 recommendations to deal with a variety of changing conditions and challenges in Canada's transportation industry.

Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to launch another consultation process, and are only now introducing another bill. We will study it to make sure it strikes the right balance between the industry and consumers rights. That is the thorough work we, the opposition parties, will do together to try and support the government, who needs a lot of help implementing structuring bills for all Canadians.

This bill is supposed to amend the Canada Transportation Act but surreptitiously empowers the mysterious Canada infrastructure bank. This particular clause can easily be overlooked, and yet it raises many questions. We are not even sure why this infrastructure bank is being created in the first place.

That is what I what to speak to in the House tonight. The infrastructure bank is funded with taxpayers' money to the tune of $35 billion. Those same citizens will have to guarantee these $35 billion if foreign investors fail to bring projects to fruition. Thus, it will be the citizens taking the risks. The Liberals are putting their infrastructure bank in place for all of their friends around the world, those foreign investors our Prime Minister likes to visit outside of the country.

The top infrastructure bank official said it was created to underwrite funding for carefully planned, complex projects.

“Underwrite” means that if someone defaults on a loan, the underwriter is responsible for the debt.

In this case, Canadians taxpayers will assume all of the risk for the Liberals' bank venture. Considering how they are managing the deficit, we have every reason to be concerned about how they will manage the $35 billion if that is really how the bank was set up.

I would like to tell the House the story of the infrastructure bank.

In October 2015, the Liberals promised small deficits on the order of $10 billion and announced the creation of an independent infrastructure bank. We know what happened next. In November 2016, the highly anticipated bank was announced. At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I asked the minister where the money would come from. All I got was radio silence. There was no response in the budget.

The next day, I again asked where the money would come from, and I was told that the government would take the $15 billion out of the infrastructure program that was supposed to help all Canadian municipalities.

The minister decided to take that money and put it in the infrastructure bank to finance projects worth more than $100 million in the municipalities.

Now we get to the really good part because a few weeks later, I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities questions about who would really benefit from these $100-million-plus projects they wanted to fund through the infrastructure bank.

We are wondering about this because most municipalities cannot afford projects of $100 million or more except maybe Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. We get the feeling that the government has diverted $15 billion that should have been given to all Canadian municipalities to support infrastructure projects and put it in a new infrastructure bank that it created for its little friends. The government is still trying to figure out what kind of projects can really be funded under this program.

In November, December, January, February, March, April, and May, we asked the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to name a single project of $100 million or more that could be carried out in Canada's small or medium-sized municipalities. Every time, we got complete radio silence, despite the fact that, at one point, the minister was surrounded by his cohort of senior officials and experts at a committee meeting. We repeated that it was not a complicated question and asked him to name, not five or six, but just one single project. We wanted to know one project that a small or medium-sized municipality in Canada would need the infrastructure bank to carry out. Radio silence.

That is normal, because over the past 10 years, and not over the past six months or 10 days, the average cost of infrastructure projects in Canada was not $100 million or $500 million, as certain investors would like. It was $6.7 million. The difference between $100 million and $6.7 million is a lot of money. This is simply to prove that this infrastructure bank will not serve many people, apart from reassuring investors by making sure that it will be Canadians all across the country who carry the risk for these projects.

I think the Prime Minister is missing something about the Robin Hood story. Indeed, instead of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, he decided to take taxpayers' money and give it to his friends and Liberal Party donors. This is where we get a sense of the dishonesty of these plans for the infrastructure bank.

Then we learned that Michael Sabia, president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, and other investors who are working with the infrastructure bank, will want returns of 7% to 9%.

As a former mayor of a municipality of 45,000 residents, I can say that I never would have accepted funding at a cost of 7% to 9% when I had access to all kinds of municipal bonds at a rate of return of roughly 2% to 2.5% at most.

Once again, one might wonder why a municipality would need to go looking for financing. Just last week I had the opportunity to meet with the vice-president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, who is also the mayor of an important city in Quebec. I do not want to name him and put him on the spot here tonight. He is probably sleeping at this hour, but he might be listening on CPAC. I asked him whether, during all his years as mayor and at the council table, he had ever needed to go looking for financing from a bank. It has never happened.

It is late and we all want to get to bed. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time you have given me to speak to Bill C-49. However, it is not nearly enough time to speak to such an important bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

When we resume debate on Bill C-49, the hon. member will have 10 minutes to finish his speech.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise before the House to speak to Bill C-49, which proposes concrete measures to respond to several concerns of Canadians regarding transportation. We can agree here on the importance of a transportation system that is safe and secure, green, innovative, and integrated; that contributes to our trade and the economic growth of our cities and communities; and that creates a cleaner environment for our children, not to mention the well-being of Canadians.

On this last point, I want to focus for a moment on one of the important aspects of this bill: the protection of our rights as air passengers. As everyone knows, air transportation has become more widely available and accessible by the public due to a relative decrease in price for this mode of transportation. Canadian travellers are concerned about the value of the tickets they buy, their comfort, and the availability of flights. They are also concerned about how they are treated as consumers by airline companies. This was highlighted in recent media reports about certain airlines.

In contrast, the context in which airline companies operate imposes significant costs associated with safety and security, both in the air and on the ground. Increased availability in the airline industry has contributed to making our aviation system more complex, with both the growing number of passengers transported and the amount of air traffic, which may result in delays for passengers. Air carriers are faced with a relative decrease in their performance, not only because of sustained competition but because of pressure from consumers for lower airfares. Comfort and luxury, once offered to passengers on airplanes, have given way to new practices that are leading airline companies to offer a multitude of à-la-carte services to passengers to remain viable. For example, companies no longer hesitate to make their passengers pay for the size or weight of their baggage, seat selection, and drinks or meals during flights. Carriers have also resorted to overbooking to maximize their revenue. The advent of ultra-low-cost carriers in the airline industry, such as Ryanair or easyJet, has also pushed traditional airlines to re-examine their original business models. Carriers are trying to do more to maximize the use of their aircraft and develop new revenue generation strategies. This has contributed to reduced passenger comfort and general satisfaction when they travel by air.

Let us return to us, the passengers. In general, the main issues we face relate to delays, cancellations, being denied boarding as a result of overbooking, lost or delayed baggage, a lack of information communicated to us when things are not proceeding as planned, long tarmac delays and wait times, or even seat assignments when parents or guardians travel with young children.

Several countries have therefore chosen to legislate or regulate certain practices in the airline industry by establishing mandatory measures or minimum levels of passenger services offered by carriers. It is time for Canada to align its current approach with practices that are in effect elsewhere in the world for the benefit of both travellers and our country.

Bill C-49 proposes to develop an approach that protects the rights of air passengers, and will meet the expectations of passengers, by establishing a clear, predictable, and fair framework that governs the practices and responsibilities of the airline industry while not imposing an economic burden or undue operational restrictions on it. In this regard, Bill C-49 proposes adopting a legislative framework within which the Canadian Transportation Agency can establish detailed and specific regulations that address common situations we face as passengers and thus establish standards and minimum service and compensation levels we can claim when our travel plans are affected.

Moreover, Bill C-49 would gather various indicators and data relating to passenger experience that could assist the government in better understanding, and if necessary, acting on situations or problems travellers may face.

In closing, a new approach to protecting the rights of air passengers could contribute to improving the general satisfaction of users. The government is actively working on this. However, it would be wishful thinking to believe that all concerns or criticisms of carriers or the airline industry made by passengers would be resolved. The reality in Canada is that flights will continue to be affected by the harshness and vagaries of our climate. It is not guaranteed that an approach, however prescriptive and broad it may be, will contribute to limiting the impact on users in such situations, even if it allows them to benefit from some mitigation measures, where applicable.

I ask my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-49, which aims to implement several measures to make a transportation system that is safe and secure, green, innovative, and integrated and that will contribute to our economic growth and a cleaner environment, not to mention the well-being of Canadians when they travel.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a strong advocate for air passenger rights. We have known for many years that passengers want to be more empowered or to at least be treated better overall. This is the type of legislation that would assist in setting a framework for providing guarantees.

I am wondering if my colleague would share some of her thoughts on the importance of getting legislation of this nature through the House.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, consumer protection and increasing the ability of passengers to travel across, out of, and into Canada would, by extension, increase our economy. By facilitating transportation, we would encourage more economic growth and tourism. Such legislation would provide a safe network for Canadians to go above and beyond and achieve their full potential, whether it be for economic or entertainment reasons. It would provide a safety net for passengers.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am sure she appreciated the opportunity to have her say on Bill C-49, a bill that amends 13 other laws.

Yesterday, the minister said that over 80% of the legislative changes are specific to a single act. The thing is, amending just one section of an act can determine whether someone is charged with sexual assault or not. The number of sections amended does not matter as much as what those sections do.

My colleague must have been pleased to have a chance to talk about this bill. Does she believe that what she has to say or what I have to say is more important than what other members want to say but cannot because the government decided to limit debate on this bill?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the member's speech on this very important topic.

The hon. member talked about the different acts Bill C-49 seeks to amend. I can say that 80% of the bill is specific to the topic at hand. Debate in the House is very important. It is crucial to our democracy, and I am very happy to be participating in this debate. I know that many members have participated and will participate on legislation that affects Canadians on a daily basis.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether the Liberals would agree to divide Bill C-49 since it is an omnibus bill that amends 13 laws, as my colleague just said. We think this is yet another sloppy bill. The only measure we can support is the one for grain shippers that help western producers get their crop to market, but all of these measures would come into force on August 1, 2017, which is a bit too soon. Because it is part of an omnibus bill that amends 13 laws, it will be impossible to implement all of this at the same time and help grain producers.

Would my colleague be prepared to separate the section for grain producers from the rest of the bill so we can at least agree on that one?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 is a fulsome approach to improving our transportation system. It is really about evidence, increasing security, and increasing access for Canadians to transportation within and across Canada.

I encourage the member to express her views on this bill. I look forward to the debate continuing today and to comments members have in this House.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question that I asked my colleague earlier, which was about the fact that 80% of the amendments pertain to a single law.

Bill C-49 is an omnibus bill that amends 13 laws, and 80% of those amendments pertain to a single law. Does that mean that the other laws that are being amended are not important? Does that mean that, when just one provision of another law is amended, it is not important? That is exactly what we were trying to tell the minister. Why is the government insisting on introducing omnibus bills that cover so many topics?

We are talking about rail transportation, financial participation, a passengers' bill of rights, video surveillance on trains, and more. The government wants us to make a decision on all of these topics, which are so very different, with just one vote on a bill that amends 13 laws.

Does my colleague think that one law is more important than another?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite and his party know all about omnibus bills and their use of them in the past.

I assure the member that this bill is a fulsome approach that looks to understand the full scope of the issue and how to address the issues Canadians have told us they face.

I look forward to the speeches from members in the House, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech and for the extraordinary work that she does in her riding.

Could my colleague explain how the bill will save passengers time, improve their comfort, and lower the cost of tickets, things that affect them almost every day?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to provide cleaner transportation and more security, more safety, more reliability, and more responsiveness to the needs of Canadians. I am sure all members in this House can appreciate that. We use our airlines frequently, and we are directly impacted by what happens with our airline systems across Canada.

Having increased accountability by airlines would increase the quality of service and encourage more travel, safer travel, and more reliable travel for Canadians across the country.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier about the fact that the bill contains a number of other bills, one of which amends the Coasting Trade Act.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to leave that law alone. However, in the end, the government broke its promise and is giving ships registered in other countries an unfair competitive advantage, without any reciprocal measures. Canadian shipowners will not have access to the European Union, but EU shipowners will have access to Canada.

Does my colleague agree with that? The government is undermining our shipowners' ability to compete fairly. Do the Liberals support that?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were major consultations done on the bill. We consulted with all those impacted. We understand that, as a government, we have a role to play in increasing competition, but also ensuring that our consumers are protected. The bill does just that with respect to transportation. It provides for more reliable transportation, more protection of consumers, and for more accountability of airlines to consumers, while also ensuring that the level of competition is still there.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my remarks to the debate on Bill C-49.

Before I begin, I would like to take a second to acknowledge a very poignant moment today in the House. I was here when the Clerk, Marc Bosc, arrived for his last shift here in the House of Commons as Acting Clerk of the House, as we have heard from a number of sources.

Mr. Bosc was the person who welcomed the members who had been newly elected in 2015 to the House. It was a very emotional time for us. To us, Mr. Bosc is the Clerk of the House, because he is the only one we have ever known. Mr. Bosc has always been there for us and has always shown the utmost professionalism. He was respected by all, at least by everyone on this side of the House. Mr. Bosc has always served with enormous professionalism, and we have always respected him.

For me, Mr. Speaker, it was a very poignant moment to see him enter the chamber this morning and take his place before us, to begin his final sitting day in the House of Commons. I trust that Mr. Bosc will always hold a place of honour here in Parliament.

In closing, we found out about this rather suddenly. I would have liked the opposition parties to be consulted more on the process to replace the Clerk. No offence to the incoming Clerk, but I just wanted to take a few moments on behalf of my colleagues, myself, and my family, who shared in all the emotion that we experience when we first arrive here, to acknowledge Mr. Bosc's excellent work.

Mr. Bosc has been here much longer than I have, but like me, he has seen his share of governments and their different approaches to ensuring that their bills get passed.

Bill C-49 is another example of the government using closure to prevent giving the opposition opportunities to speak to this bill or criticize it. By the minister's own admission, this bill is quite complex, and it will make significant changes to Canada's transportation industry. Even so, we will have just a few of hours of debate to discuss it and raise what I think are some very important points.

Why is this especially troubling in the case of Bill C-49? It is because this bill does not amend just one or two sections or one or two acts. It amends 13 pieces of legislation.

For the past two days, I have been listening to the arguments given by the Minister of Transport who says that the opposition is overreacting, since 80% of the changes proposed in Bill C-49 will amend just one law, and therefore the opposition has no reason to protest so loudly. What? How is that an argument? It is as though one section of an act were more important than another. If the 20% of Bill C-49's clauses that amend 12 other laws are not all that important, why bother including them? Why are we talking about them? If they are not that important, if everything is focused on just one law and the opposition is outraged, why keep the other 20% of the amendments? Why not remove them and create another bill with those amendments and consider it separately? It does not matter, because everything is in the same bill.

Clearly, this argument simply does not hold water. It is particularly troubling. As members know, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since I arrived in this place. Obviously, transportation affects all Canadians in every field. Transportation has an impact on the daily lives of all Canadians, whether we are talking about the transportation of goods or people.

They say this is a complex bill, that they will not give the opposition much time to talk, and that, since 80% of it is specific to one act, there is no need for us to protest so loudly. I think the minister should go back to the drawing board, take another look at what is in his bill, and think carefully about the repercussions that each amendment in Bill C-49 will have on the day-to-day lives of all Canadians.

Here is the lowdown on Bill C-49. The Liberals' omnibus transportation bill will establish a new air passenger rights regime; liberalize international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; enable the Minister of Transport to consider and approve joint ventures by two or more airlines; update the Canadian freight system; require railways to install audio-video recorders in locomotives; expand the Governor in Council's powers to require major railway companies to provide rate, service, and performance data; and amend the Canada Marine Act to allow port authorities to access Canada infrastructure bank loans.

However, there is nothing there. According to the Minister of Transport, a few hours of discussion are enough to address all of these issues, since he did not think that the opposition had anything relevant to say during the first hours of this debate. Why would the government want to continue listening to opposition members provide supposedly irrelevant information when it can simply expedite the process by muzzling them? At least, that is what the minister seems to think.

Since when are opinions that differ from the government's irrelevant? The big problem with the Liberals is that, when we do not agree with them, on this or any other issue, they feel threatened and under attack. They think that anyone who does not share their opinion and does not think like they do is irrelevant, and so they have no reason to take any interest in what those people have to say in the House. That explains a lot.

It explains a lot, such as Motion No. 6 and the many time allocation motions that have been imposed on us since the beginning of this session. It explains the infamous discussion document that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tabled to supposedly improve the way the House operates. When we read that document carefully, we learned that the Liberals' intention was once again to avoid hearing what the opposition parties had to say.

It is not complicated. When things do not sit well with the government, it decides to muzzle dissenting voices that cast grey clouds over Liberal sunny ways. Well, I have news for the Liberal government. The official opposition and all the other opposition parties, I am sure, have no intention of staying quiet. We have no intention of letting changes slip through. We have no intention of completely agreeing with everything the Liberals put in front of us. We have no intention of being the people who enable the Liberal Party to push through their entire election platform. That is not our role here. Our role is to present criticisms.

As an aside, let us talk about the Liberal platform. It did not take long for the Liberals to realize that much of what they wanted to do is simply impossible. They promised big spending and small deficits. They kept only one of those promises. They are spending big, but they have come to realize that that requires huge deficits. That is something the government does not want the opposition to criticize. They would like us to keep quiet and just watch them and applaud them because they really like applause. That is not what we are going to do. That is not our role.

Let us come back to Bill C-49 because it seems like we are off topic, that we just keep providing an overview, and that we keep talking about everything but Bill C-49. Let us talk about Bill C-49 and what it amends. As I was saying, it significantly amends 13 different laws and has repercussions on three modes of transportation. This legislative measure will weaken legislative protections for shippers and western Canadian farmers.

We want to concentrate on proactive measures to make travel less expensive and more convenient for all travellers. This would include abolishing the carbon tax, instead of the Liberals’ plan to establish reactive compensation that will benefit only a small segment of the population.

This bill provides very little detail about the proposed air passengers’ bill of rights, and it does not have the support, in its current form, of many passengers’ rights advocates. Also, port authorities and their wholly owned subsidiaries will have access to loans and loan guarantees from the Canada infrastructure bank. There is an inconsistency here. That does not make any sense to me, since this bank does not exist yet. It remains a proposal for now, and it is held up in another house, for very good reasons.

Like us, the senators think that the infrastructure bank warrants its own bill, given the impact it will have and the $15 billion that the government intends to provide to it. That is $15 billion from Canadian taxpayers to be given to a board of directions to manage on our behalf without any accountability to Parliament.

These points alone justify our opposition to the passage of Bill C-44, which is currently being studied on the other side in its current form and includes all these budget measures as well as creating the infrastructure bank. I hope that people will get the message.

In Bill C-49, they already assume the outcome. Port authorities are being given approval to access loans from the non-existent infrastructure bank. What I do not understand is that the government, ever since it began telling us about the infrastructure bank, keeps saying that it will be an independent bank. As an aside, the process to find the president for this non-existent bank has already started.

Therefore, the infrastructure bank, which does not exist, will be made up of a so-called independent board of directors who will manage the money given to them by the Liberal government. At the same time, these supposedly independents will be told that they have to invest $1.3 billion in Montreal’s Réseau électrique métropolitain and provide loans to port authorities. To sum up, here is an independent infrastructure bank that will not be independent and does not yet exist. However, we are being asked to approve a clause of the bill that will allow port authorities to secure loans from this infrastructure bank that will be created in the near future.

It is clear that something is not working, that they are improvising, and that the minister wants to move quickly. We do not understand why he insists on moving so quickly. Some will tell us that it is because they want to settle the matter of Bill C-30 before it expires on July 31 in order to protect western grain producers in their rate negotiations with the railways. That could be the case, but that is not what is going to happen, since even if Bill C-49 is rushed through today or Monday and is referred to committee, the committee meetings are scheduled for September.

The committee was prepared to meet in July if the government agreed to hive off all the measures concerning Bill C-30. That would have allowed us to study them quickly in order to avoid having a legal vacuum for western grain producers. These meetings could have been held before August 1. The committee was prepared to meet in the middle of summer, during vacation—at least, the opposition members of the committee were. That would have been a major sacrifice for some of us to show up and study a bill to help western grain producers.

Why was the official opposition prepared to do that? Because we get that this is important. Right now, grain producers are concerned about what is going to happen this fall if there is a legal vacuum. We do not know exactly how the market will react. These people are negotiating right now.

We see another problem here. I myself am not a grain producer. However, several of my House of Commons colleagues represent western Canadian ridings, and they know a lot about grain production. From what I understand, grain producers usually harvest their crops in the fall. What time of year is busiest for grain producers? The fall, when they are bringing in the harvest.

The government is going to ask grain producers to testify on Bill C-49, which will have a major impact on their future, in the fall. The government is going to ask them to leave their machinery and their fields so they can come testify in Ottawa in September. That is when they should be in their fields doing their work, doing what we support them doing, and making their contribution to Canada's economy by producing and working. This makes no sense.

That is why the opposition was prepared to agree to move quickly on that part of the bill. We were prepared to let many things slide in order to move quickly. Why? Canada's grain producers are far more important to us than adding another number to our legislative record. The farmers need us to come to Ottawa to protect them, stand up for them, and help them succeed. That is our role.

If we are not taking extraordinary measures to get Bill C-30 passed before the deadline, then there is no urgency to justify speeding up the process and muzzling the opposition. The government probably does not want to let the opposition speak because it does not want to hear arguments like mine in defence of western grain producers.

I want to talk about another initiative that was very well received by the public, I admit. This was the main point in the message from the Minister of Transport. Indeed, he wants to create an air passengers' bill of rights. This is urgent. Like all of us, all Canadians who have flown over the past few months have seen the coverage of some of the dramatic incidents that have taken place in the U.S. Since the bill announced the creation of an air passengers' bill of rights, we thought we would get some information. We thought we might be told what to expect, but no, all the minister did was mandate the Canadian Transportation Agency to begin consultations that will eventually lead to regulations and, at some point, the air passengers' bill of rights.

Do we really need a bill to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to begin consultations on a bill of rights? It makes no sense. There is no need for urgency when it comes to Bill C-49, apart from the legislation protecting western Canadian grain farmers; on that, we agree.

We believe that the only way to go and the only explanation or justification to make this measure acceptable, to make this gag order acceptable, would have been to split the bill and immediately pass the measures in Bill C-30, in order to make certain temporary measures permanent. We were ready to go ahead with that, but everything else could have waited; there is no need to panic. The only emergency here for this government is to silence the opposition. The government is not ready. It is improvising and presenting measures that just do not make sense.

For all these reasons, and despite a few good measures in the bill, the official opposition cannot support Bill C-49.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why has my hon. colleague spent over half of his time talking about things that had very little to do with the bill? Most of the conversation was about us not providing enough time to talk about it.

I would like to understand why quantity and quality are not necessarily equated. One could be succinct and point out critical points that may not be strengths of a bill in a significantly shorter time. When we look at time for debate, the debate should be around the substance, the precise criticisms, the highlighting of the oversights or the challenges within a bill. That is the point of being in the House: to highlight the specifics that perhaps the opposition does not feel are the strengths of a motion or a bill.

Could the member opposite provide three significant focused and specific challenges with the bill that he feels must be changed?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague, who said that I spent over half of my time talking about things that had nothing to do with Bill C-49, to withdraw her remarks.

I will check, but I am sure that I spent 100% of my time talking about the impact of Bill C-49. The fact that we are debating this bill when they are imposing time allocation is a fact that has to do with Bill C-49. Perhaps she misunderstood my intention.

One clause alone has major repercussions for western grain farmers—the one that extends them protection and makes it permanent. What, then, gives my colleague the right to say that my remarks are irrelevant? I would like her to explain herself to western grain farmers and answer that question.

Why does she not consider these measures to be important for western grain farmers?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

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

I wish to raise two points that he talked about in his speech. It seems to me that the theme both these points have in common is the arrogance of this government. The fact that there will be a period of time between when the old rules expire and when the rules proposed in Bill C-49 are brought in is a real problem for western grain farmers. This does not seem to be a problem for the Liberals; they look after their own when they should be fulfilling their duty to work on solving the problems of western grain growers.

The member also mentioned the fact that in the bill, an integral part of the transportation strategy is the infrastructure bank, a contentious subject here in the House of Commons as well as in the other place. The bill may not pass in time. When the Liberals stated that something Parliament has yet to vote on will be a part of their transportation strategy, their arrogance was on full display yet again.

Have I forgotten other aspects of the member’s speech touching on this theme of arrogance?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very relevant and gives me an opportunity to talk about another equally important topic, the relevance of the opposition.

My colleague also read the bill and saw the impact that Bill C-49 will have on all of the areas he just talked about. In response to the statement about how we are only concerned with a few issues, I would say that only a few members will have the opportunity to speak. If the government would let us all talk, we could hear people's opinions on every aspect of Bill C-49. Since the government is muzzling us and denying us the right to speak, we have to focus on the essentials. We have to focus on what affects us directly and what will have the greatest impact on Canadians. If the Liberals would give us more time, we would address Bill C-49 in its entirety, from beginning to end.

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

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

I was shocked to hear him say in his speech that the members on his side of the House were going to reject all of the Liberals' proposals. Is that how he plans to help Canada and Canadians, by rejecting everything the government is proposing to improve the lives of Canadians and make our country more prosperous?

I am asking my colleague whether he will withdraw that statement and correct himself?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw those words if I had said them, but I did not. Therefore I will not withdraw them.

I thought them, though, but I restrained myself because sometimes the Liberals do in fact include some good measures in their bills. There are some, in Bill C-49, that we could support, particularly with respect to western grain producers. We are prepared to support them, and we wish to do so.

If the government did the right thing, which is to split the bill, it would have the opposition’s support to pass the positive measures introduced by the Liberals. There are not that many. That is why I did not say it. I thought it, though.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to explore the questions from the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. She was quite indignant when asking my colleague to give three reasons on Bill C-49. The irony is that the Liberals are limiting debate on all of these subjects.

We have a government that has only passed 19 bills in its time in office, and now the Liberals are using time allocation on virtually every piece of legislation, limiting debate, yet they are not giving any reason for that. This is a bill that addresses rail, marine, and air safety, and the Liberals are limiting debate on it. Then when we ask questions or give speeches here in the House, they suggest that it is not sufficient debate.

I would ask my colleague what he thinks about the Liberal government not permitting debate or even the questioning of their decisions in our nation's interests. It is quite concerning, and I would like my colleague's comments on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find that, in telling us that, my colleague makes an absolutely extraordinary point. I am a fairly new member, and I do not have my colleague’s experience. By the way, he ran an excellent leadership campaign, and I wanted to point that out. He learned a lot because he travelled across Canada and saw the effects of Liberal proposals. He very much appreciates why the opposition needs time here, in the House, to ask questions and point out the flaws. They may not like it, but it is simply because our role is to find what does not work and to propose better legislation.

What we want is to improve the lives of Canadians. It is not just to introduce bills quickly, with a lot of flash and photos, and then go through Parliament and arrange things to avoid uncomfortable moments when decisions are questioned, and finally take another photo when the bill is passed. We want to do real work for Canadians.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, the so-called transportation modernization act.

Before I go any further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University. I look forward to his presentation on this as well. He comes from a neighbouring province to the west, and he also has a great knowledge of what is required in this field.

It is a privilege to put on the record again, as I had the opportunity to do with our opposition day motion on Monday this week, how important the movement of grain is to western Canadian farmers, as my colleague just said. However, it is not just important to the farmers but to the whole industry and economy of western Canada, which affects us all. We are one of the largest exporters of grain in the world with regard to the percentage that we grow.

I think the changes that have come forward in the bill would be somewhat detrimental, although there are a few that will work very well on the grain side.

Bill C-30 was brought in by my colleagues when we were in government due to the conditions that took place in the Prairies in the winter-fall of 2013 and the spring of 2014. I will never forget that because that is when I was elected as a member. Having farmed in western Canada all my life prior to getting into politics, I certainly know the importance of making sure that we have a reliable system of moving grain and exporting it, not just for the farm community but for the logistics of the rail companies and the port authorities and facilities on the west coast, east coast, and in Thunder Bay. At that time, there was also some grain movement through the Port of Churchill.

Before I get into too much of that, I would like to say that what we need to do in the Prairies with regard to the evolution of the transportation system, as we move forward, is to make sure that we look at processing more of these grains on the Prairies than we have in the past. I was in the room with the minister from Regina—Wascana, which I believe was his constituency at the time, in 1995, when the Crow benefit changed and was taken away. I lobbied to make sure that happened. I did that because my farm was located halfway between Vancouver and Montreal at the time, and we would have been faced with the highest freight rates on the Prairies, right in my kitchen.

We did that so that our future family members, our children, in western Canada would have a job locally by processing more of that grain. That is one of the key reasons for a lot of the lobbying that went on in those days to make changes not just to the rail system but to the way grain was marketed. My colleagues in the House have also brought forward the opportunity to allow farmers to sell their own grain and do their own marketing, which is key to the future development of more processing plants and those types of facilities in the Prairies.

The processing of grain is an example of how important this can be. We have rail lines that begin in Winnipeg and pretty well run parallel out to Portage la Prairie, and then branch off to Calgary and Edmonton through the west. That is why the interswitching that my colleague has brought in, and extending it from 30 kilometres to 160 kilometres, was a great advantage for farmers and competitive rates in the Prairies. It did not only work for them but also for the grain companies. It gave them the ability to have a bit more competition.

The types of things that we gained from the 160-kilometre range of interswitching would be taken away in this new bill, Bill C-49, which I think is a detriment to the longevity of the competitiveness we could have. One example is that we can only do it at a point where that interswitching is available. If one's grain is in northern Alberta or the Peace River areas of northern B.C., the first point of interswitching is Kamloops.

Of course, then one cannot really have much competition for all of that grain in northern Alberta and the Peace River area, if one cannot get access to a competitive rate until it gets to Kamloops. I worked there in the early seventies. I know the city well. It is a great place. I know my colleague from Kamloops agrees with me. This would not allow the type of rate competitiveness that we could have seen in the Prairies.

Bill C-30 also mandated the rail companies to carry half a million tonnes each of grain per week to catch up on some of the backlog that was there at that time. This bill just allows them to continue to talk. It does not mandate a level of grain shipments. That was for a period of time until that backlog got taken care of, which happened later on that summer. We hope we do not see those kinds of conditions, but we do have cold weather on a regular basis in western Canada in wintertime and there was a lot more at stake than just the cold weather in forcing that grain back on to the Prairie farms at that time.

There may be some opportunities here. We cannot haul all of the grain in the Prairies by truck. It has to get onto a rail system at some point. Now that there are more opportunities for farmers to move their own grain, I have young farmers coming to me every day talking about the movement of their grain north-south by truck. Some of that is entering into the United States.

We also purchase a lot of grain in feed form, and that sort of thing, from the U.S., and we need to look at continuing to expand our processing. We need to make sure we continue to have that mechanism to move the grain and also to import from the United States.

We also need to make sure that we are continuing to process even more of the product we have on the Prairies. That is being done in many places in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Some of it is being done with the expansion of our livestock industries, because they consume an awful lot of feed grains in western Canada, which then gets moved in another form. Most of it ends up being slaughtered in some of the largest processing plants in the world in Alberta, in Brooks and High River. We know there is an opportunity there to continue to move that product.

It is being done in Manitoba with the largest pea processing plant in the world, coming to Portage la Prairie. It is a $400-million investment by a French company. The Manitoba government is putting very little infrastructure money into this, other than connecting the hydro lines and natural gas.

These are the kinds of investments we need. I know Bill C-49 will not be as good as Bill C-30 was, as far as that goes. It also speaks to other areas though, such as the air industry and marine industry as well. We need to make sure that while there are changes taking place, they are not detrimental to the future of those industries as well, because we do rely quite heavily on our export ports, particularly on the marine side, to be able to export and move this grain.

Bill C-49 eliminates some of the things that were good parts of Bill C-30, particularly in regard to ordering the railways to compensate any person for expenses caused by the railway's failure to fulfill service obligations.

I will end there and see if anyone has questions before my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—University, takes over.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris will have a period of five minutes for questions and comments pertaining to his remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the question, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris had a period of five minutes for questions and comments. He had just finished his speech prior to the beginning of members' statements, so we have five minutes for questions and comments and we will go to that now.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy with the Brandon airport and the expansion that has been taking place. I know that my colleague across the way would be very familiar with that. Maybe I will use that as a link to how important it is that we have air passenger rights. This is legislation that will ultimately lead to rights for air passengers. Would the member agree that we need to do what we can as legislators to ensure that there is a higher sense of fairness and that passenger rights are overdue?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in the Brandon airport, which is now complete. It has expanded. It is three times the size it was. It was my pleasure while a member of the government to be able to put some of those funds forward, and I appreciate the fact that it was carried out. I was there with another member from Winnipeg to make sure that they had spades in the ground and got it going a year and a half ago.

It is very important that we have rights for passengers in the airline industry, but I have a great concern in regard to the compensation levels, because the bill would give the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency an open cheque to set monetary compensation for passengers who are affected in this way, rather than having a set fee or set compensation for certain areas. That would be my main concern in that area.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a great deal about wheat and the importance of wheat to our prairie provinces. We will talk about the province of Manitoba once again. In the legislation, we are seeing actions being taken with respect to rail lines. I wonder if the member might provide some comment on how important it is that we get it right in dealing with our rail lines, as our commodity industries need the best system possible.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we are able to export the grain we grow on the Prairies. A greater proportion of what we grow is exported than in any other country, virtually.

I am concerned that there are not even going to be committee meetings on Bill C-49 until September, as pointed out by my colleague. The bill would not come into action before July 31, when Bill C-30 dies. Bill C-30 had many sound management tools that could be used to make sure grain could move in a predicable manner. There will be no predictability in the movement of grain as of August 1, and of course, August 1 is the very beginning of the new crop year, when grain will start to be harvested for this year and moved.

I was urging the government to do everything it could to at least get Bill C-49 through. Maybe it could split some amendments by the end of July. However, we are rising shortly, and that is not going to happen. They have indicated that it will not even go to committee until next fall. We do not know when it will pass or how big a priority it will be for the government at that point.

We are very concerned that there will be a gap in the management of the movement of grain off the Prairies in a predictable and safeguarded manner.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a few years since I was last on the transportation committee, I think four or five, if my memory serves me correctly, but I enjoy speaking about these issues. One reason I enjoy talking about them is that in a country as vast as Canada, transportation really matters. Every country has its unique issues, but Canada's would be distinctly different from most countries in the world. Perhaps Australia, the United States, and Russia face some of the same challenges as Canada, but very few other countries in the world would have the exact same problems.

The other thing I find very interesting about the legislation is that it deals with an underlying problem, which is different economically than many issues with which we deal.

Before I discuss that, let me say a few basic words for context about this broad legislation.

Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, is legislation that we call, for people watching at home, an omnibus bill. Many elements from different areas are put together under one larger theme. We have heard members from various opposition parties point out that not all elements of the bill really fit together. In fact, I suggest the government would have been better off breaking the bill into three, or perhaps even four, pieces of legislation.

A very small element of the bill deals with marine issues. There is a larger element that deals with railway issues, which could have been subdivided into separate legislation to deal with railway safety issues and broader economic railway issues. It also deals with issues related to airlines, consumers, the financing of airlines, foreign ownership rules, and so forth.

In many ways, the government has put together many things that really do not belong in a single piece of legislation, which makes it somewhat difficult to comment on. Some things in the bill are well-intentioned and could possibly be useful and good for the country. Other pieces of the legislation the government should rethink. I will take apart as many elements of the bill in the time allotted to me.

One of the biggest rail transportation issues in Canada is that there is a natural monopoly tendency. That is not caused by the railways through any malice or problem; it is just that there are some very natural realities. To build a railway, a large capital investment is required, making it very difficult for competition. Railways also serve specific geographic areas exclusively. They need to have that natural monopoly. To pay for the underlying capital cost, they need to capture the majority of the market. That, then, leads to a problem of a power imbalance.

If commodities can be shipped by means other than railways, for example, oil can be shipped by pipeline or perhaps trucking is better for other commodities, that is not a problem. However, for certain commodities and situations, rail may not be available. That is where a problem tends to result and get argued about when it comes to rail transportation.

In highly competitive markets where a lot of commodities enter and exit and product substitution is easily done, etc., there is no call for the government to get involved because there are few issues with the market. No monopoly is ever naturally total or pure, but to some degree railways in our country have those sorts of issues.

That has therefore caused a long history of the governments of Canada regulating, subsidizing, and interfering in the rail transportation industry, particularly in the west. If we look at the population centres of eastern Canada, they are much closer to the United States and commodities can be trucked. In that case, there is a considerable amount of competition.

That tends to be the underlying issue the government has to deal with whenever it deals with rail transportation issues.

In a previous Parliament, there had been some issues on grain transporting in the Prairies due to bottlenecks. Some of this was perhaps due to the railways, some of it perhaps due to weather issues, and the large crop in western Canada. The previous government put in some adjustments, which allowed shippers to use the railway system within 160 kilometres. This is a bit of a simplified interpretation. They were allowed to use the existing railways, and have the right, to ship their grain and other commodities to the United States and then connect.

It is this interconnection that is being discussed. It used to be 30 kilometres and was then extended to 160 kilometres. For those in places like Regina who needed to ship their grain and CN, CP could not get it out, they could then get them to ship it to the United States at which point a railway like Burlington Northern would have the option to ship the grain. As has been noted, that is coming to an end.

What the government has suggested is changing the rules to introduce something it is calling long haul interchangeability rights, eliminating this 160 kilometre rule.

This is very similar to what has already been in the legislation before and has not been used. If the government is putting in a new provision but it is almost identical to something that has been in the legislation since the 1990s but has not been used, what is the purpose? What is the government trying to accomplish?

The government will have to deal with this at committee. Why is it eliminating something that has helped eliminate a bottleneck situation and going back to an older system that has not worked well. That is my first criticism and question for the government.

The second thing I want to point out, particularly with the rail issues, is that I do not see anything the government is doing in this to bring down the costs. Service is important, and commodity shippers in western Canada have told me they are willing to pay more if they can get timely and accurate services. That is very good. Ultimately, time is money when shipping products.

I am failing to see where the government is dealing with ways to make the regulatory process quicker and smoother. In fact, most of the legislation seems to add more layers onto it. I understand it goes back to that underlying problem, the natural monopoly and how to dealt with it. We often deal with it through regulation.

There is a second question I would like to put to the government. With the rail situation and the added costs that will soon come through the carbon tax, which will ultimately hurt the producers, the shippers, and other Canadians involved, how will it do things to lower the costs?

Finally, there are elements in the bill which personally interest me and many of my constituents. They are around the creation of a passenger's bill of rights. In many ways, this sounds very good. As someone who flies a lot, and most western Canadian members of Parliament joke that our third office is an airplane, I am very familiar with problems airlines can have.

My question is this. What has been costed and how will this cost be passed on to the customer? Costs for airline flights in Canada are some of the highest in the world. We all have a major concern with that. If our businesses are going to grow, if we are going to have better connection and the ability for places like Saskatoon, where I come from, to move out and do business in the world, we need costs to be dealt with.

Therefore, these are the basic questions. Why is the government taking away something that has worked and replacing it with something that has been tried and seems to be wanting? Where is the government's ability to bring down costs, both for railways and air passengers? Also, how is it going to simplify the regulatory burden?

These are questions the government needs to deal with when the bill goes to committee. The Liberals would have been wiser if they had split the legislation into smaller bills so we could deal with it in more bite-sized pieces.

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

Mr. Speaker, it might be surprising to the member that we are on the same kind of ground. We want to achieve the same kind of impact for Canadians.

We tried to take an integrated and collaborative approach to this kind of legislation. The response from the actual stakeholders and experts has really been positive.

The Western Grain Elevator said, “We're thankful that Minister Garneau and Minister MacAulay understand just how fundamental this is to grain farmers and the industry...This is an important day for...grain shippers.”

Cereals Canada said, “Cereals Canada Applauds Grain Transportation Policy...The policy announced today will provide that accountability when enacted in legislation.”

From the Pulse Canada and Canadian Special Crops said, “On the whole, the Government has identified the core issues that need to be addressed and we see opportunities to engage...A great deal of consultation has been undertaken.”

I have more, but my question for the hon. colleague is this. Why not send this to committee so we can hear from these experts and stakeholders?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will use this occasion to remind hon. members, even when another hon. member's name appears in a quote or citation in the course of a member's remarks, to change up the name to the member's title or riding name. This works well, and it is the right way to do it.

The member for Saskatoon—University.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are coming up to the mid-point of the government. We are likely to have, but not guaranteed, a prorogation where everything gets restarted and reset in the fall. However, if we send the bill to committee, there are ways of reviving it.

My suggestion earlier in my speech was that the government, instead of putting this out as one bill, was to put it out in four smaller pieces of legislation. This would have allowed the government to get the rail piece of the bill out sooner and get it done. As my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris pointed out, it would prevent the legislative gap that was about to happen.

Therefore, if this is such a priority, and I agree it is, why did the Liberals not get started on it earlier? Why did they not break it down into smaller pieces where the urgent items could be dealt with and the less urgent items could then be debated more fulsome?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about the bill is the amount of things we have in it.

It is clear that the passenger bill of rights does not have any minimums or maximums with regard to identification of penalties, fines, or expectations for passengers. Regulations can set these things, but having no guidance at all from Parliament appears to be a weakness, especially when the European Union and the United States have at least hard targets for their legislative body to be involved.

What is my colleague's position on at least having some directional targets set by the legislative body versus leaving it all to regulations?.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a good point, and this is one of the things that would be discussed at committee.

If, and this is as big if, we are going ahead with these penalties, it would be wise to have the elected representatives give some sort of a framework rather than have it purely be done by regulation. I understand regulation can be more flexible, but the framework to the regulators should be given by the elected officials. This tends to be the democratic process, and I suspect that will be looked at when the bill comes to committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be splitting my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

In a previous Parliament, the member for Elmwood—Transcona was Bill Blaikie, who was a good friend of mine. I had the pleasure of spending some time with him in regard to a number of issues, including transportation.

The Winnipeg area is a gateway to much of the west and the United States. Ironically, my riding of Windsor West is the same. Transportation plays a key part in not only our economy, but also in the social and cultural makeup of civilization. Trade creates relationships, opportunities, entrepreneurship, and some of the hard industries.

When we were fighting for a new border crossing in Windsor, what I really appreciated about Bill was his understanding of the transportation issue.

I can tell members who were not in the House when Bill Blaikie was a member that he was a giant, quite literally. When he was coming to Windsor, I asked people what he was like, and a friend of mine said, “Well, he hasn't met a sandwich he didn't like.” I was to pick him up at the airport, and I pulled up in a two-door Cavalier. This giant of a man was standing there. When he got in the car, the first thing he asked was whether the seat would go back. I replied, “Unfortunately, it is all the way back.” He travelled with me in that car with his knees in his face for a long time.

Bill's first observation in my riding was on the border crossing. Transport trucks were lined up all the way down Church Road, one stacked after the other. He told me that in Winnipeg those things were called trains. Hundreds of transport trucks cross that particular border. As I said, I will be splitting my time with the new member for Elmwood—Transcona, and he has the same pedigree with respect to transportation.

This piece of legislation is important for transportation in many respects. I am going to focus on the airline passenger bill of rights aspect, which is something I personally have been trying to move in Parliament for a number of years.

I am sure that all members know that Canada lags when it comes to this. The European Union and the United States in particular have had a passenger bill of rights for some time. For Canada not to have one is a good example of our lack of consumer protection.

Canada is very unique when it comes to a lack of protection and the influence of those things on our pocketbooks. New Democrats have worked on a variety of issues, with the most recent one getting a lot of attention being the unlocking of cell phones. I worked on this with Rogers at one point in time. Rogers was the first company to unlock cell phones. That would be normal and expected behaviour, and at no cost to the consumer. The CRTC ruled that consumers would have a reasonable expectation of this, because it is normal practice in most countries around the world. For us to be treated differently is a drag on our economy and a drag on our capacity to compete.

An airline bill of rights affects passenger travel, and passenger travel is also business travel. Say, for example, a business traveller has been ripped off or not been treated properly or did not get to a destination, that individual would have something to fall back on. If we are spending so much of our time trying to figure out rules and regulations and fairness, and there is nothing more than a dog's breakfast out there, with people fighting for decency, for anything, from a bit of nourishment to proper compensation, they are wasting their time, energy, and resources. Airline travel then becomes an uncompetitive part of our economy.

Canada needs to think about consumer protection. If we do not have some kind of protection, it is a drag on our capabilities. We will be out of sync with our competitors and our partners, be it the United States or the European Union or whoever else when it comes to these types of things.

This act unfortunately includes several things. The Conservatives were very good at bringing a healthy repertoire of omnibus bills to the House of Commons, and we debated those bills on a regular basis. To some degree, I have to give the Liberals credit. Given that we have had so few bills coming forth, when they do come forward, they are omnibus bills on steroids. They are pumped up with several different aspects that we would not have seen in the past. They have augmented this type of practice.

In this bill, we should be discussing the passenger bill of rights on its own—for the reasons I have noted in the precursor—with respect to the competitiveness of our economy, let alone sincere fairness. If one has ever sat on the tarmac before, one sometimes has to wait three or four hours and cannot even go to the washroom, which is unhealthy to begin with, not to mention the spillovers we have seen in the past. We should be thinking about those small issues when we are talking about other things in this bill.

The Canada Transportation Act is being amended in this bill, as is foreign ownership of airlines. We are talking about an industry that has had quite a colourful past. Its current characterization of ownership has a full cast of characters in unknown quantities, to say the least. That is dependent upon a series of things, and we are shedding some control of ownership, which is worthy of a debate.

What is interesting with respect to the Railway Safety Act is where Canada stands with railway and railway safety. I was a former transportation critic for this party, and we worked on the railway safety review. There were a number of things that were never implemented. However, just because we are built on a railway system and have had some great advances, we should keep this example in mind when we compare ourselves to other countries. While we are still struggling to find high-speed rail, Uzbekistan is beating us on that. I can say that bleeds through the entire process with respect to rail safety in this place, because that is what it looks like.

I am a former municipal city councillor. One of the things I have learned in the House of Commons, and in my previous representation, is that there is city council, the provincial legislature, the federal legislature, then we have the Lord, and then the rail companies. It seems that is essentially the pecking order with respect to being a representative and dealing with the complications of rail safety, which are very significant, not only for workers, but also for the men and women who live around the rail lines and interact with them. For example, with respect to hazardous materials, the transportation between Canada and the U.S. is significant.

We also have the Coasting Trade Act, the Canada Marine Act, and the western grain transportation act that are all affected by this bill.

We have now moved closure on this bill, and instead of seeing this done properly, it will be done altogether. I do not want to be too hard on the previous government, but the reality of omnibus bills is that they do not go through the full vetting process that is necessary. It has not been cast in terms of a political advantage or political commentary for the Liberals or the Conservatives, the reality is that legislative bodies, like our committees, are supposed to go through individual legislation because we can enhance it. Even if we do not agree with the legislation and what it has done, we often find mistakes and other problems. Hence, the previous government ran into several different problems in the court system because bills did not go through the proper channels and the full vetting that is necessary.

The current government seems to have built upon that and pumped up its legislation to include even more. We will see this go to committee, and there will be a cluster of different things that will require testimony. I can tell members that we will have testimony that overshadows many different departments, from many different witnesses, and it will likely come back as a giant muddle and mess. At the end of the day, we will be dealing with this again.

I know that my time is coming to an end here. However, in conclusion, I want to impress upon the members that Canadians have spoken loud and clear about the passenger bill of rights. The EU has some models and targets that it has reached, and we have proposed that they should be part of our legislation. The United States also has that.

Let us not just think about the inconvenience of a passenger being delayed, but let us also think about our economy and capabilities, and the time management we have as individuals, who should have a good contract. When we purchase a ticket, we should at least receive a product that is similar.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the bill, for a couple of reasons. As a licensed pilot and a long time trainspotter, it has all my interests in one place.

The railways in this country were built around the concept of building local monopolies. They are spaced out by certain distances for a reason. They were set up that way so that each company would have their territory.

I think it is very important for us to be modernizing it in the way we are doing here, and allowing these interchanging rules to be far improved to increase the competition.

I wonder if the member would agree with that general sentiment.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the railway companies historically, when building this country, received unprecedented, even corrupt types of beneficial practices.

In fact, when we go back and look at, not just Canada, but also North America as well, there were whole practices in the United States, political as well as business, that looked at the interests of individuals and the accumulation of wealth. Sadly, these are some of the things we have to correct as part of our culture and heritage. I think of the types of labour we used on building our railways in particular.

I think that changes how I feel, and I think many feel the same. It is about time we realized that our land and our infrastructure are the predominant domain of Canadians, and the use of them is a privilege. The privilege should be respected.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who listened to the speech by my colleague from Windsor West would know that comes from a position of knowledge. I had the opportunity to serve with him on the industry committee, and I respect his opinion.

He talked about the importance of the bill and getting it right in respect to Canadian competitiveness. Both his community and mine rely on a good transportation system as far as competitiveness, particularly for the automotive industry.

I am wondering if he could answer why it is so important that we get this right and that we give the time to study it properly, relative to our competitiveness internationally. I wonder if he could comment on how important it is to get this right.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the member for Oshawa, who is very well versed in the complications and challenges of the automotive industry. He well understood that on committee, and as a parliamentary secretary. For example, the movement of goods and services for supply, be it just-in-time delivery, but also the final products and how interrelated they are, multimodal, are very critical.

When we have the hearings related to the bill—and he was right to caution us on this—we will get a crossover of a lot of different things that are important. However, they may not get the heightened attention and the specific details they need. For example, a simple thing we would think would be easy to do is a rail tunnel between Windsor and Detroit. However, it does not allow for triple stackers for the automotive industry. For years, we have not been able to do proper shipments because the expansion of it is not there. If they run it through there, certain cargo may get destroyed. It is simple things like that.

We can only imagine constituencies like Oshawa that are still obviously very integrated to the auto industry. They need to make sure that transportation is an efficiency attraction for the investment, not a detraction, if the rail and other types of services do not provide for the easy and expedient access that they deserve.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to second the comment from the member for Oshawa, in terms of the member for Windsor West and the great knowledge he shares around consumer rights and protections. He has fought for capping merchant fees, for a gas ombudsman, and wireless competition to lower fees for consumers.

In the bill, it talks about raising the cap on foreign ownership from 25% to 49%, which was a recommendation in the Emerson report that the Liberals are supporting. However, the University of Manitoba research reports submitted in relation to the Emerson report concluded that there is no reliable evidence of a link between raising the foreign ownership cap and boosting competition. Would the member speak about that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question because the expectation is that by going to 49% we would increase competition. However, there should be in the bill, at the very least, measurables for that. There is no corroboration between the two in terms of increasing the foreign ownership. That is a real problem because there are so many anomalies with regard to who owns airlines and what they can have financially.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to what is essentially the government's omnibus transportation bill. Unfortunately, I will not be able to hit on all the points of what is contemplated in the bill because, frankly, there is too much. It changes laws having to do with everything from shipping to railways to the airlines. It changes a number of different acts, and with a number of different purposes in mind. It would have been better to break the bill up into its component pieces so that they could be studied properly and on theme, rather than trying to rush it all through at once.

I would remind members of the House that debate in this place is not just for the sake of opposition politicians, or even backbench MPs on the government side, wanting to talk a lot. When we are talking in the chamber, and during the time it takes to pass the bill, Canadians and civil society are also learning about the bill and forming a judgment about whether they think it is a good idea or not, and having the time to be able to mobilize, either in support or against aspects of the government program.

When we talk about criticizing omnibus bills, it is not just for the sake of members in the House who want to go on talking. While we talk about that bill, Canadians are talking about it too, and they are getting a chance to weigh in. They are able to contact us, and become, through us in this place, part of the debate. Therefore, when governments lump a whole bunch of significant changes together and ram them through Parliament, they are not just cutting out parliamentarians from that debate. That is the time it takes in order to have a meaningful, civil engagement with respect to changes.

Bill C-49 contemplates many significant changes in a number of different areas of transport within Canada. As someone who comes from a rail town, I am particularly concerned about the provisions that purport to be about railway safety. Actually, what they are about is supervising workers in the workplace and tramping on their right to privacy in the workplace. We know that in terms of railway safety, the predominant issue has to do with fatigue management. What we hear time and again from people who are working on the trains is that railway companies in Canada are doing a very poor job of fatigue management. We know that is having real consequences for Canadians and the extent to which they feel safe in their own communities.

A government that was genuinely sincere about wanting to do something about railway safety in the country would be taking action on the issue of fatigue management. However, that would require getting involved in telling the railway companies something they do not want to hear. What we have seen from the government is that it is not willing to stand up to big companies and tell them what they do not want to hear. That is certainly true of railway companies.

It is not only true of railway companies. It was true when Bay Street corporate magnates came to Parliament Hill and told the Liberals to break their promise on closing the CEO stock option loophole. It was true when Air Canada came knocking and said it wanted to be off the hook for when it broke the law and exported the maintenance work on its planes, which rightfully belonged to Canadian maintenance workers. The government retroactively changed the law, and shame on certain members of the House. I am thinking of some colleagues of mine from Winnipeg, particularly the member for Winnipeg North, who stood with those workers and said the previous government should enforce the law and then became part of a government that changed the law and pulled the carpet out from beneath the feet of those workers who were successfully challenging Air Canada in court.

It is a theme of the Liberals to play pushover to big companies. The provisions around railway safety in the bill are no different. The railway companies came to them and said, “Let's not talk about fatigue management. Let's talk about putting video and audio surveillance in the cabs of trains so that we can watch the workers”.

If the Liberals were sincere about making it a safety issue, there would be provisions in the bill that would say only the Transportation Safety Board would have access to those recordings, and only when something happened, so it could go back and find out what was the root cause of an incident and rule on that. Instead, the legislation would give that 24-7 surveillance material to the companies, any time they like, for whatever purpose they like. Therefore, it is hard to believe that this is really about railway safety when the government is silent on the real issue facing railways and railway communities when it comes to their safety, and is giving unfettered access to that material to employers who we know will be able to use that information for other purposes.

The other thing about omnibus bills is that, for as much as certain things that require more legislation and more study do not get that study, by mingling issues, some things where there is widespread agreement, for instance some of the provisions in the bill for grain producers on the Prairies, who in part because of the elimination of the Wheat Board now need a legislative fix in order for them to be able to get a fair price for shipping their grain, do not get passed as quickly as they might.

The problem with the legislation is that the Liberals took so long to take action on that particular issue, which was not a surprise and did not have to wait on developing. To the extent that the government was putting all these issues together, and it is not a very fulsome air passenger bill of rights, because it wanted to present it in an omnibus bill, the Liberals took far too long to address a real problem on the Canadian Prairies for grain growers.

Now we are going to have a gap between when the old rules were in place, as a bit of band-aid solution to be able to help those grain producers on the Prairies, and when these new rules come in. If the Liberals were not so committed to omnibus legislation, they could have introduced those measures separately. They would have found that there was enough agreement to be able to expedite passage of those provisions. On this side of the House, we care about western grain growers and we want to make sure that they can get a fair price for shipping their grain.

However, the Liberals wanted to tie all these issues together in order to be able to conflate the issues and say that opposition parties are opposing good pieces of legislation, or were supporting bad pieces of the legislation. It is all tied together. In other words, in order to cover their political behinds, Canadian grain producers are the ones who are going to suffer.

It is wrong of the government to ask Canadian grain growers to essentially pay for political cover for the government. That is a big part of what is going on here.

I just want to take a moment to thank the member for Windsor West, not only for sharing his time with me today but also for the work that he did on the air passenger bill of rights. He actually helped to develop a substantive air passenger bill of rights. I will also recognize one of my NDP predecessors for Elmwood—Transcona, Jim Maloway, who did good work on an air passenger bill of rights. He paved the way and presented a bill in the last Parliament that the now Minister of Transport actually supported. It took forever to produce and the changes that were necessary to actually protect consumers were spelled out in that legislation, a bill the Minister of Transport supported.

However, do we see the substance of that bill represented in this omnibus piece of legislation? No, we do not.

This is just how complicated omnibus legislation gets. Canadian grain growers were waiting for legislation to fix a legitimate problem the government knew about since it took office. The Liberals came up with a lame phantom version of an air passenger bill of rights that was already developed while they were really just having discussions with the railway on how to institute 24-7 surveillance, so that the railway companies could know about the issues that were being discussed in the workplace between workers who were members of the union and who wanted to file grievances or take up other issues with their employers.

That is how muddled it all gets when things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other are all rammed into the same bill. That is really what is going on with the bill. It is kind of a big tossed salad of different legislative measures, some of which the government probably could have found widespread agreement on and would have been able to advance quickly, and some of which is just sort of a hollow version of previous legislation that the Liberals have no excuse for having taken this long to get around to. Had they adopted more substantive provisions, they probably would have found more widespread agreement.

All of that is going on so that the Liberals can work with certain companies, and in this case I would say particular rail companies, in order to do something that has nothing to do with rail safety and everything to do with employers at the railway being able to put employees under their thumb. It is a travesty.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in a lot of what the hon. member had to say. I totally agree with him that 13 acts on three modes of transportation is ridiculous. One would think the Liberals do not care at all about Parliament and just want to ram the bill through. It is absolutely disgusting to see what is happening on such an important matter, whether it is air traffic, rail traffic, or whatever.

The member made some good points on safety. There has been no opportunity for good debate in this place, and that is what we are here for. We are here to talk about the safety of rail transportation, but I am more interested in the safety of the communities the railways go through and the safety of the people working on the railways. We are not being given the opportunity to speak. I will give a quick example and then ask my hon. friend to comment.

In my community, there are supertrains, large trains with grain bins, oil tankers, and containers. They go into small communities from one end of Canada to the other. They block crossings, and people cannot get to and from their communities, cannot get to hospitals, and cannot get to work, sometimes for hours on end, because the trains sit while waiting for another train going east or west. I wonder if the member would comment on that situation. I know it is happening in his and all members' ridings in this country, and it is a danger to Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that there is a lot to talk about when it comes to rail safety. The length of trains is certainly part of that. My father, who was in this place before me, has a long record of fighting for trains of appropriate length. It has been a tradition in Canada for trains to get longer and longer. That has an economic impact because for the goods that are not moving by train, it means significant delays. Safety is involved when people are delayed in getting to hospital. It is another example of successive Liberal and Conservative governments just not being willing to stand up to the railways to tell them they are changing their practices in ways that have serious negative effects on communities and they need to stop it, because they can still make money by running shorter trains. No one can tell us that it is not economically viable to run trains of a reasonable length.

Fatigue management is a serious issue. I spoke to that a little earlier. There are issues in my own backyard. In the community of Mission Gardens a new underpass was built and now the railway has unilaterally decided that it is going to start marshalling trains on the main line between the shops and the yards, which it never used to do. People who have lived in the community for 30 or 40 years are now saying they have cracked windows, cracks in their foundations, diesel fumes in their homes, pictures are falling of walls, and the government is not willing to tell the railway that it cannot make those kinds of unilateral decisions. Communities should not be forced to bear the consequences of the decisions that railways make in their own economic self-interest without regard to what is going on in communities.

It is high time we had a government in this country that is willing to play tough with the railways and let them know they are not the only ones using the land in Canada. People live by their tracks and the railways have to respect them.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having formerly been in the transportation industry for over 22 years, I have a lot of questions regarding Bill C-49. On the airline part of the bill, the bill does not specify what the compensation levels for passengers would be under the passenger bill of rights, and that causes concern.

There is something I have not seen in the bill, which I would like to ask my colleague about. Just a week ago, we were debating the Liberals' legalization of cannabis and I spoke at length about my concern of how that is going to impact the transportation sector. Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, is an omnibus bill and I have not seen anything with respect to drug use, drug policy, and specifically cannabis addressed. I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-point answer.

On the first issue he raised, one of the virtues of the legislation that the NDP proposed on an air passenger bill of rights was that it would stipulate what the penalty would be, that passengers who had their flights cancelled or could not get on their plane would be entitled to a full refund, and if the airline was not compliant, it would be a $1,000 penalty to passengers on top of the full refund. There are ways of doing this, which the Liberals who are now in government supported in the past, but they have simply decided not to include them.

He raises a fair point in saying that there are a lot of other moving pieces when it comes to government legislation. One of the virtues of giving time to study them is to ask those questions about how interrelated issues are addressed in difference pieces of legislation. If we had more time, then we could get into those kinds of questions in greater detail. As it is, I have not even talked about any of the shipping provisions in the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, they yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if you might find the consent of the House to see the clock at 1:30.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.