Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think we'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask members to please take their seats and we can get on with the next group.

At the first meeting the Transportation Agency attended, it was thought by members that we would bring you back at the end of the hearings and ask more questions. I don't know if you have a prepared presentation or if you would be prepared to go right into questions. I would ask and see what your position is.

Mr. Dufault.

[Gilles Dufault, Acting Chairman, Canadian Transportation Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We are pleased to be here this afternoon to answer questions that members may have on Bill C-11.

As was the case last time, I have with me today, from the Canadian Transportation Agency, Mr. Seymour Isenberg, Director General Rail and Marine Branch, and Ms. Joan MacDonald, Director General, Air and Accessible Transportation Branch.

Mr. Chair, we're ready to answer questions of the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right. Thank you very much and welcome.

I believe Mr. McGuinty is going to lead us off.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Bonsoir, Monsieur Dufault.

Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Isenberg, welcome home. Welcome back. Thanks for coming.

I think we're all very happy to have you back, because we're hoping you've had an opportunity to be briefed on the evidence that has been presented by different witnesses over the last several weeks, since your first appearance. I think it would be very helpful for me as an MP, and I hope my colleagues, to hear from you in terms of whether you've had an opportunity to synthesize or react to some of the suggestions that have been made.

I want to start with a couple of areas that are hanging out there. It would be important to get your feedback on your initial reaction, perhaps, or more thoughtful reaction, to some of the areas that were brought to our attention.

First I want to bring up with you this question of sanctions and the sanctionability of offences. Have you had any chance to look at whether or not we should be spelling out in more clear detail the question of sanctions?

I'd ask you to just hold that for a second, because I also want to link that to the question of whether or not in the bill, which I think calls upon the government to call upon you to formulate guidelines for a dispute resolution mechanism, we ought to be looking to prescribe with more specificity how the agency should be dealing with disputes.

We've had mixed evidence. Some have said we should go further; others have said we should leave it to the agency, and so on. So I want to connect those two, if I could, and get your reaction.

[Gilles Dufault]

Merci, Monsieur McGuinty.

In terms of sanctions, I think in our power we can order some modifications. If we talk about noise, for instance, we can order modifications and we can order things to the railway if that is not followed. We have the power of a superior court, and if that is not followed, we can ask the Federal Court to make sure that those sanctions are enforced. We feel that we have all the powers to do what is required by the agency under the proposal that is in front of you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Have you given any more thought, then, to what sanctions would look like in cases of noise complaints, if you have the full gamut, the full spectrum?

[Gilles Dufault]

It could be to take corrective measures.

I'd like to ask Seymour Isenberg to give you more information on that, because it's his field.

[Seymour Isenberg, Director General, Rail and Marine Branch, Canadian Transportation Agency]

Mr. McGuinty, I think the agency has the flexibility to take remedial measures when necessary. Remember that according to the act that's proposed, this will be the end product of what, if you like, didn't work. If negotiations didn't work, if mediation didn't work, if we didn't have a cooperative process to solve something, the agency would look into the situation, and where necessary, according to the decision the agency makes, they would render a decision that is in effect an official order. An order can be made, an order of a superior court in whatever province we're in, or an order of the Federal Court.

I think you had testimony, if I look back at what came in over the last couple of weeks, from the Railway Association that in fact they respect and follow agency orders, and I don't think we've ever had a problem like that. Of course, the party has the right to appeal a decision of the agency--that's a democratic right they have--but if we issue an order and it's not appealed, they follow our orders, so I could give you some comfort there that yes, it would be possible.

In terms of guidelines for dispute resolution, in anticipation of this legislation the agency is already starting to work internally on the development of guidelines that would cover a series of elements. Of course we're waiting to see what the final bill looks like before going out and consulting on this, and let me assure the members of the committee that the agency has guidelines in a wide variety of areas. It has guidelines in accessible transportation. It has guidelines in marine. It has guidelines that work effectively; they're done in consultation with others. I think you can take some comfort from the fact that we're used to working with such guidelines.

One of the things guidelines give you is flexibility, whereas if you stick to a regulation, it's tight in the law, and you're stuck with it until or if somebody changes it. We're quite comfortable with that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Could I ask a related question, then? We had some testimony from CN Rail that informed us that the gross revenues last year were $7 billion, and that they were paying somewhere in the range of $650 million in taxes this year.

I'd compare that to a citizens' group that's having a problem with noise Do you anticipate in your guidelines, or is there anywhere in your structure now, that you provide support for citizens' groups who will be involved, or potentially involved, in a dispute resolution process? Can you imagine a scenario in which the CTA will in fact support fledgling community groups that are dealing with, in some cases, a company with 28 or 30 full-time government relations officers?

[Seymour Isenberg]

If I can be of some comfort in this sense, the agency is a relatively easy place for citizens to interact with, and when there's an issue of going to where the affected community is, we have a history of being out there, of touching the problem. I would expect that this would work in the same way; we intend to consult and we intend to consult with interested parties. We will have a number of ways in which citizens can interact with us. Obviously the government has Internet access and we will use that, but we will use other methods, and that will be laid out in due time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise is next.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be splitting my time with Mr. Carrier.

I have a quick question for you, Ms. MacDonald. Lately, I have been bombarded with e-mails about section 27 and how it affects air fare. I think that the industry would like us to tackle, once and for all, the whole issue of pricing and advertising, so that when an add is published, the terms are crystal clear, and there are no hidden costs. The new proposed clause 86.1 would allow the agency to make regulations respecting advertising.

If we were to say, instead, that the agency must regulate advertising, would you be in agreement with that and would it solve the problem once and for all?

[Joan MacDonald, Director General, Air and Accessible Transportation Branch, Canadian Transportation Agency]

Certainly if the minister gives us the direction to make those regulations, I believe the way it's structured in the bill it should allow us to address that. As you know, the way the bill is set out now, it says that when prices or fares are advertised, they should be structured in such a way that the traveller will know what the total price of the fare will be, the cost to be paid. When we develop those regulations, we'll do it in consultation with the consumer groups, with the industry and with other interested parties to make sure that the structure of the ad is clear to people.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The groups to which I am referring do not want the minister to have to make a recommendation, they would prefer to have the agency make the decision. Do you think the agency could be asked to set these standards? Would you agree to having that in the act? I know that you can't comment on ministerial decisions, but if you had to include provisions in the act, if you were asked to do that, would you be able to?

[Joan MacDonald]

Certainly you'll know that under section 86 the agency does have the power to make regulations on a variety of areas. So we are accustomed to the process in terms of developing regulations and consulting with interested parties.

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

Good afternoon.

Along the same lines, the clause relating to noise also says that the agency can establish guidelines. Which do you prefer: the term « may establish » or « must establish »? Would you prefer to have the freedom to set guidelines or would you like the act to force you to do so?

[Gilles Dufault]

As I explained when we appeared before the committee last time, we are preparing the conceptual framework for the guidelines. As soon as the legislation is implemented, we will undertake a consultation process with all of the country's stakeholders, in order to establish these guidelines. So, it makes no difference if it is an authority or an obligation, we will be doing it in any case.

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

Once again, on the guidelines that you are preparing: the bill deals with noise. So, as I understand it, you are working on noise guidelines. But the various groups who have appeared before us have also spoken about nuisances such as vibrations and emissions, as we heard earlier.

Do you also have guidelines in the works to deal with those issues?

[Gilles Dufault]

So far, we are concentrating on noise.

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

Have you received any complaints from people who are upset about vibrations and fuel emissions from locomotives?

[Gilles Dufault]

I think Seymour would be the best one to answer that question.

[Seymour Isenberg]

May I respond in English?

Prior to 2003, we received numerous complaints on issues that covered a broader spectrum than noise. Often, noise is part of the overall issue, whether there's noise, vibration, and so on. We were successfully able to handle a number of these cases to a positive resolution. I'm confident that under the proposed legislation that's there now, a lot of other factors will be able to be incorporated in a solution. Remember that the objective, really, if you look at the structure of it, is to get the parties together, the carriers with the groups that are affected by the carriers, to see what can be done to fix the situation. Hopefully that's at the stage at which most of it will be repaired. If that doesn't work, then it will fall to the agency to do a formal study with orders. Our powers, of course, will relate to what's in the law.

If I can give you a bit of comfort, though, generally other factors are part of the noise factor. It starts with noise, and other factors are there, such as smell, diesel, lights, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

What role do you see your agency playing in the mediation process, in disputes between parties?