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.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much to our witnesses, to our chair, and to my colleagues, for being here.

I'll focus my questions on the portion of Bill C-49 that deals with air travel for now, and start with the passenger bill of rights.

You mentioned in passing, Ms. Borges, how these stories sometimes make the news in a rather undesirable way. It doesn't surprise me that some of these videos go viral and I think it's because when we see a passenger mistreated, we have an emotional and visceral response because it sometimes reflects our own experience. I've had my articles of clothing come out one at a time on the conveyor belt before. I've been sitting on the tarmac for hours at a time and I've had my instrument delayed an entire flight before I could pick it up, so I respond the same way the public does and I understand the frustrations.

You mentioned at the beginning a laundry list of the irritants and that language was to be required to be put in place so that essentially consumers understand what the remedies are and how they can enforce them. Could you perhaps go into greater detail to assure Canadians that they are going to have a remedy when their rights are infringed.

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

Certainly I don't want to pry into the confidential negotiating positions of Canada, but I'm wondering whether, within the context of Bill C-49 and the NAFTA negotiations, studies were done on the efficiencies of cabotage, namely in marine, rail, and trucking, and whether an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions was done by your or another department. I'm wondering—without getting into the confidential negotiating positions—whether any studies on those two areas can be shared with this committee.

[Mark Schaan, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thanks so much. Bill C-49 proposes a new approach to metal-neutral joint ventures, or joint ventures in the air sector. Right now they are assessed solely on the basis of competition and competition law, wherein the primary considerations are duration of competition and economic understanding.

What C-49 does is broaden that examination to include a whole and robust competition assessment by the bureau. It also includes public interest benefits, which may include things like connectedness, safety, or the traveller experience. Insofar as a joint venture raises concerns, I think those would be that the public interest benefits assessed by Transport Canada in that review process are insufficient to overcome what would be the significant lessening of competition in the sector. What C-49 does is to attempt to balance potential negatives in any proposed transaction with potential public surplus benefits that Canadians might experience. It is necessary for one to overwhelm the other in order to go forward. It's a voluntary system by which the proponent has to have a reasonable assumption of likelihood of passage to be able to pursue the voluntary process to get the minister's authority.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to see you at the helm of our committee again.

Welcome to everyone with whom I had the pleasure of working last year and whose faces are familiar to me. Welcome also to those of you who are joining us, and I hope you will be here permanently. If not, I heartily commend you. That is all for my greetings, since I probably have more questions to ask than the time available will allow.

I would like to draw particular attention to a sentence in your opening remarks. You said that Bill C-49 seeks transparency, fairness and efficiency. I must admit that I stumbled over the word “efficiency”. Let me cite a few examples from various modes of transportation that do not illustrate efficiency.

The first example is probably voice and video recorders. The report about these recorders, conducted by a working group of the Transportation Safety Board, or TSB, found that the use of these recorders would have been helpful in arriving at definitive conclusions in their investigations in less than 1% of cases. Less than 1% of cases. If we are talking about recorders, that is unfortunately because there has been an accident. In the interest of efficiency, I would think that train conductor fatigue should be addressed before the recorders. In our air safety study last year, we found that pilot fatigue was an important factor to be considered.

Why is Bill C-49 so specific about requirements for recorders while saying so little about conductor fatigue?

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

Good morning. I'd also like to welcome you back.

In your opinion, do you think there's a gap between Bills C-49 and C-30?

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

Thank you.

I'll follow up with another question that drills a bit further down into one of the reasons I asked that question. Given that a review of the Railway Safety Act has just been initiated, I believe, why would we include the provisions for the LVVR measures in Bill C-49 rather than looking to include them in the Railway Safety Act?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I would echo the comments welcoming all of you here today. I appreciate the opportunity to ask you questions about Bill C-49.

You welcomed us here and thanked us for taking the time to be here, but it was because of a motion by this committee that we're actually here a week early, and so I want to thank you for being here and taking the time.

I also want to extend a welcome to my colleagues. I hope everyone had a good summer and I am looking forward to working with all of you, going into this session. Of course, there could be some changes. I also want to welcome my two colleagues on this side of the table who aren't normally members of this committee but who have graciously accepted the duty and the opportunity to be here as we work through Bill C-49.

I do appreciate the work that has gone into a bill like Bill C-49, and I think even your own opening remarks demonstrate how broadly this bill casts its net. In fact, we would have suggested that it were an omnibus bill, covering three modes of transportation and addressing a number of issues. One would probably also readily admit that the bill may not be perfect, and so I think what we're here to do is to have the opportunity to ask questions, and hear from witnesses to find out for ourselves what measures you got right, and whether there are amendments or recommendations that our stakeholders might offer.

Given those initial observations, I guess what I would like to ask is when and why was the decision made to create this very large bill that addresses so many different modes of transportation?

[Helena Borges, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here today.

I am Helena Borges, the associate deputy minister of transport. I have been before this committee before, so maybe you'll remember me.

I have with me several colleagues from the department, as well as the Competition Bureau. Alain Langlois is our chief counsel on this file. Brigitte Diogo is our director general of rail safety. I have Marcia Jones, who is our director of rail policy; Sara Wiebe, who is our director general of air policy; and Mark Schaan from ISED.

First, I would echo the chair's thanking you for coming back early and taking the time to study this bill before Parliament resumes. I must say that if you haven't been in Ottawa all summer, this is officially the first week of summer, at least weather-wise, because it has been raining here non-stop. This is actually summer as we'll have it.

Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, contains proposed legislative changes that would allow the government to move forward in delivering on initial measures as part of transportation 2030, the government's strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada, which the minister announced last fall. The plan was announced following an extensive consultation process with industry stakeholders, indigenous groups, provincial and territorial governments, and Canadians, which built on the findings and recommendations from the Canada Transportation Act review report. You will hear from Mr. Emerson, who was the chair of that panel, later today. This process allowed us to hear a broad range of views on the future of transportation over the next 20 to 30 years, and how we can ensure that the national transportation system continues to support Canada's international competitiveness, trade, and prosperity.

Bill C-49 promotes transparency, system efficiency and fairness. The bill proposes legislative amendments that would better meet the needs and service expectations of Canadian travellers and shippers, while creating a safer and more innovative transportation network that would better position Canada to capitalize on global opportunities and thrive in a high-performing economy.

Let me highlight the key features of the bill.

I will begin with the air initiatives. Bill C-49 proposes the creation of new regulations to enhance Canada's air passenger rights, ensuring that they are clear, consistent, and fair for both travellers and carriers. The Canadian Transportation Agency would be mandated to develop, in consultation with Transport Canada, these new regulations and would consult Canadians and stakeholders should royal assent be given to this bill.

The overriding objective of this new approach is to ensure that Canadians and anyone travelling to, from, and within Canada understand their rights as air travellers without negatively impacting access to air services and the cost of air travel for Canadians.

Bill C-49 specifies that these regulations would include provisions regarding the following most frequently experienced irritants, some of which you may have heard about: providing passengers with plain language information about carriers' obligations and how to seek compensation or file complaints; setting standards for the treatment of passengers in the case of overbooking, delays, and cancellations, including appropriate compensation for these; standardizing compensation levels for lost or damaged baggage; establishing standards for the treatment of passengers in the case of tarmac delays over a certain period of time; seating children close to a parent or guardian at no extra charge; and requiring carriers to develop standards for transporting musical instruments.

Finally, this bill also proposes that regulations be made for data to be collected in order to be able to monitor the air traveller experience, including air carrier compliance with the proposed passenger rights approach.

The legislation also proposes to liberalize international ownership restrictions from 25% to 49%. To protect the competitiveness of our air sector and support connectivity, this provision is accompanied by associated safeguards.

These safeguards include restrictions that a single international investor would not be able to hold more than 25% of the voting interests of a Canadian air carrier and that no combination of foreign air carriers could own more than 25% of a Canadian carrier.

This policy change would not apply to Canadian specialty air services such as heli-logging, aerial photography or firefighting, which would retain international ownership levels at 25%.

Liberalizing international ownership restrictions means Canadian air carriers—and this includes passenger and cargo transportation service providers—would have access to more investment capital that they can use for innovation and, potentially, further expansion.

This would bring more competition into the Canadian air sector, provide more choice for Canadians, and generate benefits for airports and suppliers, including new jobs.

More competition in the market could in turn reduce the cost of air transportation and open other markets to consumers and shippers in Canada. This could include the creation of new ultra-low cost carriers serving new areas of the Canadian market.

The bill also 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 and establishing clear timelines for the rendering of a decision.

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

Whereas currently proposed joint ventures in Canada are solely examined by the Competition Bureau under the Competition Act, and thus focus exclusively on anti-competitive impacts on specific markets for air travel, the proposed new legislation would allow for the consideration of wider public interest benefits.

In addition, the new process would include clear timelines for the review process, both for the review of potential competition considerations by the bureau and the assessment of public interest benefits to be undertaken by Transport Canada. It is anticipated that this more holistic and timely review would allow Canadian carriers to engage in this industry trend, which confers benefits not only to the partnering air carriers, but also to consumers who will gain from enhanced flight connectivity and Canadian tourism, which we expect to grow based on expanded network options.

Canada's aviation sector has shown interest in investing in and accessing passenger screening services, beyond those already provided by the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, in order to facilitate travel and gain economic advantages.

The proposed amendments allow for this opportunity on a cost-recovery basis.

Let me now move to the rail initiatives.

A reliable freight rail network is critical to Canada's success as a trading nation. Many of our commodities, from minerals to forest products to grain, depend on rail to move to markets both here and abroad. Canada enjoys efficient rail service with the world's lowest rates.

To sustain this, Bill C-49 aims to address pressures in the system so that it can continue to meet the needs of users and the economy over the long term. To this end, the bill promotes transparency, efficiency and strong private sector investment in the rail system, as well as accessible shipper remedies. The key measures include new data reporting requirements for railways on rates, service, and performance that would greatly increase system transparency; a definition of adequate and suitable rail service affirming that railways should provide shippers with the highest level of service they reasonably can in the circumstances; the ability for shippers to seek reciprocal financial penalties for breaches of their service agreements with railways; updated remedies for rate and service complaints, to make them easier for shippers to access; and more timely, long-haul interswitching, a new measure for giving captive shippers across all sectors and regions the option of accessing a competing railway.

These measures would address the needs of shippers for greater competition in the freight rail system while also safeguarding the ability of railways to make crucial investments in the railway network, which benefits all shippers and the broader economy.

The proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act to mandate installation of voice and video recorders in railway locomotives are designed to further enhance rail safety while safeguarding the privacy of employees. They respond to recommendations from this committee, the CTA review panel, and the Transportation Safety Board, whom you will hear from immediately afterwards.

These recorders would further strengthen rail safety by providing objective data about crew actions leading up to, and during, a rail accident. This technology would also provide companies with an additional safety tool for analyzing trends identified through their safety management systems with the objective of preventing accidents before they happen.

Through its oversight role, Transport Canada would ensure that companies comply with the limits on use and privacy requirements specified in the proposed legislation.

I will now turn to marine initiatives.

Finally, Bill C-49 proposes to amend the Coasting Trade Act to allow all vessel owners to reposition their owned or leased empty containers between locations in Canada using vessels of any registry. This measure would support industry's request for greater logistical flexibility and address the shortage of empty containers for export purposes.

Bill C-49 also proposes to amend the Canada Marine Act to allow Canada Port Authorities access to loans and loan guarantees from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is starting to happen.

In conclusion, this bill combines proposed legislative initiatives into a single bill that are essential to advancing priority measures related to improving the efficiency and safety of the Canadian transportation system.

In addition to having undertaken a comprehensive consultation process, these proposed amendments are based on solid evidence. For instance, with respect to freight rail measures, we sought technical expertise of stakeholders from the rail sector, the Canadian Transportation Agency, key federal departments, and other authorities as part of consultations for the bill. We analyzed freight rates, investments across jurisdictions, as well as commodity movements across Canada using internal data, and grain monitoring program, and railway waybill data, as well as other data.

The measures contained in this bill are a reflection of the priorities we heard from stakeholders and Canadians during the consultation process. It brings forward proposed legislative changes that promote a safer, more efficient transportation system that would enable growth while strengthening the rights of Canadian travellers to better meet their needs and expectations.

I would add that this bill responds to many of the recommendations this committee put forward in a study last year of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

I would like to thank the committee once again for having me here today. My colleagues and I are available to answer any questions at this meeting and throughout the entire study of the bill. We would be happy to provide any information that you don't have.

On that point, I will mention that we have made available to the committee a series of issue papers and fact sheets that may help you in understanding some of the provisions and the history behind some of the issues that we're dealing with here, the frequently asked questions on some of the items, because we know that there may be confusion amongst stakeholders about what these mean and how they would apply, as well, of course, the clause-by-clause. If there's anything more we can provide, we'd be happy to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order meeting number 67 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 42nd Parliament, first session, pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, June 19, 2017, 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. We will start this process now.

Welcome to all our members. Thank you very much for coming back a week earlier than everyone else on the Hill. It shows everyone's commitment to seeing that we continue and get our work done.

To the staff who are here as well, welcome. I hope you all had a good summer.

I will now ask the departmental officials if they would introduce themselves and proceed.

Amendments to Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for sharing his time with me. It is emblematic of the duties we have been sharing over the past year as I have been working with him to back him up in his deputy House leadership duties.

While my dream of fixing the clocks in this place to be digital remains unfulfilled, there are a number of more serious Standing Order issues that need to be addressed. While the opposition has often accused Liberal members in this place of wanting to change the Standing Orders to government advantage, I would argue that the opposite is true.

Many of us on this side were here when we were in opposition. A few of us survived the decimation to third party. I started as a staffer, working for Frank Valeriote, the previous member for Guelph, in his constituency office early in the 40th Parliament. I eventually found myself working here for the member for Ottawa South, where I worked when the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament and an election was forced in early 2011. I subsequently worked for both those members as well as the current members for Halifax West, whom I take great pride in calling Mr. Speaker today, and the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, all, for a short period, at the same time.

Working for four excellent members of Parliament, with different personalities and areas of interest, I gained a great breadth of experience and perspective, which has been a key part of learning how to do this job. It also gave me an up-close perspective on the abuses of power, on a daily basis, by the previous government. That is the perspective from which this motion has been written, that of the third party. To make the point, I want to go over Motion No. 18 one piece at a time.

In 2008, most of us will remember that the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc got together in an effort to take down the freshly re-elected Harper government. Whatever one thinks of the details of that agreement, a majority of members intended to vote no confidence in a sitting minority government. To avoid this, Harper visited then governor general Michaëlle Jean and asked her to prorogue Parliament, a request she granted after a couple of hours of deliberation.

Parliament is often prorogued between dissolutions. Of the past seven Parliaments, only one did not have at least one prorogation, that being Paul Martin's minority 38th Parliament. Proroguing itself is definitely legitimate. In the 2008 instance, however, it was used as a tool to avoid a confidence vote. We all know how history played out after that, and it was a tactical success for Prime Minister Harper.

The first clause of Motion No. 18 would not prevent a prime minister from proroguing, but it would require the executive to explain why they felt it was necessary and would mandate the procedure and House affairs committee to revisit the matter. It would not prevent abuse, but it would raise the bar on prorogation.

It is a bit of a marvel to me that, in my experience, no one has tried to do a massive private member's bill that rethinks the role of government from one end to the other. It would be a pretty interesting two-hour debate and is only currently prevented by convention, not rule.

In the last Parliament, the government had some impressively scattered omnibus bills. The standard here is not about how many laws a bill amends but rather if those various and sundry changes all serve the overall purpose of the bill. For example, Bill C-49, which passed at second reading here only yesterday, was cited by many in the opposition as an omnibus bill because it intends to modify 13 existing acts. However, this is spurious, because all the changes legitimately and clearly fall under the concept of the name of the act, the transportation modernization act, and some of those 13 existing-act changes are both relevant and miniscule.

For example, clause 91 of Bill C-49 is the section that would amend the Budget Implementation Act, 2009. This change reads, in whole, “Parts 14 and 15 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 are repealed.” A quick investigation will reveal that Part 14 is amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and Part 15 is amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, both well within the purview of the Minister of Transport to modernize within his mandate. Both sets of amendments from that Budget Implementation Act, 2009, which was called Bill C-10 in the second session of the 40th Parliament, came with a coming into force clause that read, in part, “come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister”. The most remarkable part of this eight-year-old piece of legislation is that the Governor in Council never brought these changes into force.

Getting rid of obsolete, never implemented bits of transportation law is clearly within the frame of transportation modernization.

In 2012, the Conservative government brought in a wide-ranging budget bill that implemented much of what it called Canada's economic action plan, but it also went after environmental legislation that had nothing to do with the budget. Among other things, it stripped legal protection for Canada's millions of lakes and waterways. This was slowed down, but not stopped, by more than 1,000 amendments to the bill at the finance committee, resulting in an around-the-clock filibuster-by-vote at clause-by-clause. I was there as staff for the final shift of that marathon vote.

The second section of Motion No. 18 would attempt to address these problems. Any bill presented in the House that did not focus on a single theme or overarching purpose could be split by the Speaker. While there would be an exception for budgets, the phrasing of that section, which would be standing order 69.1(2), would only seek to clarify that the objectives outlined in the budget would in their own right define the purpose. Attempting to change environmental law in a budget implementation act, without having defined it in the budget itself, for example, would permit a point of order to be raised and accepted by the Speaker to carve that section out of the BIA. This change is important and is something we committed to doing.

The third change is a little more arcane.

I was a staff member on the public accounts committee for a short period in the 41st Parliament and was a member of government operation and estimates early on in the 42nd Parliament for about the same length of time. I do not pretend to have any great understanding of the minutiae of the estimates process and defer to those who do. That is a big part of the point here. I welcome anything that can help bring clarity to the estimates process.

The fourth change in the Standing Orders in this motion is a particularly interesting one, covering sections 4 to 6 of Motion No. 18.

In the last Parliament, I believe most of us who were around had the same experience. Committees were run by parliamentary secretaries. They sat next to the chair, moved motions, voted, and otherwise controlled the committees. This utterly and totally defeats the point of parliamentary committees. The parliamentary secretary is, by definition, the representative of the minister. In this capacity, parliamentary secretaries serve a critical role in liaising between the committee and the department the committee oversees.

Being able to answer questions about intent and plans from the committee on a timely basis or bringing concerns or issues for study that ministers would like feedback on in the course of their duties are completely appropriate. However, when parliamentary secretaries run the committees, these oversight bodies cease to oversee much of anything and simply become extensions of the executive branch of government. If that is what we are to have, the committees serve little purpose. Including parliamentary secretaries on committees as liaisons with their departments instead of as the planners and executors of the work of those committees is the right balance.

This is really important. During the Reform Act debate in the last Parliament, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, for whom I have great respect and have for many years, commented to me that as a backbencher, he was not government. “Like you,” he said to me, “my role is to keep the government to account. The difference is”, he concluded, “I have confidence in the government.”

This critical bit of political philosophy has stuck with me since that day. Our role as backbenchers is indeed to keep government to account whether we are on the government or opposition benches. One of the most critical tools to achieve that is committees, and when this government talks about restoring independence to committees, it is not a meaningless catchphrase or sound bite; it is legitimate. I have seen the transition on committee function from last Parliament to this Parliament and it is truly something. Keeping parliamentary secretaries in a participatory, but not controlling, role on committees is a critical element of this.

The last change, section 7 of the motion, is particularly interesting. The one place where the opposition has immense power, even in a majority government, is in the power of the filibuster at committee. An opposition member determined to prevent a vote from taking place or a report from being written at a committee has the absolute power to do so, as long as he or she is willing to talk out the clock and stay reasonably on point. Our colleague from Hamilton Centre is an expert at this task, often joking that after half an hour of talking he has not yet finished clearing his throat.

When we had the debate on reforming the Standing Orders that went sideways at PROC a few weeks ago, we were accused of trying to kill the filibuster. This could not be further from the truth.

In that debate, we sought to have a conversation about how to change the Standing Orders. The government House Leader had written a letter with her ideas of what changes she hoped we would discuss on top of the numerous ideas already before us on account of the Standing Order 51 debate from last fall. However, but if we refer back to the previous elements of this speech, where we landed was up to us as a committee. An idea floated was that members at committee be limited to an unlimited number of 10-minute speaking slots rather than a single slot with no end.

The way I understand this would work in practice is that any member can speak for as long as he or she wishes at committee, but when another member signals his or her interest in speaking, the member would have 10 minutes to cede the floor before the other member would take over, before giving it back again if the first member so chose. The effect of this would be to ensure that every member on a committee would have an opportunity to speak in any debate, but would not limit anyone from tying up committee and would not kill the filibuster either in the instance or in principle. It certainly would make it easier to negotiate our way out of one by giving others a chance to get a word in edgewise.

However, the change proposed here is not about that. It is about getting rid of one of the most absurd abuses of committee procedure we saw in previous parliaments: that a member of the committee majority would take the floor, even on a point of order, and say to the chair something like, “I move that we call the question.” The chair would correctly say that it was out of order and reject the request for the vote. The member would then move to challenge the chair, the majority would vote that the chair was wrong and the question could be called, and the motion to debate, study, report draft, or whatever was happening, would come to an abrupt, unceremonious, and totally acrimonious end. That was the only effective, if not exactly legitimate, way of ending a filibuster.

In Motion No. 18, we are defending the right to filibuster.

As I said, Motion No. 18 is about defending the rights of the opposition, informed by our experience in the third party. Not one line of this motion benefits a majority government. All, however, benefit the improved functioning of this place. I look forward to its passage.

Transportation Modernization Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 16 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.

Changes to the Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the government House leader.

First, Bill C-49 is a wide-ranging transportation modernization act, so called. Bill C-51 is a very wide-ranging Criminal Code change. I wonder if the government House leader thinks either, or both, of these constitutes improper uses of omnibus legislation.

Second, I want to ask about the powers given to parliamentary secretaries because now, the way the Standing Order change is set up, a committee could theoretically bar members of Parliament who are not members of the committee from attending in camera meetings. That would mean they would have additional members of the government who are parliamentary secretaries who are able to remain in the room, but they would have other members of Parliament who might be interested in the discussion who cannot be in the room. Does the government House leader see a problem with that? Would the government House leader agree that any member of Parliament who wants to listen in to an in camera discussion if he or she is an elected member of Parliament, regardless of whether the member is a parliamentary secretary, should be able to do so?

Transportation Modernization Act

[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 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.