Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Harry Gow]

Transport 2000 has cooperated with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre on these files. With respect to fares, we and our affiliates, like the PIAC, would like to see a kind of truth in advertising standard, where all costs are laid out before the consumer. What we've been treated to is, “Fly to Toronto for $79”. There's no mention of all the other fees, and there's no mention of getting back. So we have a stripped-down one-way fare given. People think they're going to Toronto for $79, but when they've finished paying, it's $230 or something. So it's a bit of a surprise for the consumer. We think there shouldn't be any surprises. So our firm position is that Transport 2000 and its allies, like PIAC, would definitely like to see this resolved.

What was your other question?

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

The air travel complaints.

[Harry Gow]

Yes, that's a big one.

Transport 2000 and other bodies militated long and hard during the merger frenzy between Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines. We were afraid of a duopoly becoming a monopoly. We advocated rather hard for an airlines complaints commissioner to be named, and we surprisingly got the support of Gerry Schwartz, among others, who was somewhere in that time looking at buying the whole caboodle. He didn't buy it, but the idea gained some credence. Minister Collenette appointed a commissioner for a six-month period, Bruce Hood. Another commissioner was appointed after his term, and then the position disappeared.

The firm position of Transport 2000 is there should be an airline complaints commissioner. This position should be established and made permanent. It's not good enough to simply send a letter to a faceless bureaucrat at the Canadian Transportation Agency, see it disappear into the maw of the bureaucracy, and for the public not to get feedback as to where this is going.

Madam Kenniff and Mr. Hood both published reports periodically outlining the trends. This is something you get in the States, practically without asking. We think Canada should join nations like the U.S.A. that require reporting on complaints and the number and types of complaints. We should go back to our good habit of having a commissioner who reports back to the public as to what was done.

Air Canada has a person who is responsible for complaints, but again, that's inside the company and it's not good enough. So we strongly believe that the Government of Canada should appoint an airline complaints commissioner on a permanent basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Gow.

Mr. Benson.

[Phil Benson]

Our employees don't set the freight. In anything we do, it's the companies that do that, hopefully under market conditions.

We didn't really have a comment on that, but I realize we're looking at transportation. Try to figure out your cable, phone, or power bill, or the advertising for a car—I mean, come on.

I'm just wondering whether or not, when you're looking at transportation and picking out an airline company.... Perhaps one could be looking at Consumer and Corporate Affairs and truth in advertising for a whole bunch of things.

So when you're picking on one—and I'm not defending Air Canada or anybody else—I understand the frustration, but as a consumer I see it in almost anything I pick up. That would be the comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think you might find a lot of agreement around this table on that particular issue.

[Phil Benson]

I would hope so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, very briefly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question today.

I'm curious as to the European models that have shown how in essence trains can run more quietly, and I had the opportunity to ask CN about that. I know Mr. Benson is always worried about employees and working in safe conditions. We've even heard that the World Health Organization put forward recommendations on decibel levels, which are the only objective measurements of noise, in my mind.

I was wondering what you think about the European model of noise control being adopted here to some degree. Anybody?

[Harry Gow]

If I may answer to a degree, it depends on what regime, because before the European Commission started setting Europe-wide standards for things like air pollution, engine emission, noises, etc., each country had its own set of rules. Some seemed very slack, while others were pretty tight.

In general, I think we would do well to move towards European standards. However, I have a qualifier. While European Commission standards have been very helpful in establishing new benchmarks for locomotive emissions, for example, and for noise by railcars—and the silent talent we have in Ottawa is a result of the European Commission's rules—this country is different. We have a lot more freight traffic, and the freight trains are infinitely longer. A long train in France might have 35 or 40 cars. A long freight train in Canada might be 150 cars.

So while I think we should inspire ourselves by European standards, particularly in the area of the environmental limits—noise, pollution, and so on—there is a limit to what the Europeans can offer us.

There are two things. Some countries such as Holland are much more densely populated than Canada, while others such as France have about the same number of people per square kilometre as we do—in most regions of France, other than Paris.

So I think we should inspire ourselves by the European standards, but adopting them slavishly might lead to trouble in some areas.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

According to what I'm hearing, is it possible that an implementation stage—some period of time over which it could be implemented—might be the accurate choice, so that businesses would know where to go and what their expectation is? Or are you suggesting that because of the density of the population here in Canada, at 1.1 persons per square mile, we should put up with more noise in some major centres than the Europeans have to put up with?

[Harry Gow]

Sir, I think that's a point where we have suburbs, for instance, in which there's a house per acre. I live in one like that, Chelsea, and we have a train that goes by. Frankly, no one is very bothered by it. It's two locomotives a night with passenger cars. It could really tick people off, but it goes by at a moderate speed and it brings economic benefits to the region. People appreciate that.

The same appreciation might not be found in, say, Etobicoke or Mississauga, where it's very densely populated and people might react very differently to this assemblage.

That's one aspect. The other is to go towards these things progressively, rather than setting a draconian goal for now.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

An implementation period?

[Harry Gow]

Yes, staged.

[Phil Benson]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

I want to reinforce that Canada is a different-sized country. What we carry is different, and our needs for international trade are different.

As a general comment, although not necessarily an endorsement, anywhere we can have technology that will work safer, better, and more economically, and that fits within our marketplace and meets regulations—any improvement that makes work life better, makes for more efficient use of products, and makes them cheaper to the consumer—is a worthwhile goal.

I will say that with some of the technology—and I will not mention it here—which they tried, the feedback was that it doesn't work very well. It could be a cultural thing, or it could be that it doesn't work very well here, because the needs of what they have to do are so different.

Again, why not use something new that's going to make life better—and by all means quieter—for workers, society, and our companies, so they can grow and thrive—super stuff?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you for your attendance today and your presentations, Mr. Gow, Mr. Jeanes, and Mr. Benson. We appreciate it, and we hope some of the wisdom you've offered us will be reflected in the bill that's brought back.

We'll take a two-minute adjournment, and then we'll come back to committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm calling the committee back to order. As promised and confirmed at the last meeting, we have a motion to be put forward by Mr. Bell. I know there have been some negotiations back and forth, but I will let Mr. Bell have the floor to present his motion.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you. In response to comments by Mr. Jean and Mr. Fast, as well as a request that there be a reference to the Alberta derailment in Lake Wabamun, I am suggesting that there be a friendly amendment. I'm not sure whether it could be accepted as friendly or if it needs to be moved by someone.

The motion would read:

That the Standing Committee on Transport Infrastructure and Communities conduct an in depth inquiry into rail safety and particularly the recent CN rail accidents in British Columbia and western Canada including the 2005 derailment that caused the disastrous spill into Lake Wabamun, Alberta, and in B.C. caused an environmental catastrophe in the Cheakamus River, and a locomotive accident resulting in the deaths of two rail workers in June 2006.

I've given you all copies, complete with arrows. If this flows, I think it responds to the issue with respect to Alberta that was raised by the members opposite.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Any comments? Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am not moving that this be amended in any friendly way. I have an amendment to the original motion that I would like to propose. I would suggest that with this amendment we would not necessarily have to include Lake Wabamun in Alberta. The last sentence would read: “deaths of the two rail workers in June 2006 and whether there is any correlation to the increase in rail accidents as a result of the transfer of B.C. Rail to CN”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So you're asking to add an amendment to the motion that was already presented?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

There would be no changes to the original motion except for the last sentence. There would be no reference to Lake Wabamun or Alberta, but simply “two rail workers in June 2006”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for clarification, where would that amendment start?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

At the very end. It would just be an addition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Then would it be just the way it stands right now?