Transport Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a quick question with respect to the earlier comments about amending the Canada Marine Act to allow Canada port authorities, the CPAs, and their wholly owned subsidiaries to access the anticipated Canada infrastructure bank loans and loan guarantees. We all recognize that most of those CPAs are former federally owned assets that were negotiated to the private sector.

One of the four pillars contained within the government's transportation strategic plan places an emphasis on trade corridors. As we all know, this is a catalyst to better position Canada to capitalize on global opportunities and to perform better globally and to ensure disciplined asset management, which in turn will develop a stronger trade-related asset that will contribute to Canada's international performance, international competitiveness, and prosperity.

Will the Canada Marine Act allow the St. Lawrence Seaway, a federally owned asset, to access Canada infrastructure bank loans and loan guarantees?

My second question is with respect to other programs that we're currently offering. This government has taken it upon itself to offer, for example, programs attached to super clusters, trade corridors, and smart cities and, finally, in Q1 of 2018, the actual infrastructure program that we're going to be embarking on.

Will the St. Lawrence Seaway have access to those programs as well as CPAs?

[Helena Borges]

I'll clarify right off the bat that you're right that the St. Lawrence Seaway is a federal asset. Because of that, it receives a statutory appropriation from Transport Canada on an annual basis for any capital improvements that are required on the seaway. The company that operates the seaway on our behalf tells us basically what the requirements are and receives the funding to make those improvements. Given that it receives a statutory appropriation, that's how it will be appropriated in the future. It doesn't need to have access to these programs because it has access to the fiscal framework directly.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Great. Thank you.

There are areas located along the St. Lawrence Seaway that actually have their trade corridor—I won't say “designations”—but their trade corridors. There's road, air, multimodals, and so forth, that have plans to put in place an economic strategy to take advantage of these assets. Unfortunately, a lot of times those improvements—under that allocation that is being made to the St. Lawrence Seaway—are not being made. The assets have deteriorated and they're in need of some work. When we read today's article by Mr. Runciman, we see that he recognizes that. Moving forward, we expect that work to be done.

If the work isn't in fact part of that program, in terms of the appropriations, what then happens to those areas that made this part of their strategy? Can they make an application for one of those programs that I mentioned earlier to get some of the work done to further their economic desires on a federally owned asset?

[Helena Borges]

If there are needed improvements to the seaway that the corporation hasn't identified and that we're not funding, we would ask that we be made aware of what those are so that we can approach the corporation and find out why those aren't included. That would be part of the answer.

To answer the rest of your question, the minister announced in early July the national trade corridors fund. It's a national fund and its sole purpose is to fund trade-related transportation infrastructure. This is very exciting. There is $2 billion available over the next 11 years. In fact, we've already gone out and just last week received some expressions of interest for projects that people would like funded. The eligible recipients are basically anyone that owns and operates transportation infrastructure that supports trade. They are more than welcome to apply through that program. This will be a first round. We will have subsequent rounds in future years, but that is a way for others, like port authorities, road authorities, airport authorities, railways, and anybody who operates transportation infrastructure that supports trade, to seek funding support for their projects.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Borges. I appreciate both of those answers. One is to get into contact with Transport Canada to ensure that the assets that should be managed appropriately are—and I'll follow up on that at a later date. But the second part is the other partners that may, in tandem with a federally owned asset such as the seaway, apply to the trade corridors or other programs that are being made available to enhance those assets, as well as having the federally owned asset there, too.

My last question is just that. Do you see it as appropriate that these private sector partners, as well as municipalities that run alongside, in this case, the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway, make those applications to work in tandem with a federally owned asset?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Could we get a short answer to that question?

[Helena Borges]

The answer is yes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's good to see everybody back, and some new faces here as well.

I wanted to reach into the air passenger bill of rights issue a little bit. A lot of focus, of course, has been on the airlines and what they do or don't do. We've had some pretty alarming examples of some difficulties in recent weeks, but I've also been in situations waiting on the tarmac because, for instance, the terminal doesn't have the crew there to operate the gantry and the ramps, etc.

Would we not necessarily focus specifically on airlines but have this be, if you like, a “whole of experience” approach, where if there's a deficit in service to the public it isn't just focused on one part of the sector, which could easily do the old finger-pointing to someplace else?

[Helena Borges]

That's a very good question. Yes, there are multiple parties involved in the air experience. As I mentioned in my remarks, one of the elements that is in the bill is giving us the authority to collect information from all of those who are involved in the air traveller experience—the airline, the airport, everybody else who works at the airport, the Canadian air security agency, all of that chain—to look at where things are working, where they are not working, and what kinds of issues are coming up, so that we can report to Canadians on how well those are working.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There was also, I think, historically some resistance from the Department of Transport to the Government of Canada on joint ventures. I gather there will be some players, particularly in the airlines, that are resistant to joint ventures.

In managing these arrangements on a go-forward basis, can you describe some of the triggers, some things that joint ventures may present to you that would cause concern?

[Helena Borges]

I'm going to ask my colleague, Sara Wiebe, and perhaps Mark Schaan, to answer some of those questions based on the experience to date and what we're proposing as different going forward.

[Mark Schaan, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thanks so much. Bill C-49 proposes a new approach to metal-neutral joint ventures, or joint ventures in the air sector. Right now they are assessed solely on the basis of competition and competition law, wherein the primary considerations are duration of competition and economic understanding.

What C-49 does is broaden that examination to include a whole and robust competition assessment by the bureau. It also includes public interest benefits, which may include things like connectedness, safety, or the traveller experience. Insofar as a joint venture raises concerns, I think those would be that the public interest benefits assessed by Transport Canada in that review process are insufficient to overcome what would be the significant lessening of competition in the sector. What C-49 does is to attempt to balance potential negatives in any proposed transaction with potential public surplus benefits that Canadians might experience. It is necessary for one to overwhelm the other in order to go forward. It's a voluntary system by which the proponent has to have a reasonable assumption of likelihood of passage to be able to pursue the voluntary process to get the minister's authority.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you for that.

On the issue of video and voice recorders, I had gone through this in a former role at metro Vancouver's transportation authority in respect of onboard video and voice recording on buses. There are some significant labour relations issues inherent in that, particularly the concern of members that this would be used for disciplinary purposes. The whole privacy issue, of course, centres on who owns the data, how it's stored, how it's accessed, and how long it's going to be kept. Are all of these issues going to be addressed in regulation as we go forward?

[Helena Borges]

The answer is yes. I'll ask my colleague Brigitte to give you a little more on how we're addressing these issues.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have one additional question I'll throw in right now. We're focusing only on class 1 railroads for this technology. Coincidentally, some of the legal action around Lac-Mégantic is starting just now. Even if these provisions had been in place, the railroad in question wouldn't have had them. Given what we know about the status of the health of short-line railroads, why not have this extended to them? You can include that.

[Helena Borges]

Thank you.

Brigitte.

[Brigitte Diogo]

Madam Chair, I would say that the regulations under development—and we are engaging stakeholders on this—would indeed look at issues related to data protection, the retention period of the data, the requirement for companies to develop policies to prevent unauthorized access, and the record-keeping requirements a company would need to have in place. How to put this measure forward while we safeguard privacy rights is top of mind.

There is no decision yet on the scope of application. In fact, we are planning to define the scope in regulations, and it would not just be on class 1. It's not a de facto conclusion that it should be class 1. We are doing the risk assessment to determine whom it's going to apply to, and this could include short-lines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, Mr. Hardie, but your time is up.

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's good to join my colleagues today.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being part of this.

I think this bill is critical to Canada's future. Modernizing our transportation network is essential to the way we get our goods to market in Canada, across North America, and around the world.

Marine, air, rail, and, by extension, transporter trucking—these form the infrastructure of our economy. This bill's goal is to build that out to 2030 and beyond. One thing I see missing is cabotage. I am wondering which industries considered cabotage, that is, allowing a domestic carrier to pick up and remove commercial goods or passengers en route, by marine or air transport, within the United States. In regard to 2030 and beyond, if we're looking at efficiency—which Ms. Borges said was the goal of all of this—cabotage should certainly be about that. Has the government examined this in any of these areas?

[Helena Borges]

Cabotage is something we've examined repeatedly. The issues behind cabotage go beyond transportation. They deal with the ability of workers from one country to work in another country, and thus would implicate the immigration departments of those countries in terms of their allowing that to happen. We are allowing some cabotage through this bill related to marine transportation, and it relates to empty container movements. Right now, an international vessel that brings in containers full, then empties them here, cannot move them between one point in Canada and another point in Canada. They have to be moved either by truck or by rail. This is allowing them to move empty containers from one port to another port by marine vessel, which, in fact, is the most efficient way to do it, not to mention that it's probably the most environmentally efficient way as well. They can then take the containers back to get them refilled. We are allowing that, but in the other modes there are other hurdles that would have to be overcome, including other countries allowing Canada to do the same in their countries, which so far has not been allowed.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

The interest in timing that we have, Ms. Borges, is that we're modernizing transportation while we're modernizing NAFTA. If you look at efficiency within transporter trucking, for instance, a lot of the trucks we have going south come back empty. If we could fill them—we're burning greenhouse gas emissions, which I know is another area of interest to this government, and of all of us indeed—that would minimize the wasted GHGs of empty trucks coming back. If we're modernizing transportation and modernizing NAFTA, why would cabotage not be part of it? I notice the commissioner of competition asked for this examination in 2015 in many of these same industries, so to you, Ms. Borges, or to representatives from the Competition Bureau, why weren't these elements part of this act?

[Helena Borges]

As I mentioned, to include that in this act, we would need to have a whole bunch of other issues resolved, such as the labour issue of having people able to work here—and actually, for example, under NAFTA, the U.S. authority to do that. I understand that some of those discussions are going on. Through prior changes, we have already achieved an incidental move: so if you're a trucking company going from Canada to the U.S. and you have a second point in the U.S., as long as it's part of one move, you can stop in two locations. But you're right that we can't pick up the traffic there and bring it back. These are things that are under consideration, as part of discussions, but they're not part of this bill because, frankly, it cannot include those discussions without the other ones happening.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Certainly I don't want to pry into the confidential negotiating positions of Canada, but I'm wondering whether, within the context of Bill C-49 and the NAFTA negotiations, studies were done on the efficiencies of cabotage, namely in marine, rail, and trucking, and whether an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions was done by your or another department. I'm wondering—without getting into the confidential negotiating positions—whether any studies on those two areas can be shared with this committee.