Evidence of meeting #14 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last spring the transportation groups made various representations with regard to disabilities, particularly in air travel, and also, of course, the legal situation that exists now with VIA Rail. At that time it was felt that legislative encouragements weren't necessary, that voluntary compliance was the way to go. Clearly, from the concept of inclusion, nationally there are dozens of incidents around the country daily where people in wheelchairs are either embarrassed or humiliated or are unable to travel or are forced to take alternative routes that are much more expensive or lengthy in time. Will this act legislate inclusion for persons with disabilities?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The act already has provisions in it pertaining to accessibility and the codes of conduct and the guidelines. Those are not being proposed to be changed. They will continue. There are no changes envisaged in this bill to alter that, other than the policy statement re-stressing that point about accessibility.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Here is my question again, very clearly. We know they're in the act, we know that they're voluntary, and we know they're not working. So why wouldn't you have the bill incorporate something that would make inclusion and accessibility something that especially the major carriers would have to set a national standard for?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Currently the carriers already sign on to the code of conduct and they are required to comply with that code. As with anything, even the provision of regular services, there are going to be people who are not satisfied with the service that is provided. The agency hears those complaints and has authority to try to address and resolve those complaints. It will continue to do that. It would be difficult to try to legislate any more than that because the complaints will vary. We have ongoing consultations with the accessibility community--in fact the minister chairs a committee--and we will continue those efforts and encourage the carriers to make the provisions necessary to ensure that those people have access to the transportation system.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
We'll deal with that at another time.
I have two other quick questions. The O-Train in Ottawa had virtually no Canadian preference or Canadian technology, so of course the cars will be built in China and the technology will be built in Europe. The nation's capital will have a brand new transportation system with no Canadian content, or very little.
We are the only country in the world that doesn't have any requirement for Canadian technology in its own systems. Do you feel that some form of public transportation technology would help Canadian transportation in dealing with our own unique climate and other issues?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The procurement of the O-Train system belongs to the City of Ottawa and the City of Ottawa follows its procurement approach. Like the federal government and the provincial government, it has gone through a public open tender call for proposals, and that's how the technology was selected. You may know that the current O-Train is in fact Bombardier technology. Bombardier has not won the full contract now; it will be Siemens. We believe that an open and fair transparent tendering system is the way to go, and that's what the federal government itself practises for any procurements.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
More specifically, Canada is the only country that doesn't have any buy-Canada provisions. Had there been something, a return through taxation, income tax, and all those other kinds of things, it would have more than made up for any difference in the bid. I'll leave that with you.
On passenger train service, the VIA train that crosses the country, does your department have any influence on VIA?
I'll tell you why I ask that. In March 2005 they promised a study to change their routing from the north line to the south line through Ontario, essentially what was the CN line to the CP line. The CP line is much more scenic, of course, and all those kinds of things, and would make more people want to travel on the train across the country. There has been virtually no response on that, although they had indicated they were interested in doing that. Can your department actually have these documents released or put pressure on VIA Rail to actually represent Canadian citizens?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, if I recall, I think the minister responded to a letter from you on the matter.
VIA did look at it. As you may know, VIA operates with a fixed operating subsidy set at $169 million per year. Within that subsidy, VIA has to continue to operate the network across the country. A move to another route or another line has implications for those costs.
Not only that, It also has implications for the current population that it serves. VIA is using the CN route because there are remote communities that rely on that service and the CN line provides better access for those remote communities.
VIA does not have the financial wherewithal right now to change the routing or to add additional services. It has to live within the operating subsidy. So it will not be able to change the routing in the foreseeable future.
Liberal
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to air travel and transparency in advertising, you chose to adopt individual regulations rather than include in the legislation the obligation for companies to provide details.
Why was this approach adopted? According to the media, some sections apply and others do not. What was the logic behind that?
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
I would like to respond in English; it is a bit easier for me.
The regulatory approach for us is always one that allows more flexibility to changing circumstances: changing circumstances in the marketplace, changing circumstances in terms of behaviours that may be all right today but perhaps not perfect tomorrow, and changing circumstances in terms of competitiveness.
We look right now at one of our major competitors, the U.S. The U.S. has followed a regulatory kind of approach, and it has also looked into whether or not that regulatory approach needed to be changed. Fairly recently, it decided that it did not. With that said, it very much illustrated to us that we were on the right track in terms of taking this kind of approach to ensure that we maintain flexibility.
I think at this stage we also feel that we do not have a huge problem in Canada. Most of our carriers are relatively compliant, behaviours have improved considerably, and consumer awareness has improved a great deal as more and more players are using the Internet. The number of passengers who make bookings on the Internet is very substantial. With all of those changes, our view was that the regulatory approach provided flexibility to respond if and when needed, and flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I have a little trouble with the idea that the agency shall consist of not more than five members. Then it goes on, in clause 5, which amends subsection 18(2), to say, “shall reside in the National Capital Region.”
Are there any other groups like that? Around the table there are very few of us who reside in Ottawa or who are compelled to do so because of the position we hold. As the honourable member mentioned, if somebody from Vancouver is appointed, it would probably be through an order in council for a three-year period, or whatever it might be. That person would be at a certain level, and he or she would now be employed full-time rather than working on a per diem basis with a certain guarantee of an honorarium, as was previously the case. What are we thinking of here? Secondly, more importantly, why would we insist?
It would appear that the committee would always have to meet in Ottawa. The people who worked on it would always have to reside in Ottawa. It would seem to be very much not the Canadian way to go. Do you have other illustrations that show that a person couldn't live in Montreal, Quebec City, or Regina because they were a member of this board? What effect would it have in the long term on the success and the work that agency would do?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I can't answer the question of whether there are other agencies that have similar requirements.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
You can't? Then why would it be put in this one only? There must be some precedent.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
We are putting it into this one because of the business of the agency. They usually require that three members be available to hear any complaint, and that three members be there to sign off. If the members are spread throughout the country you always have to require them to meet somewhere. Having them come to the national capital regional facility will mean that they are here and that they're all available to hear the evidence that the agency personnel present to them, and that they can discuss and sign off on the decisions there. Otherwise, they can continue what they're doing today, but it will take them longer to make decisions and sign the documentation.
Residence in the national capital region would be required only while they were members. That would not preclude them from maintaining a long-term residence elsewhere.
Liberal
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
They're for three years.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
So we're talking about transportation. Ideally if we're running an efficient country, you can go anywhere in this country within a matter of hours. Could they live, for example, in Gatineau? They could, but they couldn't live in Smiths Falls?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It doesn't officially belong to the national capital region.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I just wonder who you're trying to attract and the reason why. If you could give us examples of why suddenly we say.... I think it's against certain parts of our charter to say someone has to live somewhere in order to work somewhere. I think restricting where one lives is a violation. I'm quite sure. Maybe you can look into that and get back to the committee on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Blaney, do you have any questions?
I'll throw the floor open, but if I may, I wouldn't mind asking one brief question.
In the minister's presentation he talked about the minister making a one-time-only request to the agency to adjust the revenue caps for grain movement to reflect current maintenance costs for their hoppers. Why would it be one time only? Would it not reflect changes over time, and wouldn't that request have to be modified?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The way the provision is written now, the agency actually adjusts the revenue caps on an annual basis. Doing this will allow for a somewhat retroactive application in that the agency has looked at maintenance costs, and will now reflect the actual costs. Once we establish that on a going forward basis, the agency will review the revenue caps annually and set them annually.