Evidence of meeting #67 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-49.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Al-Katib, do you want to add anything to that?
4:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Former Advisor, Canada Transportation Act Review, AGT Food and Ingredients Inc.
At the end of the day, it's not an issue that we spend a lot of time on, but the consolidation is real, and the competitiveness of our railways is reliant on their ability to raise capital. I think placing one restriction on one railway over all the other players in this market.... There is an integration of the North American rail system. We can't just consider CP and CN and consider that they're not a part of an integrated North American system.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for joining us this afternoon.
My first question is very simple and is probably for Mr. Emerson and Mr. Streiner. They can answer with a yes or no.
In the previous Parliament, when the NDP was the official opposition, I remember that one of my colleagues invested a tremendous amount of time and energy into putting together a private member's bill, which proposed a passenger bill of rights.
Did you have a chance to look at that bill at the time?
4:10 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Yes, I knew about that initiative.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
I am asking you this because that bill, which had received the Liberals' support but did not make it through, contained very specific descriptions that are in line with Mr. Emerson's report. It said that the passenger bill of rights should be consistent with or close to what was being done in the United States or in Europe. Most of the measures were very specific. For example, in case of a cancelled flight, the airline company was asked to provide two or three options. Failing to do so, the company would have to pay a fee that was even costed.
With Bill C-49, we are light-years away from that. We are in the philosophy of what the passenger bill of rights should have been. We will go into consultations once Bill C-49 obtains royal assent. So are we not losing precious time, given the work that has been done already and the fact that problems are becoming more and more persistent?
September 11th, 2017 / 4:10 p.m.
Former Chair, Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, As an Individual
Because I didn't see the bill, and I wasn't aware of its content, I really couldn't answer that. In principle, I think you make a good point.
4:10 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
If the bill is passed, the Canadian Transportation Agency will focus on the regulatory process. Our objective is to complete the work in two or three months. That is precision work.
In the United States and Europe, if I'm not mistaken, some of the details of passenger rights protection are found in regulations as well. We will look at practices in the United States and Europe, but our commitment and our objective is to get the job done and to get the job done quickly.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Wouldn't it have been possible for Bill C-49 to give an overview of what those regulations could be, so that we would know where we are headed? I think that is relatively clear, since we are among the last countries to implement a passenger bill of rights.
Had we benefited from the experience of others, we would have already implemented certain elements. But the consultation will be based on major philosophical principles or regulatory proposals, which we could improve and completely remove or add new ones.
4:15 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
The agency's consultation will be very targeted and will focus on specific issues and details.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I have another question for you, Mr. Emerson. It has to do with the conclusion of your report, where you propose increasing the United States' possible foreign ownership from 25% to 49%.
When you were considering that aspect of the bill, did you read the conclusions of the research report on that issue produced by the University of Manitoba task force?
4:15 p.m.
Former Chair, Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, As an Individual
If you're referring to the 15% limitation on single-share ownership in CN, we didn't hear from anyone on that issue during the review process. I don't recall anyone advising us on that in our discussions, or receiving a submission on it.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Emerson, but the idea of wanting to increase foreign ownership in airports from 25% to 49% is the topic I really want to discuss. According to the University of Manitoba's results, it has not been shown that this would lead to value added for consumers.
So I would like to know whether you have read the report published by the University of Manitoba and, if not, on what study you based your proposal to go from 25% to 49%.
4:15 p.m.
Former Chair, Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, As an Individual
You're referring to ownership of airlines, air carriers. Okay.
4:15 p.m.
Former Chair, Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, As an Individual
We received submissions verbally, particularly from some of the insipient operators or creators of ultra-low-cost carriers. We heard that they were having difficulty raising the kind of capital they needed to start low-cost carriers. We basically recommended something we thought would have traction, because it had been recommended before by, I believe, the Wilson report on competitiveness some years ago. We went to 49% as a threshold that would enable early start-up carriers to get a single shareholder that might get them over the hump in setting up an air carrier. Some of the staff may have, in fact, read the Manitoba study. I did not personally read it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Emerson.
Sorry, Mr. Aubin, but your time is up.
Mr. Fraser.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Excellent, thank you very much.
I could probably spend an entire day with this panel, so to the extent you can keep your answers short, and I'll try to do the same with my questions, it would be helpful.
First, Mr. Streiner, you mentioned a relative explosion in the number of complaints you dealt with when the public learned that the CTA was there to help. I'm picturing that through a well-publicized process, including these committee hearings and debate in the House of Commons, if C-49 passes, Canadians are going to be very well aware that they have some sort of recourse for the ordinary frustrations that come with travel. Do you have the capacity to deal with a further explosion of complaints? If not, what mechanism can be put in place to give you that capacity?
4:15 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
I'll try to keep my answer brief, as the member requested, Madam Chair.
I will say that the CTA is, no doubt, somewhat stretched today. This dramatic increase in the number of complaints has stretched us. We're a relatively small organization with a significant number of mandates, including, but not limited to, processing and dealing with air travel complaints. I would be not entirely truthful if I didn't say that we are stretched. That said, we are, for the most part, managing to keep up. We've done some temporary redirection of resources to deal with these complaints. I was very happy to hear the Minister of Transport indicate that the government has committed to ensuring that the CTA has sufficient resources to do its job, but at the end of the day, those decisions on resources, as well as the responsibilities assigned to us, lie with Parliament and lie with the government. We will absolutely do the best we can to provide service to Canadians with whatever resources Parliament chooses to assign to us.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In addition, at the outset of your remarks, you commented that part of your core mandate is to ensure that individuals living with disabilities have access to effective means of transportation, which I think is extraordinarily important. Do you see that the passenger bill of rights is going to enhance the ability of individuals living with disabilities to access air transportation in a fair and effective way?
4:20 p.m.
Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Transportation Agency
Accessible transportation services are, without a doubt, a fundamental human right and one we are committed to advancing. As I understand the bill, which is currently before the committee, the consumer protection regulations it proposes do not deal specifically with accessibility issues. The former Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities indicated on the part of the government that national accessibility legislation would be coming forward in 2018. I understand this is still the government's plan and that legislation may deal in part with questions of accessible transportation.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
If we can shift gears to Mr. Emerson, we haven't touched much on the measures impacting marine transport. One of the measures, of course, is growing access by port authorities to the Canada infrastructure bank. Is there any reason we shouldn't be allowing ports to tap into this new source of capital to grow and expand in an era of international trade?
4:20 p.m.
Former Chair, Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, As an Individual
Could I just add something? I want to do two things. One, I want to answer a question you asked Mr. Streiner, that as long as you're restricting the CTA to dealing with issues on a “one complaint at a time” basis, frankly, you're never going to have enough resources to deal with the multitude of complaints. It's lunacy to expect to deal with the accumulation of complaints unless you're giving the agency the authority to deal with clusters of complaints of a similar sort.
On the port authorities, my own feeling is that until there is a thorough review of the governance arrangements that deal with port authorities and airport authorities, I get very nervous about opening up more spigots, if you like, for these authorities to get hold of more money, because I'm concerned with the governance framework that applies both to ports and to airports. I think there is inadequate governance in relation to deployment of capital; there's inadequate governance when it comes to making sure that there is a recourse to a regulator where there is abuse of monopoly power; and there is inadequate governance when it comes to port or airport authorities entering into business in competition with their own tenants, and so frankly I wouldn't give them any more access to money until you clean that up.