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.

[Greg Northey]

Agriculture is a bit unique, because we have what's called the maximum revenue entitlement, the MRE. Essentially, it's an entitlement for the railways on the revenue they can make for moving grain. It guarantees them a 20% rate of return or whatever on grain, but prevents them from charging monopoly prices, because they have the entitlements.

Cost is still an issue, at least for our members. Containerized movement has been pulled from the maximum revenue entitlement. That's one of the changes made in Bill C-49. We have seen some increases in rates for moving containerized grain as a result, because it's not protected under the maximum revenue entitlement.

Service in general for agriculture will be the number one issue, as opposed to rates. In the event the MRE disappears, we—

[Joel Neuheimer]

Thanks so much for the question.

For us, costs and service are both concerns. We actually asked for the same thing that Michael outlined in his presentation to be in Bill C-49, but the amendments we were asking for did not come through.

I'll let you know that right now, in our operations across Canada, northern Alberta is one of the biggest pain points. They're having a lot of trouble moving stuff by rail from places like Edmonton to Winnipeg. It's been that way for a number of months now, and we're not even into the serious winter conditions yet. What's going to happen in January and February? That makes us extremely anxious about how bad it might be again this winter.

Prince Rupert is definitely an option. We have members who ship through Prince Rupert already. Of course, CN is the only one that's there. It would help us if both railways were using the port.

I think it is a bit of a game of who is going to move first. Are terminals going to build up there to bring in more traffic, or are the railways going to invest there first? We need somebody to show some leadership there and make a move so that we can—

[Joel Neuheimer, Vice-President, International Trade and Transportation, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thanks very much for having me here on behalf of the members of the Forest Products Association of Canada, or FPAC.

FPAC is the voice of Canadian wood, pulp and paper producers nationally and internationally. The forest products industry generates $69 billion annually and contributes $21 billion to Canada's GDP. The industry is one of Canada's largest employers, operating in over 600 forest-dependent communities from coast to coast, and directly employing 230,000 Canadians across the country.

In 2017, our industry exported over $35 billion worth of goods to 180 countries. We heavily rely on Canada's supply chain to get our goods to market. We are the second-largest user of the rail system, transporting over 31 million tonnes by rail in 2017. We transport over 74.2 million tonnes by truck each year, which makes us one of the largest users of this system. Through ports, we ship approximately 31.2 million tonnes overseas.

The forest products industry is facing several challenges right now. Most importantly, the lack of reliable infrastructure to support our transportation system is estimated to cost our industry over $500 million a year.

Minister Garneau's 2030 transportation strategic plan is a step in the right direction, to help ensure that Canada has a long-term vision of what our transportation and infrastructure systems must look like. However, 2030 is fast approaching, and while some of the investments may well help in the future, forest products are still feeling the effects of the 2017-18 freight rail crisis, and we fear the same will happen this year. Months after the crisis, fulfillment levels are still low in our sector. With winter fast approaching, our members are concerned that they will have to shut down mills.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the Canadian railways have done in recent months to add more capacity to the system. Unfortunately, there is still great concern across Canada in our business that it will not be enough.

We need to revitalize the Pacific gateway initiative, and FPAC looks forward to seeing the benefits of the investments made through the trade corridors fund. FPAC also looks forward to the quick implementation of the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership.

Canada needs to avoid taking sector-specific approaches to transportation usage. We know that Minister Garneau recently met with representatives of the grain and agriculture sector, and FPAC believes these types of meetings should be held with all sectors together.

With the implementation of Bill C-49, Canada has an opportunity to strengthen its legislation and regulations to make rail rates and service more competitive for railway customers.

FPAC hopes that with the new own-motion power granted to the Canadian Transportation Agency, or CTA, through Bill C-49, more investigations into rail issues will be done, with the support of Minister Garneau.

Rail, however, is not the only mode that currently has negative effects on the Canadian transportation system. For the past couple of years, Canada has faced and continues to face a severe truck driver shortage, which has caused the cost of this mode to rise dramatically. With the rail issue already prominent, the need for trucks is higher than ever, yet most times our members cannot get the service they need.

Federal and provincial governments need to do more to ease the truck driver shortage, for example via immigration and training. To help ease the truck driver shortage crisis in Canada and the U.S., FPAC recommends harmonizing weights and dimensions across Canada and eliminating cabotage rules.

In the final point of the supply chain, current congestion and bottlenecks at ports are increasing delivery times and costs for the forest products industry, specifically at places such as the port of Vancouver. Our second-largest market is China; therefore, the industry heavily relies on this port to get our product to Asia. Enhanced performance metrics, expanding B.C. ports and other opportunities along the B.C. coast, including the implementation of short-sea shipping where needed, will help with these challenges.

On dangerous goods, we need to maintain a risk-based approach.

FPAC also believes it is important for the federal government to provide a mandate for safety-sensitive workplaces, such as the transportation sector and ours, to be able to test employees in relation to the legalization of cannabis.

Finally, labour stoppages are an issue over which our members have to be extremely vigilant in order to prepare for delays and added costs. FPAC asks the government to include railways and ports as an essential service, ensuring that service will continue even during a strike.

In conclusion, we need to do more and have a better-defined vision of the infrastructure we need going forward, now and for the future.

Recently, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Innovation, Navdeep Bains, announced a report called “Resources of the Future”. Within this report, it is recommended that Canada have a 50-year Canadian strategic infrastructure plan.

[Greg Northey, Director, Industry Relations, Pulse Canada]

Thank you very much, committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Pulse Canada is the national industry association that represents over 35,000 growers and 132 processors and exporters of peas, lentils, beans and chickpeas. Canada is the world's largest producer and exporter of peas and lentils, accounting for over one third of global pulse trade. Approximately 80% of Canadian pulse production is exported to over 100 markets, and the value of the industry's exports exceeded $3.5 billion in 2017.

The Canadian pulse industry has set ambitious growth targets that focus on the incremental use of 25% of production, so about two million tonnes, in new markets or for new uses by 2025. Referred to as “25 by 2025”, this target will seek to capture the significant volume opportunities for pulses that exist in the food industries around the world, particularly North America, western Europe and China. Capturing these markets will be essential if we are to retain our standing as a world-leading producer. The significant economic, employment and processing innovation benefits that the industry brings also rely on capturing these markets.

Improving supply chain efficiency and performance is a key pillar of the sector's long-term strategy, as effective transportation is a significant determinant of export competitiveness in global markets. As noted in the 2015 CTA review report, “In a world of massive and complex webs of interconnectedness, the quality of transportation and logistics systems may be the single greatest contributor to a country’s economic performance.”

The pulse and special crops sector is particularly sensitive to this sentiment, as we are the most multimodal grain crop in western Canada, with product moving in box cars, hopper cars, intermodal vans and marine containers. In fact, 40% of our exports through Vancouver are containerized. When supply chains fail and logistics, reliability and predictability disappear, as we saw this past winter and in 2013-14, transportation costs increase, suboptimal economic decisions become the norm, and stable, long-term growth opportunities with international customers become difficult.

According to the World Bank, Canada ranks 20th on the 2018 global logistics performance index, a tool that was created to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in the performance on trade logistics. Canada has dropped eight spots since 2014. On key indicators such as quality of infrastructure, timeliness of shipments, and the ability to track and trace consignments, Canada falls out of the top 20 countries. There is clearly room for improvement for Canada, which demonstrates that this committee's study on the Canadian transportation and logistics strategy is both timely and essential. Improving transportation and logistics is a tremendous opportunity to improve competitiveness for our sector and the Canadian economy as a whole. If effective, the strategy can set Canada down the path to become a world leader in logistics performance and infrastructure excellence, and our goal should be to become a top performer on the World Bank logistics performance index.

As you've heard from several witnesses today, a data-driven approach for any strategy will be essential. For our sector, the logistics system required to get pulse from the field to international markets, to customers and the store shelves, has a wide array of challenges, not the least of which is how to ensure complete visibility in the performance of these complex supply chains. Within months, the regulatory process required by Bill C-49 will begin to identify the service and performance metrics to be collected on the freight rail supply chain.

By establishing the right outcomes for this study, the committee can help guide Transport Canada and all stakeholders to ensure that these new regulations place Canada at the forefront of digital data management and real-time supply chain visibility that supports the competitiveness of Canadian exporters. We have to move beyond reviews of the Canada Transportation Act every eight to 10 years and legislative interventions when the system is in crisis. To do that, we need a data-driven supply chain that improves logistics and guides infrastructure spending continuously. This is by far the best way to do this, as it supports both commercial interaction between supply chain players and legislative efforts from government.

I'll leave it there. Thanks.

[Michael O'Shaughnessy]

I just won't look at you, then.

Madam Chair, members of the committee and fellow witnesses, good afternoon, and thank you for inviting Teck to participate.

My name is Mike O'Shaughnessy, and I'm the director of logistics for Teck Resources, headquartered in Vancouver. Teck is here to address concerns over Canadian competitiveness in reaching export markets.

Teck is a Canadian diversified resource company that exports steelmaking coal, copper, zinc and energy. We employ nearly 8,000 people across the country. We are Canada's single-largest rail user, spending over $600 million annually. We're Canadian Pacific Railway's biggest customer, and a leading exporter to key markets, particularly Asia.

Over the last five years, Teck has exported over $20 billion in products from our Canadian operations to China, Japan, South Korea, India and other Pacific markets. With improved transportation and logistics infrastructure, Teck's export potential also improves, and that supports jobs for Canadians and generates economic activity where we operate.

I would now like to highlight additional steps to improve Canada's rail freight competitiveness and ensure the competitiveness of Pacific coast ports.

Our primary rail recommendation relates to shipper remedies and the need for a sufficient rail data regime that would empower the Canadian Transportation Agency to effectively deliver costing determinations under final offer arbitration. With the recent changes to the Canada Transportation Act, we understand that the agency's mandate requires it to request information in order to conduct costing determinations.

We recommend that the agency clearly confirm that it does in fact receive non-aggregated costing information, and that it does so without being impaired by any public body within the Government of Canada, the railways, or any other person.

Also, we have ongoing transparency concerns that the amended Canada Transportation Act does not compel the agency to disclose details around its costing model or information regarding its processes or methodology for regulatory costing. Simply put, there is no transparency on how the agency determines costs. This contrasts sharply with the regulatory system in the United States.

The U.S. Surface Transportation Board publishes details online respecting the uniform rail costing system, its system for determining railroad costs. We recommend that the government consider adopting a similar data transparency mechanism so that the Canadian Transportation Agency is required to make its costing model processes and methodologies publicly available.

Last, on rail issues, we remain concerned about whether railways are fulfilling their service obligations by taking into account the railway company and the shippers' operational requirements and restrictions. The language that became law under Bill C-49 does not reflect the reality that in connection with the service that a railway may offer, it is the railway that decides the resources it will provide. Those decisions include the purchasing of assets, the hiring of labour and the building of infrastructure. Any of those decisions could result in one or more restrictions. As those restrictions are determined unilaterally by the railway, it is not appropriate that they be used as a goalpost in an agency determination. As such, we recommend making the restrictions themselves subject to review.

The second area I will highlight relates to Canada's support for infrastructure competitiveness. Similar to rail monopolies in Canada, I have serious concerns about the non-competitive business environment of Canadian ports. On Canada's Pacific coast, there are only two publicly accessible major export points for steelmaking coal: Westshore Terminals, located here, and the federally owned Ridley Terminals, in Prince Rupert.

With the potential divestiture of Ridley Terminals, we are concerned about the possibility that both Pacific coast terminals would be owned or operated by a single entity. If both Pacific coast terminals were to fall into the same hands, our cost competitiveness, service levels and reputation would erode even further. We recommend a sale process that is fair, competitive and transparent, and that results in reasonable rates, service levels and open access.

I would like to thank the committee once again for the opportunity to appear before you today and for undertaking this important study. Given the limited time for my remarks, I invite you to read Teck's written brief, which outlines our position in much greater detail.

Thank you. I look forward to the questions.

[Andy Gibbons]

There's a big educational component about ultra low-cost carriers, too, because it is new to Canada. It is something the government sought in Bill C-49. The government sought to bring in foreign investors to fill that market need. We have filled that market need. We'll just leave that to the side.

Swoop is not integrated with the WestJet network. It is point to point. It's a separate reservation system. You don't buy a Swoop ticket from Abbotsford to Hamilton and then connect on to the WestJet mainline to Halifax.

There was an experience of another Canadian carrier around the new carrier they created, so I think some lessons were learned by us there, but it is a very precise, very specific model, and it's new to Canada.

[Andy Gibbons]

That's a very good question. There are a few different parts there.

With respect to security funding, we have always advocated that the money collected from the air travellers security charge be directly allocated to screening services at Canada's airports. That doesn't currently happen. That money does go to other places. The vast majority does go to screening. I don't want to give the wrong impression, but there is an element that does not. We have requested that it be directly tied, given that it is the user-pay model.

On the issue of cost recovery for CATSA services, there were two elements in Bill C-49. One allowed larger airports to top up, and the other allowed smaller airports to basically purchase those services. Until we fix the element that I discussed first, we don't like that trend line. If there are services the government provides to other sectors that are from the public purse, the trend line of cost recovery is a concerning one, and it should be particularly concerning when it comes to regional travel.

Your third part was about regional travel in Quebec. That's been challenging for us. We recently announced that we were ceasing service between Montreal and Quebec City. That is not typical for our company. Typically, when we launch regional service, the fares come down up to 50% and the overall market stimulates up to 70%. That has been true in most of the country. It was not true for that route. We also discontinued another one. The expansion there did not go so well. We never want to do that, but it is a very challenging market for our company.

[James Given]

When you look at the differences, the Great Lakes are the greatest difference. It's the confined waters, the spaces that we operate in, and then if you look at the Arctic, it's the harsh conditions that our seafarers would work in there. The United States is different in that they have the Jones Act, which is the gold standard in cabotage.

In Canada now, with our cabotage regime, and coming through some of the issues with Bill C-49 and making sure that we have everything in place to maintain our cabotage, we've launched an initiative of over $2 million to train our seafarers to make sure that they are the best in the world and that they operate within the confined waters of Canada to the best of their ability.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a few questions for Mr. Hamilton.

Since the passage of Bill C-49, port authorities can receive funding from the Bank of Canada, but for projects over $100 million, if my memory serves me well. I have two questions about this.

Is funding from the Canada Infrastructure Bank a good approach for ports?

Isn't there a risk of a two-tier system? Not all ports are of the same importance or budget. Some can fund projects worth more than $100 million, but others have smaller, but equally important projects.

[Sandra LaFortune]

I'll begin by making a few opening remarks. In the time remaining, we all would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. I should note as well that we have provided four background documents, as per your request, to support your study.

Minister Garneau's transportation 2030 vision is a good starting point for our discussion. With transportation 2030, the minister is delivering on his commitment to create a safe, secure, green, innovative and integrated transportation system that supports trade and economic growth, a cleaner environment and the well-being of Canadians and their families. Transportation 2030 sets out the government's strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada and is a reflection of what we heard directly from Canadians during extensive cross-Canada consultations.

In moving forward with this strategic plan, we are seeking to identify opportunities to enhance the traveller experience; remain vigilant to our fundamental responsibility to ensure a safe and secure transportation system; use innovative technologies to reduce the system's environmental impacts and build the transportation system of the future; protect our waterways, coasts and northern areas and build our reputation as a world-leading maritime and Arctic nation; and ensure that the transportation system enables Canada's trade and economic objectives. You'll note in the background information circulated that these goals align with the five core themes of transportation 2030.

The government is taking action on a number of fronts to help bring the transportation 2030 vision to fruition. For example, in May 2018, the Transportation Modernization Act—formerly Bill C-49—was approved by Parliament, and the implementation of initiatives like the oceans protection plan and the port modernization review continues. Together, these and related initiatives aim to address the needs for the future of transportation in Canada. In the context of our appearance before you today, we know that these needs include cost-effective, reliable and timely transportation access to global markets so as to enhance our trade competitiveness and ultimately grow Canada's economy.

Making strategic and cost-shared investments in trade-related transportation infrastructure has been central in our efforts to achieve this goal over the last 10 years. A key distinction of Canada's approach, which has since been emulated by other countries, is that it is multimodal and based on systems rather than on the performance or capacity of individual modes of transportation separately.

This approach mirrors the way in which businesses approach the physical movement of imports and exports from their starting points to their ultimate destinations. It also recognizes that changes or improvements at one point within our integrated transportation network can have far-reaching impacts on the performance and capacity of the system overall.

Being strategic, we aim to align our investments to improve access to priority and high-growth markets. The background information concerning the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor transportation infrastructure fund highlights some of the progress we have achieved in western Canada over the last decade. The update on the trade and transportation corridors initiative, or the TTCI, outlines how we are building on our best practices and lessons learned over the past decade to address the needs for the future of the trade-related transportation system in Canada.

Rather than repeat all the details included in the TTCI reference document that we prepared, it may be more useful to briefly provide you with a sense of where we are today. In the context of the national trade corridors fund, which is the core of the trade and transportation corridors initiative, Minister Garneau and the Government of Canada have so far announced federal investments of nearly $760 million in trade and transportation infrastructure projects across the country. These are cost-shared with other levels of government and the private sector.

The reference document provides examples of projects that support import and export flows with established and high-growth markets, recognize the need to strengthen the climate resilience of transportation infrastructure and support the unique transportation needs of Canada's territories, support safety and improved traffic flow for both cargo and residents—particularly around Canada's largest ports—and are based on collaboration with and among infrastructure owners, authorities and other levels of government to help maximize the scale, scope and impact of our investments.

While collaboration with stakeholders provides valuable insight into where public and private infrastructure needs or bottlenecks exist, Transport Canada has also invested significantly to establish an objective evidence base to help inform and quantify trade-related transportation infrastructure issues. This past year, the department, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, established the Canadian centre on transportation data, an open portal for multimodal transportation data and performance measures. The trade and transportation corridors initiative background document provides more details on future plans in this area.

Innovation and new technologies will continue to shape transportation infrastructure needs and uses. Within the context of the TTCI, Transport Canada is undertaking targeted actions in the areas of connected and automated vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aircraft systems. A central goal of this work is to ensure their safe deployment and use. In the context of transportation infrastructure, for example, future uses could include long-range infrastructure inspections and, over the long term, perhaps even carrying cargo and passengers. From a road transportation perspective, the uses of connected and automated vehicles are both promising and likely disruptive.

I will conclude my remarks at this point. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have, and we look forward to a more interactive discussion.

Thank you.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69, in front of us today, has a lot of different changes to current acts of Parliament, but also introduces new acts of Parliament. While I support one of the principles in the bill, which is the “one project, one assessment” process for major natural resource projects, there are too many problems with this bill for me to support it.

In particular, I want to focus on the new impact assessment act that the bill creates. First and foremost, the bill will not streamline, and make quicker, assessments for projects designated to be included in the project list. While the government says that the proposed impact assessment act would reduce the current legislated timelines for reviewing projects from 365 days to a maximum of 300 days for assessments led by the new review agency, and from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days for assessments led by a review panel, it is failing to acknowledge that while these timelines are shorter, the new legislation also introduces a planning phase ahead of an assessment led by either the review agency or the review panel. That planning phase can last up to 180 days.

In fact, this legislation will actually increase the amount of time that it takes for major natural resource projects to be reviewed under a federal environmental assessment. Furthermore, while the timelines put in place for the actual impact assessment are shorter, the timelines in the current legislation in front of the House can be extended by the Minister of Environment and by the cabinet, repeatedly.

There is nothing in this legislation to suggest that the process by which we review proposed projects will be shorter, in fact it suggests that it is actually going to be longer. The legislation in front of us will not actually lead to more efficient and less costly assessments for companies looking to invest in Canada's natural resource sector. In fact, the evidence in the bill is that it is going to be much more expensive for companies to make these applications, because the government has proposed to substantially expand the number of criteria that the review agency or review panel has to take into consideration when it is assessing a project. It does not just have to take into account environmental factors. It now also has to take into account health, social, and economic impacts, as well as impacts on other issues, and these impacts over the long term.

When we take into account this vastly expanded criteria and that it is vastly expanded over the long term, it is clear that companies are going to have to spend a lot more money preparing for these applications and working through the application process.

Proposed subsection 22 of the impact assessment act lists more than 20 factors that have to be considered in assessing the impact of a designated project. For example, there is a reference to sustainability and to the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. These are just some of the added criteria that the government has added to the process, which is just going to increase the cost and complexity for proponents. It is not only going to be a much longer process for proponents to go through; it is also going to be a much costlier process.

This is a big problem, because we have a problem in Canada with attracting, not just domestic but foreign investment for natural resource projects. In fact, Statistics Canada recently, this past spring, highlighted that there has been the biggest drop in foreign direct investment into this country in eight years. Last year saw the deepest plunge in foreign investment in this country since the deep, dark days of 2010, when we were just coming out of the recession of 2009 caused by the global financial crisis of 2008.

We have seen a massive plunge in foreign direct investment, a massive drop in investors willing to invest in Canadian companies. In fact, last year, for the second year in a row, we saw more foreign selling of Canadian companies than purchasing of Canadian companies. This has led to a drop in investments, particularly in the oil sector, with the commensurate drop in jobs and growth.

However, there is another problem with the bill that I want to highlight, which has to do with the designated project list. In other words, there is a problem in how certain projects get designated for an environmental assessment and how other projects do not. It remains to be seen with the proposed legislation whether or not the government will get it right in regulation.

Earlier this year, the government announced that it was going to undertake consultations with a view to help revise the regulations concerning the designated projects list. The Liberals said they would be coming forward with new regulations under the proposed act, and I hope they read the Hansard transcript tonight of the debates here in the House of Commons to ensure that our input is incorporated if the bill does pass in these new regulations.

The problem is one of inequity and unfairness from a whole range of perspectives. If a mine is proposed in western Canada, let us say in Alberta, under both the pre-2012 rules and the current 2012 rules, and potentially under the proposed legislation, it would undergo a federal environmental assessment. However, if that same mine was proposed in southern Ontario, mines that we often call “gravel pits” or “quarries”, it would not undergo a federal environmental assessment.

I will give members an example of this. In 2011, a mega-quarry was proposed in southern Ontario by an American company that had acquired over 2,500 acres of prime farmland in Dufferin County. That American company had acquired the equivalent of 10 square kilometres of land to build an open pit mine. Under the pre-2012 rules and the 2012 rules, and potentially under this proposed legislation, the federal government said that it did not require a federal environmental assessment, yet if that same 10 square kilometre mine was proposed in Alberta, let us say an open pit bitumen mine, a federal environmental assessment most certainly would have been required. This is an example of the unfairness of the current and potentially the proposed system the federal government has.

If one builds a mine to extract iron ore or bitumen in western Canada, one would undergo a federal environmental assessment, but if the same mine is proposed in southern Ontario, then do not worry, the government will turn a blind eye and not have it undergo that federal environmental assessment. Therefore, it is not just treating one sector of the economy different from another, the oil and gas sector, or the iron ore sector compared with the aggregate sector, but it is also treating one region of the country differently from another, and that is not fair. I hope that the government, in undertaking these consultations, takes that into account.

It is also not fair to the environment when a 10 square kilometre open pit mega-quarry is proposed for southern Ontario, which would have plunged 200 feet deep and pumped 600 million litres of fresh water out of the pit each and every day. It should undergo the same federal environmental assessment that a mine of similar size would undergo in western Canada. It should undergo that, because in southern Ontario we have the most dense biosphere in the entire country. There is all the more need to protect this dense biosphere, which is under greater threat than any other part of the country largely due to the growing urban populations we see in the Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa, Windsor, and Toronto corridor.

I hope the government's yet to be created project list, whether it is based on the current legislation or the proposed legislation, treats all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country fairly, and I hope the department is incorporating this input as it comes forward with new regulations.

There is yet another problem with the proposed legislation before the House, and it plays into a broader pattern of the government, and that is of political interference. As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton just pointed out, the proposed legislation would allow the minister a veto power over natural resource project applications. This is unprecedented in this country. Until the Liberal government came to power, not a single natural resource project had been rejected or approved by the federal cabinet before the federal environmental assessment process had been completed, and not a single federal environmental assessment process had been overruled by federal cabinet.

In other words, up until this government, the federal cabinet accepted every single recommendation coming out of a federal environmental review process over the many decades that it was in place. The current government's rejection of the northern gateway pipeline was the first time the federal cabinet had stopped the process for the review of a major natural resource project before allowing that process to be completed and before allowing the cabinet to accept fully the recommendations of that process.

Here, in this legislation, we see a repeat of that pattern. They are proposing to give the minister a veto power. Before an impact assessment can begin, the minister will have the power not to conduct an assessment if the minister believes the proposed project would cause unacceptable effects. That is so broad a criteria that a person could drive a Mack truck through that. There again we see the politicization of processes that were once arm's length, quasi-judicial, and left to the professional public service.

Another example of this politicization of what was once performed by the professional public service, by quasi-judicial entities is Bill C-49. Bill C-49 gives the Minister of Transport a political veto over a review of joint ventures by an airline. Up to Bill C-49, and for many years, any airline that wanted to enter into a joint venture had to undergo a review by one of the premier law enforcement agencies in the world, the Competition Bureau, to ensure that there were no anti-competitive results from a joint venture. In fact, when Air Canada proposed a joint venture with United Airlines some years ago, the Competition Bureau said no to the original proposal for that joint venture and said they had to pull out of that joint venture a number of cross-border routes because they would be deleterious to competition, and because it would increase prices for consumers and for businesses across Canada.

What the current government has done through Bill C-49, which it rammed through the House and Senate, is it has given the Minister of Transport the ability to veto that process through a broad definition of public interest to bypass the Competition Bureau's review of a joint venture, and to rubber-stamp a joint venture in the interests of the airline and against the competition interests of consumers in this country. With the recent passage of Bill C-49, Air Canada has announced a joint venture with Air China. I do not think that is any coincidence.

Thus, there are just a few examples of how the government is politicizing the process for law enforcement of our competition laws for the review of major natural resource projects that no previous government has ever done.

Finally, I want to critique the Liberal government's general approach to environmental issues. The Liberals have created a climate of uncertainty. On pipeline approvals, they have created uncertainty. That is why Kinder Morgan has announced that it is pulling out of Canada and why it sold its assets to the Government of Canada. They have created a climate of uncertainty in the business community. That is why, as I previously mentioned, Statistics Canada, this spring, reported that foreign investment into Canada plunged last year to its lowest level in eight years. There has been an exodus of capital from the country's oil and gas sector. Statistics Canada reports that capital flows dropped for a second year in a row last year, and are down by more than half since 2015. Net foreign purchases by foreign businesses of Canadian businesses are now less than sales by those foreign businesses, meaning that foreign companies sold more Canadian businesses than they bought.

On climate change, they have created a great deal of uncertainty.

The Liberals came with big fanfare with their price on carbon, but they have only priced it out to $50 per tonne to 2022. They have not announced what happens after 2022. We are four short years away from 2022, and businesses and consumers need the certainty of what happens after 2022.

Furthermore, the Liberals have created uncertainty because $50 per tonne does not get us to our Paris accord targets. In fact, last autumn the Auditor General came forward with a report saying that Canada will not meet its Paris accord targets of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 with the $50-per-tonne target. He estimated that we are some 45 megatonnes short of the target.

The Liberals have created uncertainty with their climate change policy because they have been inconsistent on climate change policy. They are inconsistent with how they treat one sector of the economy versus another. For example, they demand that projects in the oil and gas sector take into account both upstream and downstream emissions, while not requiring projects in other sectors of the economy to do the same.

They are inconsistent with climate change policy in the way they treat one region of the country versus another. The Auditor General's report from a week ago, report 4, highlights the inconsistency in the way they treat central Canadians versus the way they treat westerners.

For example, the Liberals tell western Canadian oil and gas producers that climate change impacts need to be part of the approval process of any major natural resource project, and yet they turn around and one of the first decisions they make as a government is to waive the tolls on the new federal bridge in Montreal, a $4-billion-plus bridge. The Auditor General reported, in report 4 last week, that waiving the tolls will result in a 20% increase in vehicular traffic over that bridge, from 50 million to 60 million cars and trucks a year, an additional 10 million vehicles crossing that bridge every year, with the attendant greenhouse gases and pollution that this entails.

The Liberals tell companies and Canadians on one side of the country that they have to take into account greenhouse gas emissions when they propose a new project in the oil and gas sector, but when the government builds a brand new federal bridge in Montreal for $4 billion-plus, it is not going to take into account those greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it will waive the tolls, which is going to lead to a 20% jump in traffic, with the attendant greenhouse gas emissions that this entails.

Finally, the Liberals have created a climate of uncertainty by their failure to realize that our income taxes are too high. The government talks a good game about the environment and the economy, but the facts speak otherwise. They blew a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reduce corporate and personal income taxes. They failed to seize the opportunity of using the revenues generated by the price of carbon to drive down our high corporate and personal income taxes. They also failed to seize the opportunity to reform our income tax system to reduce its complexity and its distortive nature.

Our system was reformed in 1971 by the government of Pierre Trudeau. It was reformed again in 1986 by the government of Brian Mulroney. It has been over 30 years since we have had any significant income tax reform to our personal income tax system or our corporate income tax system, and the Liberals blew the chance to do it, even though they promised to take a look at tax reform in their very first budget.

The government talks a good game on the environment and the economy, but the facts say otherwise. It is a story of a missed opportunity, and that is why I cannot support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about some of the deficiencies of the bill. Then I would like to talk a bit more about a general pattern of behaviour that the bill fits into, which is problematic in and of itself.

With respect to the bill, Canadians were upset with the previous government and its approach to environmental assessment, if we can call it that. The previous government really gutted the existing environmental assessment process. The key feature of that gutting in my opinion and the opinion of many Canadians across the country was that the Harper government essentially made the final approval of large natural resource projects a political decision at the cabinet table. It became a decision that was not inherently tied to evidence, to science, to predictable impacts with respect to the effect of these projects on the climate. It was not tied to the rights of indigenous peoples to have a say over what happens on their own land. It was simply a political decision to be taken by cabinet. Therefore, one would think that a party that ran against the Harper Conservatives, in part because the latter had gutted environmental assessments and the Liberals committed to Canadians in the election that they would fix that, would have to address the issue of that approval becoming essentially just a prerogative of the government to make according to its own reasons.

The problem with Bill C-69 is that after waiting well over two years for the government to present its fix to the Harper approach to approving these projects, the bill does not in fact do that. It maintains the absolute prerogative of the government to plow ahead, irrespective of the facts, the science on a particular project, or the views of many first nations that may be affected by a particular project. To me, that is a clear and obvious deficiency in the legislation. It does not meet the commitment the Liberals made in the last election to Canadians who are really concerned about this issue. One of the clearest and most obvious things those Canadians wanted was to try to depoliticize the approval process for many of these projects and to have decisions based on science and evidence. It was not to allow the government a choice as to whether or not to go along with the science and the evidence, but to bake it into the process so that the government would not have a choice other than make decisions based on that evidence, or to have an independent body make that decision based on that evidence and science. That is a clear deficiency with the bill, and one that is very disappointing.

With regard to the rights of indigenous people being respected in the approval of these kinds of projects, my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, presented a number of amendments that would not have put that commitment in the preamble alone, which is what the government ultimately decided to do. The government's decision to put that commitment in the preamble gives us a measure of how strong its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples really is, because the preamble is non-binding. That, of course, is the kind of commitment that Liberals seem to prefer, the non-binding ones. That was evidenced in their rejection of a number of amendments that would have given UNDRIP real force and effect in the environmental review process. Putting that commitment in the preamble does not give UNDRIP real effect. They are nice words, but they do not get the job done when we have a government that is not interested in respecting the rights of indigenous people. What indigenous people needed was something with the force of law that they could take to court when the government trampled on their rights. The Liberals opted not to do that, and it really does not do it a service to say that it was a missed opportunity.

It is wrong for them not to have done that. It is wrong in principle, but it is also wrong in light of the commitment they just made in voting in support of Bill C-262 last week, which is essentially all about trying to implement UNDRIP within Canadian law. It is wrong, according to the claims of the Prime Minister, who often says that the nation-to-nation relationship is one of the most important relationships.

In light of all those things, it was clearly wrong for the government to do that.

It is part of a theme on a number of files within the government, where the attitude is that we should just trust the government. The government admits there is a lot of discretion, but it says discretion allows it to do the right thing, and it wants to do the right thing. It does not think it has to put the right thing in law or require itself to do the right thing, because it really wants to do it, so we should just take its word for it. That is what is happening with Bill C-69. That is what it means to maintain ministerial prerogative to decide on a project regardless of the evidence.

We heard the minister say something to that effect in the debate on time allocation earlier, when she said that the government cares about science and evidence and therefore it does not need to put a requirement in the law to make decisions based on science and evidence. She said that if we wait and look at the decisions the government makes, we will see, in hindsight, that they were based on science and evidence.

I do not think that this is what Canadians were asking for when they elected a government that said it was going to create a new process based on science and evidence. It is a bad way of making law. It means that a future government that comes in will not be required to do that, just as the current government is not.

Frankly, I do not think the Liberals are really committed, in many cases, to evidence-based decision-making. They would not have bought a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for far more than it is worth if they were actually serious about making information-based decisions. We could go down that road, but even if we do not, it is very clear that if one's commitment is to build a good process, this process should not rely on the goodwill of the government of the day. It should be a process that requires the government of the day to do the right thing, notwithstanding who is in power. This bill obviously fails that test.

We saw something similar with Bill C-49 with respect to voice and video recording devices in locomotives. The government said that we need not worry because it has no interest in invading the privacy rights of workers, and that it would look after it, but without putting it into law; it would just put it in regulations. The government asked us, when voting on the legislation, to trust that it would do the right thing later in regulation.

Never mind the fact that even if the current government does the right thing, and we have not seen that yet, it is still up to some future government to simply change the regulations by order in council without coming to Parliament, because it is not in the law. I do not think the government has done any great favour to workers in that industry by setting up a law that could be so easily abused.

We have seen a similar thing from the government when it comes to approving funding for all its new budget initiatives for 2018-19. It is asking for approval of over $7 billion up front. Department officials and ministers have been very clear in committee that they do not actually have a plan for the money yet. They do not know what they are going to do with that money yet. They have not designed the program, and it has not been to the Treasury Board. They do not know how many people they are going to hire. They do not know whether they will build a building, rent an office, or use existing space. They do not know if they will be travelling across the country. The government does not know what it is going to be spending the money on, but its answer is clear: We should just trust it that things are going to work out and that everything will be okay.

Canadians are looking to the government for leadership on a number of issues, whether it be fiscal responsibility, or being open and accountable, or the very important issues that Bill C-69 is at least nominally meant to address. I have given some indication that I am not convinced it actually addresses those issues.

Regardless of the issue, when Canadians are looking for leadership, they are looking for legislation that holds the government to account. If the government of the day is sincere in giving its word, it should not mind being held to a higher standard, allowing Canadians to test that in court if they have to. Hopefully it will not come to that and the government will keep its word, which remains to be seen.

Canadians deserve to have the tools to hold the government to its word. They also deserve to have future governments bound by those things. At the very least, if a future government wants to change that, it should have to come to Parliament to make the case to Canada's elected representatives, instead of being able to do it fly-by-night through regulation. That is the problem with Bill C-69.

Rail Transportation

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member that we get it. On this side of the House, our government listened to Canadian farmers. Our government continues to support Canadian farmers through Bill C-49, which my hon. colleague voted against.

We have taken action for our farmers and for all rail users. The new and updated measures provide shippers across the country with tools that will lead to a more effective, reliable, and transparent rail transportation system for the benefit of all users. These changes are not just about today and tomorrow. They are about a long-term vision for Canada, one that moves our goods to market effectively and efficiently to support jobs, trade, and economic growth.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the rail transportation challenges faced this year by farmers and shippers of multiple commodities, including grain. That is why we took action to ensure that railways had a plan in place to recover their service levels and to get grain flowing to market. We wrote to the railways, requesting their plans for restoring service levels, and we have since sustained improvements in the system. We continue to monitor rail performance to ensure that service improvements continue and are sustained over the long term and that the farmers and shippers are able to get their goods to their consumers.

Last year we introduced Bill C-49, because our government is taking action to resolve systematic challenges, not just for this year but for the decades to come. Unlike the Band-Aid solution put in place by the Harper Conservatives, which had an expiry date, we put in place long-term solutions to address challenges facing the freight-rail transportation system and its users. We held extensive consultation with stakeholders from a variety of industries across Canada, including the grain sector. We listened to stakeholders, we heard their concerns, and we came up with a bill that responds to the needs of rail system users across the country. The new and updated measures in Bill C-49 would provide important tools for the grain sector and rail shippers. These include the ability to apply penalties to railway companies who do not fulfill their engagements. The bill also introduces long-haul interswitching, a measure that would increase access to rail services, increase competition among rail companies, and provide more shipping options for grain farmers.

With all these good measures that would directly help our grain farmers, I was disappointed to see that the Harper Conservatives, including the member opposite, voted against this bill. I hope that in future they will put aside their partisan games and work with us to better our transportation system for all our farmers.

Report Stage

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the House, on Wednesday, May 30, at 8:45. I should mention that that is 8:45 p.m., for the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who I am sure are tuning in. To all my constituents, good evening.

We are debating this evening because the Liberal government tabled very few significant government bills over the winter. Instead, they tabled an astounding number of private members' bills on things like swallows' day and beauty month. Sometimes my colleagues and I can hardly help laughing at this pile of utterly trivial bills. I also think that this process of randomly selecting the members who get to table bills is a bit past its prime. Maybe it should be reviewed. At the same time, I understand that it is up to each member to decide what kind of bill is important to him or her.

The reason we have had to sit until midnight for two days now is that, as my colleague from Perth—Wellington said, the government has been acting like a typical university student over the past three months. That comparison is a bit ridiculous, but it is true. The government is behaving like those students who wait until the last minute to do their assignments and are still working on them at 3 a.m. the day before they are due because they were too busy partying all semester. Members know what I mean, even though that paints a rather stereotypical picture of students; most of them do not do things like that.

In short, we have a government that, at the end of the session, has realized that time is running out and that it only has three weeks left to pass some of its legislative measures, some of which are rather lengthy bills that are key to the government's legislative agenda. One has to wonder about that.

The Liberals believe these bills to be important. However, because of their lack of responsibility over the past three months, we were unable to debate these major bills that will make significant changes to our society. Take for example, Bill C-76, which has to do with the electoral reforms that the Liberals want to make to the voting system, the way we vote, protection of the vote, and identification. There is also Bill C-49 on transportation in Canada, a very lengthy bill that we have not had time to examine properly.

Today we are debating Bill C-57 on sustainable development. This is an important topic, but for the past three years I have been getting sick and tired of seeing the Liberal government act as though it has a monopoly on environmental righteousness. I searched online to get an accurate picture of the record of Mr. Harper's Conservative government from 2006 to 2015, and I came across some fascinating results. I want to share this information very honestly with the House and my Liberal colleagues so that they understand that even though we did not talk incessantly about the environment, we achieved some excellent concrete results.

I want to read a quote from www.mediaterre.org, a perfectly legitimate site:

Stephen Harper's Canadian government released its 2007 budget on March 19. The budget allocated $4.5 billion in new investments to some 20 environmental projects. These measures include a $2,000 rebate for all electronic-vehicle or alternative-fuel purchases, and the creation of a $1.5-billion EcoTrust program to help provinces reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals often criticize us for talking about the environment, but we did take action. For example, we set targets. We proposed reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Liberals even retained these same targets as part of the Paris agreement.

They said we had targets, but no plan. That is not true. Not only did we have the $1.5-billion ecotrust program, but we also had a plan that involved federal co-operation.

Allow me to quote the premier of Quebec at the time, Jean Charest, who was praising the plan that was going to help Quebec—his province, my province—meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. Jean Charest and Mr. Harper issued a joint press release.

Mr. Harper said, “Canada's New Government is investing to protect Canadians from the consequences of climate change, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” He was already recognizing it in 2007.

Mr. Charest said, “In June 2006, our government adopted its plan to combat climate change. This plan has been hailed as one of the finest in North America. With Ottawa contributing financially to this Quebec initiative, we will be able to achieve our objectives.”

It was Mr. Charest who said that in 2007, at a press conference with the prime minister.

I will continue to read the joint press release from the two governments, “As a result of this federal funding, the Government of Quebec has indicated that it will be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent below its anticipated 2012 level.”

What is more, the $1.5-billion ecotrust that was supposed to be allocated and was allocated to every province provided $339 million to Quebec alone. That was going to allow Quebec to engage in the following: investments to improve access to new technologies for the trucking sector; a program to develop renewable energy sources in rural regions; a pilot plant for production of cellulosic ethanol; promotion of geothermal heat pumps in the residential sector; support for technological research and innovation for the reduction and sequestration of greenhouse gases. This is probably one of those programs that is helping us make our oil sands increasingly environmentally friendly by allowing us to capture the carbon that comes from converting the sands to oil. There are also measures for the capture of biogas from landfill sites, for waste treatment and energy recovery, and finally for Canada ecotrust.

I invite our Liberal colleagues to listen to what I am going to say. In 2007, Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said the following: “We are pleased to see that after negotiating for more than a year, Quebec has finally obtained the money it needs to move towards meeting the Kyoto targets.”

Who made it possible for Quebec to move towards meeting its Kyoto objectives? It was the Harper government, a Conservative government, which established the $1.5-billion ecotrust fund in 2007 with monies from the budget surplus.

Not only did we have a plan to meet the targets we proposed, but this was also a plan that could only be implemented if the provinces agreed to the targets. It was a plan that was funded through the budget surplus, that did not further tax Canadians, and that provided money directly, without any conditions, other than the fundamental requirement that it had to help reduce climate change, which was philosophically important. Any and all measures taken to reach that goal were left entirely to the discretion of the provinces.

Mr. Harper, like a good Conservative who supported decentralization and like a true federalist leader, said that he was giving $400 million to each province so it could move forward with its plan.

By 2015, after 10 years of Conservative government, the country had not only weathered the worst economic crisis, the worst recession in history since the 1930s, but it had also reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2% and increased the gross domestic product for all Canadians while lopping three points off the GST and lowering income taxes for families with two children by an average of $2,000 per year.

If that is not co-operative federalism, if those are not real results, if that is not a concrete environmental plan, then I do not know what is. Add to that the fact that we achieved royal assent for no less than 25 to 35 bills every session.

In contrast, during this session, in between being forced to grapple with scandals involving the carbon tax, illegal border crossings, and the Trans Mountain project, this government has barely managed to come up with four genuinely important bills.

By contrast, we expanded parks and protected Canada's wetlands. Our environmental record is exceptional.

Furthermore, we allowed debate. For example, we debated Bill C-23 on electoral reform for four days. The Liberals' electoral reform was debated for two hours.

I am sad, but I am happy to debate until midnight because debating is my passion.