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.

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

Just in follow-up to that, is it the will of the committee to make a request of the minister and the government to carve out those measure that are creating a sense of urgency for us in looking at Bill C-49? Is it the will of the committee to ask for that?

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

Given that we have at least another hour to hear from witnesses on the aviation safety study, and the sense of urgency that Mr. Badawey has highlighted in dealing with Bill C-49, I'm wondering if we could postpone the drafting instructions. We do have 20 minutes left to discuss my colleague's suggestion to carve out the measures in Bill C-49 to deal with that legislation in a much more timely way. We could discuss that for the remainder of the time today and figure out if that is something that could be done, and then seek to provide drafting instructions on the aviation safety study after we've heard from the final witnesses on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin. I appreciate that.

We still have to discuss our drafting instructions for our aviation study. If it's the wish of the two vice-chairs to have a subcommittee meeting to discuss it, I just note that we stopped doing so because we couldn't get our schedules working. We were able to agree to add additional meetings for the aviation study and on infrastructure. So we have been functioning reasonably well.

My staff will reach out to my two vice-chairs, and we can have a further discussion as far as committee business is concerned. I would appreciate it if we could all manage to find the time to do that. My staff will be contacting your staff this afternoon to find an hour so that we can start to plan our future agenda, giving consideration to the comments on Bill C-49.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to raise two issues.

The first has to do with how the committee functions.

With all due respect, Madam Chair, as much as I appreciate the miracles you have managed to work since I've been on the committee, I must say that our sense of collegiality seems to be slowly slipping away. It fades every time we meet.

Clearly, I think that if proper subcommittee meetings were held more often, it would help ease some of the tension we're seeing. I'm not trying to force anything on you, but that is what I would strongly suggest. I think the committee should favour that approach.

It would probably also help us iron out the bulk of our work plans and thus avoid surprises and frustrating situations like this morning's, not to mention what happened at a meeting you unfortunately weren't at, Madam Chair. I think that's one solution that would help the committee get back to its former self.

As for possibly having to work on Bill C-49 in the summer, I would simply say that, if we must, we must. That was never the issue. The argument is that farmers are a priority, and I agree with that. In terms of the measures in Bill C-30, keep in mind that the priority according to farmers—the message they were championing—was that they would be happy to see the measures made permanent. I'm having a hard time, then, wrapping my head around how the government party can claim this is an absolute priority that we need to deal with as quickly as possible, when it opted to insert the measures into an omnibus bill. I'm well aware that this isn't the right place to debate the matter, but I would just point out that, if this is indeed a priority, one solution would be to take the measures out of the mammoth bill that is Bill C-49. That way, the committee could study the measures in a timely manner and make everyone happy.

Instead, the government is trying to fast-track consideration of an omnibus bill that affects just about every sector of transportation, including grain transportation, which has a direct impact on farmers.

Truth be told, Bill C-49 could be divided into a number of bills. Even though the government has absolutely no intention of doing this, it seems to me that, if it wanted to give priority treatment to farmers, the best option would be to extract the provisions from Bill C-49 related to Bill C-30 . It could then make Bill C-30 the priority and refer it to our committee. That way, we could deal with the matter expeditiously while following through on the government's wish to prioritize farmers and deliver the support they are expecting from us.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, I apologize for being repetitive. We've heard loud and clear the concerns of the farmers. We've been hearing them for past year and a half, going back to when we discussed this issue in the first place and dealt with it last year. Here we are, ready to deal with it again.

The minister has had a great dialogue and consultation with the stakeholders. We've heard loud and clear the concerns raised, especially by Saskatchewan farmers. The Saskatchewan farmers have brought their concerns to our attention, through their MPs, through, I'm sure, the new Leader of the Opposition, as well as through our MPs, including those on this committee.

Grain farmers do, in fact, want long-term certainty. This is what we're trying to put in place with this bill. With that, what I'm asking of the committee is for it to ensure that the rights of farmers are a priority, and therefore to deal with this issue sooner rather than later.

Yes, we can meet. I'm available all summer, quite frankly. Some might not want to hear that, but this is something that's a priority. If, in fact, we have to meet during the summer, if in fact we come back a week earlier, prior to the rising of the House in September, so be it.

Once again, I want to reiterate, Madam Chair, that grain farmers do want long-term certainty, and they want their rights to be a priority. This is, in fact, our intent. This is, in fact, what my recommendation is, to bring that forward for those very reasons.

Again, on Bill C-49, the intent is to bring it to the House for second reading, and therefore for us not to have to deal with it upon the rise of the House in September, and then have it go into December and possibly even the new year's timeline, which was proposed originally.

We can, in fact, if we start work earlier, deal with this earlier, and then have that certainty brought forward in an expeditious manner. That, quite frankly, is what I'm requesting, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I don't think anyone asked the minister to wait until June to begin the study of the bill in the House. It's a long and meaty bill. Bill C-49 is clearly an omnibus bill: there's something in it for everyone, including measures on grain transportation.

I think the committee members have done excellent work. We have gotten things done and responded quickly. The delay between the two should not be laid at the committee's feet. We would never do anything to delay the implementation of the measures in Bill C-30.

These people have been waiting, and once again, I would point out that it wasn't the committee that decided to wait until June to bring forward the bill. It's unfortunate; the government could have chosen another approach.

I would also like to hear what my fellow member and vice chair of the committee has to say about the situation. Here we are, in full committee, studying motions on committee business and other issues we need to talk about. We often find out about things at the last minute, however, so we don't have time to prepare or respond. Yet again, today, the schedule has been changed a few times.

As vice-chairs of the committee, not only were we elected by our peers, but we are also paid extra by the House to hold subcommittee meetings precisely to discuss scheduling and suggestions of this nature.

After the subcommittee meets, we are able to consult our colleagues about the committee's upcoming work—at least, that's what I would do. It would certainly be a better idea if we were to proceed that way more often, Madam Chair. It would give us an opportunity to learn about these types of intentions sooner and to find some common ground even before beginning our work with the entire committee present. The committee would run a lot more smoothly that way.

Using the subcommittee would also prevent situations like the one involving Mr. Rayes' request to resume debate on his motion. The subcommittee could've discussed it and realized that it wasn't possible. We could have done things the right way. It's unfortunate that we didn't.

When everything is going fine, we don't need to meet, but I think we need to talk and meet more often so as not to bring in witnesses unnecessarily or be caught off guard by proposals like this one at the last minute.

Mr. Badawey's suggestion that the committee meet when the House is not sitting didn't come out of nowhere. I think you talked about it amongst yourselves. The government party is aware of the idea, and you are getting ready to vote on it.

I'd like to hear what my colleague has to say. I think the subcommittee could help because it could resolve issues like these and ensure that the committee's proceedings ran smoothly.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Excuse me.

The minister has, in fact, taken the time in the past few months since our last dialogue on this issue to have dialogue and consultation with the stakeholders. We're now at a point at which he now feels it's time, after that dialogue and consultation, to bring forward Bill C-49. The House leader has indicated that she would like to introduce it to the House for second reading in a timely fashion.

This, Madam Chairman, simply goes to this committee, as well as Ms. Block's interest in dealing with this issue, and we feel the same way. I'm proposing that we have a choice. We can stay on the schedule we have in place in terms of our time frame coming into this session and going into the new session in the fall, which would then put us back into the December, if not January, time frame.

What I'm attempting to do is expedite the time frame to hear the concerns of the stakeholders and to bring this forward sooner, coming back from our summer constituency time a week earlier. I believe we're supposed to be back in the House September 16 or 18, so we would be cutting that constituency time by one week— coming back to Ottawa one week earlier to get back to work. Doing this would expedite Bill C-49 and alleviate some of the concerns that are being raised by stakeholders such as the farmers on the Prairies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

To be able to bring forward C-49 and do it earlier than our normal schedule in September, the concern would be to get the witnesses and the 25 or 30 hours of testimony dealt with in a solid week—as Mr. Badawey suggested—so that we would get the bulk of those hearings on Bill C-49 done prior to the House's coming back. Once the House comes back, possibly at that time, the committee would be prepared to go to clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No matter what we do with Bill C-49, it cannot be passed until the House resumes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think what I would do is go back to Mr. Badawey's suggestion regarding Bill C-49. Just to be clear on what he is suggesting, the measures in Bill C-30 were due to sunset a year ago, and we extended them in the understanding that we would undertake a study on Bill C-30 and bring forward recommendations to the minister.

We undertook that study in September 2016. You reported our findings and recommendations to the House. The minister, then, has had our recommendations on the measures contained in Bill C-30 before him.

What Mr. Badawey is suggesting is that, because we are in this very tight time frame now to deal with these measures that are going to sunset on August 1, this committee now needs to study this legislation throughout the summer, perhaps holding wide consultations with stakeholders, which is what the minister told us he was doing when we tabled the report in the House between that time and now.

What's happening is that members are now being asked to consider meeting in the summer to expedite Bill C-49, which won't actually have any impact on the expiration of the measures in Bill C-30, because this bill will not be passed until the fall.

Is that correct?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand, from our discussions, that the government House leader has indicated a willingness to deal with Bill C-49 based on some of the comments made, both by the committee and by the opposition in the House of Commons, with respect to bringing it to second reading and getting it to this committee before the summer adjournment.

If this happens, I would propose that our committee meet to study Bill C-49 prior to the House's returning in the fall so we can attempt to expedite this—again, based on some of the comments we've heard here in the testimony, as well as comments made specifically by the opposition in the House of Commons.

Madam Chair, this would provide us with an opportunity to hold extended meetings with the stakeholders and do a lot of work in a relatively short period of time to deal with the issue, as was articulated by members of the opposition in the House. There is a need to expedite this because of the sunset clause attached to Bill C-30.

As part of our work program moving into the fall, that's what I would propose, and I think it would go a long way toward speeding up the process and delivering results for our grain farmers and other captive shippers who are eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill. It would certainly provide them with the service levels they expect.

As members of the committee understand, Bill C-49 also includes a number of other important measures, notably a passenger rights regime for air travellers. Our studying this is long overdue, as well as hearing from those who are being impacted dramatically by it.

Madam Chair, I would throw that out there for discussion. Hopefully, we can get to this sooner rather than later because of the expediency it well deserves and needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They will be here for the first hour on Thursday. Thank you very much. I'm really glad when we can work together.

Now we have 15 minutes left to talk about committee business: what we have outstanding that's coming to us or that we still have to deal with.

We have Mr. Bratina's motion on water quality, which we have to deal with before December 1. We have a draft report on infrastructure that our analysts have done, which we have not gone back to review. We can take action on it, or we can simply leave it there until the fall, depending on the will of the committee on those two issues.

Legislation-wise, at some point we're going to have Bill S-2, Bill C-48, and Bill C-49. That's the legislative agenda ahead of us, over and above all the other issues that we'd like to dealt with.

As we look forward to the committee business ahead of us, we should sort out how we're going to deal with some of it. Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation, given the fact that it affects the issue of the sunset clause in Bill C-30.

That's what's ahead of us. We need to sort out how we are going to get these issues dealt with in the couple of meetings we have left.

I'm going to open the floor.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

So I was saying that, during the election campaign, the Liberals promised very small deficits of about $10 billion. We recently learned that the deficit for the current year would exceed $20 billion.

To satisfy my colleague who is wondering why I am talking about deficits, I would say that it's because certain factors lead to those deficits. What are those factors? They are quite simply unreasonable government expenditures. How will those unreasonable expenditures be repaid? By imposing a carbon tax on Canadians. So there is a direct link to the Liberals' promises to create very small deficits.

In reality, the deficit will exceed $21 billion this year. The Liberals are hungry and are trying to get as much money as possible anywhere they can to deal with those huge deficits. The carbon tax will be used to pay for the interest on the Liberals' credit card, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have a limit.

I could compare that to a family with a young child. This is in fact a young government of only 18 months that has access to credit and suddenly decides that it is wonderful to have a credit card without a spending limit and not to have to pay back the debt for another 30, 40 or 50 years. To hell with spending. They get into it, they spend and they will see later. Others will have to manage the debt. The children of our children will have to manage it.

However, a few people see things more clearly and tell themselves that borrowing is fine and well, but we have to at least pay back the interest on the credit card. The carbon tax, which is supposedly a tax to help protect the environment, is actually nothing but a way the Liberals have found to get even more money out of the pockets of taxpayers, families, SMEs and big companies to handle those large deficits.

When the Minister of Environment and Climate Change appears before the committee, she could answer those questions. Did she take action to improve the environment, to work on climate change, or did she simply react to an order from the Minister of Finance, who was unable to find funds anywhere other than in taxpayers' pockets? How to find money and make people pay by giving them the impression that it's the right thing to do? By imposing a carbon tax to protect the environment.

However, a tax is still a tax. The money taken out of people's pockets is money they cannot use themselves. That limits the decisions they will make with regard to their budget or actions they will take to protect the environment. The means to take action are being taken away from them.

I want to come back to the example of very small deficits that have now become very large deficits. We now understand better why, when we asked the Department of Finance to provide us with details on the real costs of the new federal carbon pricing strategy for Canadian families, those figures come to us blacked out. We understand why department representatives have no interest in disclosing those figures. It is because they know full well that people will be shocked and insulted by the extent of the costs for families.

That obviously affects the transportation industry. Many changes have been made. Bill C-49, which has been introduced, will allow foreign companies greater participation in airlines' shareholder structures. Some companies are trying to provide the most affordable transportation services possible. Very recently, the media reported that there are significant differences in the costs of regional transportation, be it in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. Airlines in particular are very worried about the competition they will see from foreign companies, especially when it comes to long flights, owing to the carbon tax they will have to pay on fuel. I heard that here during the meetings we had with airline representatives. Will we be hurting our airlines through these measures? I believe that question deserves to be asked.

Concerning airlines, we want to ask the Minister of Environment and Climate Change whether she has analyzed the repercussions of the carbon tax on the transportation sector. We want to know whether she has only considered the quantity of products sold and the quantity of carbon produced before imposing a tax in order to produce revenue, without looking into the effects the tax could have on companies' competitiveness or the accessibility of air transportation for middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class. We want to know whether the minister has assessed the effects on them, on their wallet, as well as on airline companies. The same reflection applies to transportation companies....

[Sara Wiebe]

As I mentioned, Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, is just the first step for Minister Garneau in the implementation of this transportation 2030 plan. There are other elements and other policy issues that the department continues to study—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for that clarification.

You talked earlier about Bill C-49. It was a long time ago when Commissioner Graham Fraser called for legislation to clarify and strengthen the application of the Official Languages Act as regards air travel. Correct me if I am wrong, but in terms of legislation, Bill C-49 does not do anything for the official languages.