Bill C-49 (Historical)

Transportation Modernization Act

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

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

Transportation Modernization Act

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

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

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

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

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative's opposition motion. This evening, we will proceed with Bill C-45, the cannabis act, at second reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will commence report stage of Bill C-44, the budget. In the afternoon, we will return to Bill C-45.

Our hope for Monday and Tuesday is to send Bill C-45 to committee, and also to deal with report stage of Bill C-44. Other bills for next week include the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, the Citizenship Act; and Bill S-3, provided the bill is passed by the Senate.

Should time permit, we would also like some debate on Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act.

We have had a conversation among House leaders. I look forward to continuing those conversations, and I will do my best to report to this House the information that I have, and we will do our best to work well together so that all members can do the good work that we are sent here to do.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to go into another issue, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the comments by Ms. Block because this is the transport, infrastructure and communities committee and we have a pretty big mandate with these three files, especially with respect to Minister Garneau's announcement of transportation 2030, and everything that falls under that. We're looking at focusing on that now, with the earlier motion that passed and, of course, bringing forward Bill C-49 as part of that discipline in bringing forward the minister's vision.

The second isMinister Sohi's vision with respect to infrastructure. It's nice that we all come from somewhat the same background. We've all dealt with infrastructure as former mayors, councillors, and municipal representatives, and we do understand how saddled municipalities are with respect to infrastructure; but most importantly, we know how to do infrastructure right, to make those proper investments so that they're sustainable.

This weekend, for example, we have the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in town. I've already started to speak to a lot of the mayors from big and small cities in the past day or so. One of the messages I'm getting loud and clear, Madam Chair, is their appreciation for not only Minister Sohi's budgetary commitments, at $180 billion, but also for the comment he made in the House most recently when he committed to having a sustainable infrastructure funding envelope for municipalities. That is big news for municipalities, since, Madam Chair, you were one of the authors of the new deal for Canada's cities back in 2004, I believe, with the gas tax.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to move my motion that I put on the order paper on Tuesday, so I know we have it.

It's the one I read it out earlier today, so I won't read it again. I know it's been circulated to all the members.

In introducing and speaking to my motion, I made a lot of the comments I wanted to. I'll just reiterate that I introduced this motion for two reasons: the first being that we are dealing with an omnibus bill addressing a number of issues within numerous modes of transportation. The second would be that the members opposite, the government members, wanted to see us expedite the study of this bill, which I think demonstrated the need to address certain measures in the bill in a more timely way than others perhaps. That led me to ask at the last meeting if the members would be willing to break out the part of Bill C-49 that addresses the measures that are due as a result of the sunsetting of Bill C-30. As I was not able to get an answer then because of time constraints, I introduced the motion.

I want to respect and believe in my colleagues' desire to provide clarity and certainty to our producers. As I've pointed out, I don't think the time frame he's outlined within his motion will make any difference. That window has closed. I think the only way to redeem it is to break out this section of Bill C-49 and do a study as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the sake of consistency, I would like to say this. You gave me an idea of what the study of Bill C-49 might entail in scope. You mentioned 23 hours. You probably relied on your experience, since we have not even sent our list of witnesses. However, we know that there will be a certain number of witnesses. In my opinion, 23 hours is the equivalent of roughly four weeks of meetings. That does not even allow us to meet the objective of starting earlier to get this study done before the work resumes.

I feel that everyone is tugging on the blanket and I see no consistency. We are ignoring the only real emergency. So I can hardly support the motion.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will not expand on everything my colleague said. I fully agree with what she is saying about the urgent need to begin studying Bill C-49. I think there is indeed urgency, but it is as if we were going to put out a fire and realized that we had to buy a fire truck. We could have bought the fire truck earlier.

What are we going to do in a situation like that? We are not going to wait for the fire to go out before we buy a fire truck; we find another fire truck.

This other fire truck is my colleague's motion to split Bill C-49 to deal with the measures for grain farmers out west as quickly as possible. We do not have to wait until September. We can do it while the farmers are available.

I really wanted to share my concern about that with my colleagues on the committee. We are going to study this important bill during the busiest time for grain farmers. It will be very difficult to get witnesses like that to appear. Those days would cost them a great deal. They cannot really miss a day and leave their grain to meet with the committee in Ottawa. It may well be very complicated. We should be sensitive to that. It is not a policy issue.

So, if necessary, let's move up this study to the summer, I have no objection. However, we must consider the fact that witnesses may not be available.

If we manage to split Bill C-49 quickly, it will probably not take that long. We could study that issue quickly. That would be for the benefit of those for whom we work. If we had to study Bill C-49 in its entirety solely to deal with the urgent case of grain farmers, I think we would be making a big mistake.

Let me give you an example. The government has just announced that a committee is being created to review the Railway Safety Act. This very day, some people are meeting with government officials. Representatives from FCM are here. Pauline Quinlan, Mayor of Bromont, has been appointed by your government to this committee, which is undertaking some very serious work. However, Bill C-49 already contains measures that will amend the Railway Safety Act, particularly in terms of cameras being installed in locomotives. That has implications. I think it is important to wait for this review committee to finish its work.

I do not want to talk about this for too long. I just wanted to support my colleague's comments.

I want to salute my colleague Mr. Iacono, who apparently missed me very much during the first hour of this meeting, since he pointed out my absence. When I heard that, I rushed off to the committee meeting so that he could enjoy my presence, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and perhaps it would have been helpful to deal with our motions before we dealt with Mr. Badawey's just because the questions that Mr. Aubin might have been answered first.

There are two observations I would make. While I do somewhat appreciate.... In response to what I'm hearing from Mr. Badawey, creating this sense of urgency to meet outside of the session to deal with Bill C-49, I think it should be stated that the fact of the matter is producers are already negotiating their contracts for this year. They're doing that. So if we meet in September, that isn't going to impact the contracts they're negotiating today.

I think the second thing to recognize is that the time frame that we're establishing to do this study is probably coming at the busiest time for some of the producers whom we might want to invite to be witnesses for our study. I'm sure you're aware that harvest happens in August and September and into October, and sometimes into November.

So I think that sense of urgency being created now should have been there a few months ago. I agree totally with my colleague that what we are dealing with here is an omnibus bill. It's addressing numerous modes of transportation, and I can tell you that since Bill C-49 was introduced in the House not quite two weeks ago—maybe it will be two weeks tomorrow—my schedule has been challenged to accommodate the requests I'm receiving from numerous stakeholders who want to discuss this bill. What I'm hearing from them is that the devil is in the detail, as always, and that these are complex sectors and they need time to take a look at this legislation to determine exactly what their positions will be coming out of that review.

Moreover, I think we have to talk about the timing of this bill. As I indicated at our last meeting, we, the members of the official opposition, have been highlighting the need to address these measures for quite some time. In this regard, let's take a look at the facts of some of the things Mr. Badawey has presented. Yes, this is coming out of the review of the CTA. That began under our government, as you pointed out, with a couple of years of review by the Emerson panel. The minister was given that report on Christmas Eve of 2015. We undertook a study of it in September 2016. Before we undertook the study, the extension had already been granted, I think, at a request of this committee. We undertook a study recognizing that we were going to be bumping up against a deadline of August 1, 2017.

So now here we are. We are bumping up against that deadline in spite of all of the efforts we've made to create a sense of urgency to deal with it and to do the study as a committee and get the recommendations before the minister long before this sunsetting was to take place. However, the minister chose to wait until six weeks before the session ends to introduce his omnibus bill. Given the assertion made by the House leader that Bill C-49 is a priority, I think some of the responsibility for this has to land at that individual's feet, for not getting this onto the agenda a little sooner, although she has said it is a priority.

In light of Mr. Badawey's suggestion that the committee extend our sittings by coming to Ottawa during the summer recess, I think splitting Bill C-49 to review the measures that address the sunsetting measure seems like an appropriate undertaking. I think if we were to have that conversation, we would better know what kind of time we have to allocate outside of the meetings that are already scheduled to the end of this session, and however many days we might feel need to be added at the beginning of the next session.

Those conversations need to happen, but as far as creating a sense of urgency now goes, I think it's a little late for that. We need to do justice to this piece of legislation and not try to rush through it.

I certainly support the notion of breaking it out so that we can deal with the measures you have highlighted in your own motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Before I go to Ms. Block, just to try to answer your question, Mr. Aubin, it's my understanding, based on an overview of the witnesses who would probably want to speak to Bill C-49, the committee would have to spend an estimated 23 hours on this however we choose to roll it out—and they're all amendments to the current Transportation Act.

So I'll go now to Ms. Block, and then to Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to Mr. Badawey for this motion.

The first thing is that the date of our work does not matter to me. We are elected to do this work. As soon as it is necessary, we will be there. It could be in July, August or September. That's not really the issue.

However, there are some questions I cannot find an answer to.

First, let's face it, Bill C-49 is an omnibus bill because it amends 13 pieces of legislation. If we meet before work resumes in September to answer questions about Bill C-30, we will be late because the deadline is August 1 or July 31. I do not understand why we would meet in September to solve a problem for which we would already be late.

If I were told that we would be meeting for one or two weeks, holding two to four meetings to deal urgently with what needs to be done for grain transportation, it would be one thing. However, I also see that we want to study Bill C-49 in the interval between the dates proposed in the motion and the return to the House for the new session. In that case, I say no.

Before I vote in favour of the motion, I would like to get an idea of how many hours we want to spend on Bill C-49. No less than 13 pieces of legislation are affected. There is no way that we will manage to do it properly in four meetings. That doesn't quite make sense. I wonder where the urgency to work in September comes from if we are already late.

Can we have an idea of the time that we want to spend on Bill C-49, to see if we have time to cover all the topics? I know that the first come, first serve game works, but there is also a motion coming up that proposes that the minister be asked to split the bill so that we can quickly study what is urgent and take the time we need to study the rest of the bill.

If I have to vote on those motions in the order in which they are moved, because I do not have the information I need and the ruling has not been made to ask the minister to divide his bill so that we can deal with what is most urgent and study the rest afterwards, I will unfortunately have to take issue with that. However, that's not because I don't want to work in September.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

As I alluded to at the last meeting, colleagues, you will recall that we conducted a study on freight rail transportation in 2016 and, more specifically, the transportation of grain and agricultural products. We heard from numerous stakeholders that the measures in Bill C-30, also known as the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, including extended interswitching, were not in fact ideal. The legislation was often characterized as a temporary band-aid, hastily applied after the grain-handling crisis in 2013 and 2014, a piece of legislation with many flaws.

Many farmers and other shippers felt that the 160-kilometre extended interswitching did not go far enough. Notably, sectors such as mining and forestry, in particular, pointed out that they too would like to benefit from interswitching but were usually outside the 160-kilometre radius. At the same time, rail companies objected to the rates not being determined on a commercial basis and argued that this would be a disincentive to them as regards making needed investments in their infrastructure.

In the absence of a solution that could address these various conflicting interests, this committee ended up passing a motion calling on the government to extend the provisions for interswitching that were due to sunset for one year, until August 2017, but only until such time as the minister could find a better—and I want to stress this point—longer term solution.

The good news is that with Bill C-49, the proposed transportation modernization act, the minister is proposing just such a long-term solution, including a new measure, calling for longer haul interswitching, which will be available to captive shippers within a 1,200-kilometre radius.

I understand that the initial reaction from shippers, including farmers, has been very positive thus far. However, there will be a legislative gap between when the interswitching provisions in Bill C-30 sunset in August 2017 and when Bill C-49 receives royal assent, assuming it does, likely sometime later this year, depending upon how long it takes to get through the House and, of course, the Senate. Some shippers are understandably concerned about this gap and would like to start benefiting from the new and improved measures contained within Bill C-49 as soon as possible. I know our government has heard these concerns and wants to help, and I'm sure that members of the committee, especially those in sensitive areas such as Saskatchewan, have heard the same concerns.

I understand that the government House leader has indicated a willingness to deal with Bill C-49 at second reading and get it to our committee before the summer adjournment. If that in fact happens, I propose that our committee meet prior to the House's returning in the fall to study Bill C-49. This would provide us an opportunity to hold extended meetings and do a lot of work in a relatively short period of time. Ideally, we could even complete our study before the House gets back in September.

I think this would go a long way to speeding up the process and delivering results for our grain farmers and other captive shippers who are eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill and will certainly be supportive, in our view, of the certainty that this bill will provide.

Bill C-49 also includes a number of other important measures, notably a passenger rights regime for air travellers that is long overdue and that I'm eager to start studying.

I hope our colleagues in opposition will join me and the rest of the members of the committee in supporting our farmers and agree to hold the meetings prior to the return of the House in September. I know that on this side of the table we're prepared to do that work. We're prepared to bring this bill forward, we're prepared to support our farmers, and we're prepared to expedite this process to hopefully get Bill C-49 through and fill the gap between the August 1 sunsetting and the passage of this very important bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-49

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek on May 17, 2017, on the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act.

The member alleges that the media reports on the bill prior to its introduction constitutes a breach of the privilege of the House. Our government holds parliamentary privilege in the highest regard and takes seriously any allegations that privileges were not respected.

In the case before the House, I submit that the government took great care to ensuring that the details of Bill C-49 were not prematurely divulged prior to its introduction.

I would like to draw the attention of members to the extensive consultations that were held on the review of the Canada Transportation Act. In fact, these consultations began under the previous government. As part of these consultations, over 480 meets and roundtable discussions were held and over 230 written submissions were received between June 2014 and December 2015. The current Minister of Transport supplemented this work with a wide-ranging set of consultations, holding 10 major round tables across the country between May and November 2016, as well as holding engagement sessions on social media.

Following these extensive consultations, the minister made a speech on November 3, 2016, which outlined his vision entitled “Transportation 2030 - A Strategic Plan for the Future of Transportation in Canada”.

Following the launch of the transportation 2030 strategy, the minister continued to meet with a wide range of stakeholders in the transportation sector, gave speeches and media interviews, and spoke in the House about issues he intended to address through upcoming legislation. That is to say, any reporter or interested stakeholder would have had a very good idea of what issues were to be addressed in Bill C-49.

Before turning to the facts of the matter before the House, I would point out that the Speaker must judge the extent to which the issue has infringed upon the ability of members to discharge their parliamentary duties. Page 145 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

In deliberating upon a question of privilege, the Chair will take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member's ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament.

On October 4, 2010, the Speaker ruled that it is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that the House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider. At no time were the specific details of the bill made public. In fact, the minister and his staff refused to comment on the specific details of the provisions of Bill C-49, which was reported by a number of media outlets.

The member cites the March 2001 ruling by Speaker Milliken, which is a clear acknowledgement of the government's prerogative to consult with stakeholders and Canadians in the development of government policy. The ruling states:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

I submit this is precisely what the government has done with respect to Bill C-49.

The case that the member cites is drastically different than the situation before the House. The 2001 ruling referred to by the member involved a minister of the crown who gave a detailed briefing on a government bill to the media in advance of the introduction of the bill. Moreover, members and their staff were not permitted to attend the briefing. As a result, members were unable to respond to media inquiries on the content of the bill. This situation sits in stark contrast to the situation before the House.

Let me take a few moments to show why this is not a legitimate question of privilege.

First, in the evening of May 15, the CBC website stated, “Passenger bill of rights will set national standard for air travel”. Stating the general goals of proposed legislation is not a detailed description of the specific measures contained in the bill.

I would submit that this is a general statement of the objective to address an issue. There was no reporting on what the national standards would be or the modalities of scheme. In fact, this would be impossible, since the bill simply authorized the development of regulations to address this issue.

Similarly, CTV News referred to minimum standards for reimbursement for travel disruptions and lost luggage but did not, and I submit could not, refer to what the minimum standards would be, since these standards would be set through the regulatory process. This was confirmed by a CBC report and on CTV News. I am not sure how the member believes that the disclosure of the proposed standards would be in regulations constitutes in any way contempt of this House.

In instances such as this one, where the government has consulted extensively on the development of policy, there are bound to be cases in which an issue, such as air passenger rights, would be made public prior to the introduction of a bill. What differentiates a bona fide contempt of the House through the premature disclosure of the contents of a bill and the case before the House is that no specific details were released.

Moreover, the minister and his staff were clearly cognizant of the imperative of not disclosing the specific details of the bill to avoid a contempt of the House.

For example, I would refer to the May 14 Globe and Mail article where the minister's office denied to comment on the specifics of the bill until properly introduced. Again, in the Canadian Press article of April 11, the minister's spokesperson is quoted as declining to say if the legislation would set industry-wide standards, or raise compensation levels offered in the United States or Europe.

The difference between divulging specific details of a bill and speaking about current issues that may be addressed in a bill should not be lost on members. Speaking about general issues to be addressed in a bill without divulging the specific content of the bill is not only permissible but reasonable. While the government consults on issues which may be made public during the course of consultations, the specific details of provisions to address such issues are only made public following the introduction of the bill. This is precisely the case before the House.

I would refer to the Speaker's ruling of April19, 2016, with respect to the premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-14, where the Speaker highlighted that the specific details of the bill were prematurely disclosed, which had the effect of impeding members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.

The government brings forward bills that were mentioned in the party's electoral platform, Speech from the Throne, Budgets, mandate letters, or were subject to public consultations. Would a bill to implement an initiative announced in one of the aforementioned policy proposal be automatically be deemed to constitute a prima facie question of privilege once the bill has been introduced?

That cannot be the intent. Media reports leading up to the introduction of Bill C-49 did not reveal specific measures. Nor did these reports act in any way as to impede members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.

In conclusion, the matter raised by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek does not meet the threshold of constituting a prima facie question of privilege.

Resuming debate

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the parliamentary secretary to listen to the rest, as it is very interesting. I would add that I was hanging on his every word throughout his speech,

As I was saying, when we want to voice our points of view, on the opposition side, it does not work. The Liberals do not want to hear them, and as a result, they make serious mistakes, like the one they made this afternoon when they voted against the autism motion. It would be very much to the government’s advantage to demonstrate good will and allow the opposition the time it needs during these long, hard sittings we will be starting shortly.

This evening, I am going to talk about Bill C-46, after motion No. 14 is passed. I have things to say to the government about what has been done badly in the bill. I am pleased to have the time to do it and to stay here late tonight to voice my disagreement on several aspects of Bill C-46. However, I would also have liked the government to acknowledge, with just as much enthusiasm, that when we have something to say, it may be equally interesting.

I understand why the government is in a hurry and absolutely wants to extend sitting times. It is because few government bills have received royal assent since the start of the session. By contrast, in the first 18 months of the Harper government, more than twice as many government bills had received royal assent.

In short, the Liberals are in a bit of trouble, because the bills they present to the House are slipshod and do not really reflect what Canadians expect. Canadians expect that the government will prepare good bills. This is not because of a shortage of consultation, however, since the Liberals have done nothing else since the beginning. They consult a group on the left before making a decision, then they go and consult another group to find out whether the decision is satisfactory. Then they raise the subject in the House and we discuss it. For some time, however, they have been preventing the opposition from talking about it. They pass a closure motion, and they send the bill to the Senate. That is where the big problems start for the government, because its bills come back with amendments.

That is the new way that things are done. They wanted to elect independent senators. They told them that they would be able to state their opinions and their wisdom would be used to improve bills, but what happens when there are amendments to the bills? Everyone is up in arms, the government sends them back, telling them that this was not their job and it does not accept their changes. The result is that the government is unable to get its bills passed.

If the goal was to embark on an ambitious agenda to speed up the passage of crucial programs for Canadians, then why not? However, that is not happening. They are being asked to attend to urgent matters. For example, this afternoon, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had a discussion about the defunct Bill C-30, which is set to expire in August. The government addressed this very recently through the Minister of Transport's Bill C-49, an omnibus bill that changes just about every transportation-related law imaginable. Then the government realized that part of the bill absolutely had to go through before August or western grain producers would run into problems, so the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was told there had been a little mistake and it would have to speed up its study of the whole bill in order to pass this one little measure.

We moved a motion to split the bill so the government could get the job done faster, achieve its goals, and deal with grain producers' concerns. I am looking forward to its response. We have come up with some good, reasonable proposals to move this country's legislation and files forward, but nothing the opposition suggests is good enough for the government. That is the problem.

The government wants our trust, but that is hard. Remember Motion No. 6 and the attempts to change the rules of the House, not to mention the consultations that never happened on partisan appointments as in the case of Mrs. Meilleur? The government wants our trust and says it is going to work hard, but it is making no promises not to take full advantage of this extraordinary measure to change the rules of the House. That brings me to our other condition: the government must pledge not to move a motion to change the rules of the House. Maybe then it will have the people's support.

In short, we are ready to work. To conclude, I am going to quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who told the Hill Times, in an article published on May 29, that their goal was to feel productive inside the House of Commons.

Giving the impression of being productive does not produce anything. It simply gives the impression of work. What we want is some real work. We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government, but we are asking it for two little things. If the government really wants us to recommend its bills and if it really wants us to help it move its agenda forward, which is not as ambitious as all that, I would note in passing, then let it give us, too, the opportunity to make our motions and to present our concerns as they relate to Canadians. The government will then certainly have the support of our party and the official opposition.

This is an invitation to collaborate that I know will go nowhere.

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

I'm being presumptuous, here, but I think that, rather than clarify where he is going, Mr. Iacono really wants to suggest that we move in camera. We were actually supposed to meet in camera, but my Liberal colleagues were the ones who suggested that we meet in public. For the sake of consistency, then, let's continue the meeting in public.

What we are in the midst of discussing isn't a crime of lese majesty, and we aren't going to get all worked up in public in an effort to bring some clarity to our work. I would remind you that I would like an answer to my question.

Considering that all our discussions since the meeting began have been in public, the people following our proceedings might be puzzled—to put it politely—as to why the committee would suddenly move in camera at the precise moment when our questions were finally going to be answered. It would be as though the television channel were suddenly cut. We've all experienced how frustrating it is to be watching a playoff game when the score is tied and suddenly the cable goes out during the third period. That's exactly what this would be like. I can't see how we could justify the decision to move in camera when the entire meeting thus far has taken place in public.

It's not that embarrassing of a discussion. The bills are public, and the questions we are asking are quite clear. They have to do with procedure. There is another equally, if not more, important question we need to answer, because it affects the day-to-day work of farmers all over the country, who are stuck in, what I would call, a no man's land; that question stems from the fact that Bill C-49 is a massive bill that came to us late.

We agree that one of the Minister of Transport's characteristics seems to be his studious nature and his lengthy examination of bills before bringing them forward. That approach probably has some merit. However, once the bill is introduced, he has to allow enough time for the work to be done properly given the issues in question.

Bill C-49 is so massive that the best thing would be to split it. I realize that our committee doesn't have the authority to divide a bill, but we can, at the very least, make a recommendation. I would think that the Minister of Transport would pay more attention to a unanimous recommendation than a majority one. We would then be in a position to act in the best interests of everyone involved, procedurally speaking.

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

I was just going to say that that is an aspect of our procedure here, in this committee, I can't quite get a handle on, but I really want to understand. To my mind, when we give the analysts drafting instructions, we shouldn't tell them to go in a certain direction. Instead, we should tell them what form we want the report to take and which subjects we want it to cover, in light of all the input we gathered.

It seems to me that to instruct the analysts on our findings even before the report has been drafted is to walk a rather fine line, at the very least. What makes our analysts so valuable is precisely the fact that they are completely non-partisan. They cannot have any political affiliation whatsoever. They must be able to be as objective as possible in looking at all of the comments of the witnesses, who appear before the committee to voice their support or opposition and sometimes qualify their positions. It is the analysts' job to produce as accurate a report as possible of what they took away from the committee's discussions.

It is the committee's job to bring out the various arguments. I think, then, that the least we can do is exercise some restraint in our drafting instructions to the analysts.

I'd like to know what you consider acceptable, Madam Chair, in terms of the committee's recommendations to the analysts on the drafting of the report. I expected that we would just provide instructions on the form of the report, not on its substance. I thought we would debate the substance once we received the draft report.

Since we seem to be all over the place, I'm going to go ahead and switch gears, because we don't have any real direction here. I would very much like to bring the discussion back to my suggestion that we ask the government to split the mammoth bill that is Bill C-49, so we can focus our efforts on the measures affecting farmers.

Once again, Madam Chair, I would point out that we have two or three issues on the table at the same time. This is all very confusing.