Transport Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Most of the documentation is available in the annual report most recently tabled by the Canadian Transportation Agency. It included a chapter on the complaints over the last year. Those are the most recent data available, and the report does provide some year-over-year comparisons. If there's additional specific information, we can certainly make that available as well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have 30 seconds.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

My final question is again on Bill C-11.

In the merger review provisions there is an indication that public interest is being considered in the merger reviews, but I have not seen any specific recommendation or specific reference to how the public might be involved in the merger review process. It seems to be set by the minister. What provisions could be made, or what provisions exist--perhaps i've missed them--that actually allow the public to get involved, particularly when we're talking about air traffic in regions of the country where a merger could have fairly significant repercussions?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'll ask Ms. Borges to answer that question.

[Helena Borges]

The process allows the minister, if he determines there are public interest considerations, to ask a person or a group of persons--a committee, for example--to investigate what those public issues may be. That opportunity would allow the public to come forward and explain what the impacts--through air, rail, or whatever--may be on their communities.

It also allows for other members of the industry. For example, if you have something happening in rail, it could affect ports, or it could affect one of the passenger rail lines. It allows for all those concerns to be brought forward. Right now that mechanism does not exist at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have time for one short question from Monsieur Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I am new at parliamentary work. I would like to thank the minister for attending the meeting. I believe that the key questions have been asked this afternoon, and we appreciate the respect you have for the committee's work, as you have shown with regard to the issue of flight attendants, and, particularly within Bill C-11, the issue of noise, which is an issue that is of particular concern for my constituency. This is something that is included in the legislation.

Is also interesting that you were able to split up this bill compared with the previous version. It has been improved, which is why we are able to move forward more rapidly.

Discussions this afternoon have been very constructive. I also want to salute your courage with regard to railway safety. We really get the sense that you want to deal with this issue, which is one that I believe is shared by committee members.

That is all I have to say. You said that your appearance would last 30 minutes, and yet you have been here for over 50 minutes. I therefore want to thank you for having accepted the committee's invitation. I believe that your appearance will help guide our work going forward.

Of course, before moving on to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, we will hear from witnesses. I think that the names of the witnesses that we wish to call for this consultation have already been submitted to the chair.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Blaney.

I heard my friend, the Liberal Party critic, tell me that bills, etc., came about thanks to the exceptional work by the previous government. I would no be so bold as to say such a thing. I believe that we were able to choose measures, actions and initiatives, which all parliamentarians here subscribed to and expressed their opinion on. Needless to say, it is up to the government and a minister to introduce the initiatives, but I would humbly suggest that they are the result of the productive work that committee members have done over the years. Members properly defined, identified and improved the legislative measures included in the bill.

We simply gave careful consideration to the elements on which there had been a consensus in order to move things forward, rather than introducing legislation left and right, which could have led to resistance. We believe that it was important to move forward with issues for which there was a general consensus. And the consensus was reached thanks to members sitting on this committee.

It is always a pleasure to work with members of Parliament, because it reminds me of my beginnings. I sat on a number of parliamentary commissions at the National Assembly to discuss several bills. Basically, the role of members is to examine these issues and to add their views, which are extremely important because we will have to explain these issues to our constituents later on.

Thank you very much for hearing me out today. Mr. Chair, I remain available for you if you feel the need to call me back here again. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We do appreciate your taking the time to be here.

We will continue with questions outside of the minister. We'll get the technical details, if that's all right.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister alluded in his presentation to a vast amount of consultations. With that, I guess, we have assurances from him and from the department that things are looking very good for this bill, and we've had very few people, or very few groups, presenting concerns.

Could you indicate to our committee what concerns have been expressed and, as of this day, what concerns need to be addressed, not from your point of view but from the point of view of those sending you letters, those wanting to make presentations to the minister's office?

[Helena Borges]

I will respond on behalf of the surface mode, and I'll let my colleague respond on behalf of the air mode.

The issue on which we have received by far the most concerns in letters has been related to railway noise. It dates back to 2000, when the Federal Court of Appeal overruled that the agency had any authority to engage in disputes of this nature.

We've consulted, going back to 2001, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We've had communities write in. We've had individual constituents write in. We've had numerous members of Parliament; there were even opposition days when we responded to this issue. Basically, this is why it is such an important element of this legislation, a brand new power for the agency. This power does not exist for any of the other modes. It's really specific here to rail.

On that one by far we've tried our best to address the concerns put forward to us. We believe the solution will allow for hopefully a cooperative approach to be taken, but if not, the agency has the power to order a solution and to try to correct the problem.

I'd say that the second issue we heard most about was related to the commuter rail operators and urban transit operators, about access to rail corridors that are being abandoned, and making sure that those corridors remain available for urban transit purposes. We are strengthening the current provisions in the act, which outline a very detailed and rigorous abandonment and discontinuance process. We're including them in the process and also broadening it to include rail sidings, rail spurs, and rail stations, which can continue to be used for urban transit purposes.

As well, the commuter rail operators came to us numerous times. We had several meetings with them. With us they helped craft the provisions in the act about publicly funded passenger service providers. The new adjudication mechanism we included in the bill was designed with them. We consulted with the railways, of course, to determine the impact. The railways are okay, I think, with the provisions in there. As the minister said, those groups are very interested in getting this through, and I think they would be very happy to come before the committee to talk about that.

Those are the three big areas in which we've had extensive consultation and requests.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Any others?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

On the air side, I would refer to two areas.

To begin my remarks, I would say that we've worked closely with the air industry in terms of its associations. We've worked closely with the agency in terms of its experience with carriers in a range of areas, and we have tried to build in responses to the kinds of issues they have raised.

The one area where we have had concerns raised--from this committee but also from stakeholders--relates to consumer group concerns about adequate protection in the case of airfare advertising. In that case, again, this legislation includes a specific component, a specific element, that would allow the minister to enable the agency to pass regulations, if needed, with respect to airfare advertising. It would put into place, for the first time, specific guidelines in terms of expectations of behaviour from carriers in Canada with respect to airfare advertising. So we feel that we have addressed the concerns while retaining sufficient flexibility to respond to changing market circumstances with respect to airfare advertising.

The second area in which consumer groups have expressed some concern is the intent to not renew the commissioner of air travel complaints. I know that has generated some interest in a number of quarters. We have emphasized very strongly through this legislation that the informal complaints resolution function, which has really become a core function of the agency, should continue, should be made permanent. We feel that this responds to the need from passengers to have a sounding board without necessarily having the head, the individual, in that particular role.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I just want to make a very small point here on railbed abandonment. There was a tremendous amount of that some 10 years ago, or maybe within a year or two of that.

Is much of that former railbed within the control of our legislation, or has it been spun off by CN and CP to outside agencies and is therefore beyond the grasp of our Parliament and our government?

[Helena Borges]

In 1996 when it was passed, the Canada Transportation Act put in a process to facilitate the abandonment of rail lines. Since then we've had the creation of a large number of short-line railways across the country. I think there's a total of 60 across Canada right now.

CN and CP have kept the primary highways and quite an extensive network in western Canada, so the majority of the network remains in the hands of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National.

Several of the short-line railways are also under federal jurisdiction if they cross provincial boundaries, so they would be subject to this process. If they are under provincial jurisdiction, they would not be subject to this process.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Are railbeds that have been completely turned over within or without?

[Helena Borges]

Once they are no longer part of the railway they are under the jurisdiction of municipalities. They are a piece of property like any municipal piece of property.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you for attending our committee meeting.

I am very concerned by the urban transit authorities and the much-talked about commuter trains that need to be refurbished. I am wondering whether the agency will be at the mercy of businesses. It is stated that: “A railway company shall prepare and keep up to date a list of the sidings and spurs that it plans to dismantle.” Therefore, the agency remains dependent on these prepared lists.

How could the agency check to make sure whether the list is up to date?

[Helena Borges]

Railway companies are required to maintain their lists. Bill C-11 provides that when a company wants to make changes to a list, either by adding or removing elements, it has to notify the agency, Transport Canada, as well as communities through which the railway runs. This is becoming clearer. The railway has to be on the list for a period of 12 months, giving sufficient time to notify the people concerned.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How can we be sure that companies have updated their lists? How can you make sure whether all sidings that are available really appear on the list?

[Helena Borges]

A company cannot abandon a siding before it puts it on a list. Moreover, companies will only place those sidings they wish to abandon on the list.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have another question on the same issue. Could the bill have included negotiations with respect to the sharing of railways? Rather than only being concerned about it once the railway or siding has been abandoned, could we provide negotiations to allow for a commuter rail service? This is not included at present.

[Helena Borges]

Indeed, that is not currently provided for. However, in Bill C-11, the agency is given new powers to arbitrate with commuter rail companies and railway companies to negotiate agreements with respect to the responsibility to determine when they will run passenger service or need to use a special railway. Furthermore, railway access fees will be included.