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.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have a few questions to follow up on an earlier question. We're talking about the compensatory versus penal punishment for a passengers bill of rights. Will there be any tracking of infractions? If a company routinely overbooks its planes and has to pay off one passenger, will that be known? Is there any punishment for constantly infringing on the rights of passengers as opposed to doing it once every now and again?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
As we said, the agency will be getting authority to collect data on the performance of the parties involved in the air traveller experience. The agency will then get information. If there are too many complaints coming to the agency from travellers that certain airlines are not respecting what the commitments are and what's in their tariff, which would include the penalties and the compensation and all of that kind of stuff, then the agency can look at what action needs to be taken in a specific area, because that's how the information will come forward.
We're hoping that through these measures—because it will be clear and transparent—the carriers will comply and that we won't be getting a lot of complaints. But yes, the agency will have that information.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Understood.
On a totally different topic, back to the voice recorders, we're talking about putting them in railways, possibly class 1 railways, or possibly all of them, but we don't know yet. Has there been consideration to doing that in aircraft as well with data recorders?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
We already have them in the air sector and the marine sector. Actually, the regulatory environment there is done on an international scale through the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is located in Montreal. They have had voice recorders on the aircraft for decades. That's in addition to the black box that goes in the aircraft to know how the aircraft itself behaves. They already have that. You often hear those tapes on TV when you see they're also in touch with air traffic control, and the air traffic control has the same kind of capability. They, in fact, already exist.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have another question. It's one that I've asked many people and I've never had a good answer to.
We're talking about class 1, class 2, and class 3 railways. There is one company—and I won't name it here—that has about 100 short-lines but it's not considered a class 1 railway. Is there any way of fixing that, or is that always going to be the case?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The way the definitions are done is by the revenue they make with the amount of tonnage. If you have what I'll call a “holding company” that holds various railways that operate across the country, in some cases those railways may be under federal jurisdiction, and in other cases they may be under provincial jurisdiction. They're not operating as one company, but operating separately under what I'll call a “franchise”, differently. The classification is really based on those revenues and the activity that the companies generate.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
What elements of Bill C-30 are going to remain in place?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The elements of Bill C-30 that will remain in place are the arbitration for level of service, and the operational terms. The agency was given authority to define those operational terms when the bill was first introduced, so that is one element that is there.
The penalties for the railways not complying with what's in their level of service agreement on service also continues to be in operation.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have time left for one question.
On interswitch traffic, railways operate by paying for loaded cars as opposed to empty cars. If you forced another company to take your loaded car and then the company that would originally have had it has to bring back the empty car, who is responsible for that? Is it going to cause problems where one company can be forced to take the traffic and another company has to provide the empty cars?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
We're not forcing anybody to carry anything here. The railways, among themselves, determine what arrangements they have with one another. Usually, the railway is carrying full one way and is empty another way, or sometimes they can bring back some stuff on the cars they've unloaded.
The arrangements between the railways are commercially defined and they determine how those cars are moved, where those cars go. It's all between them on a commercial basis.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have a final question on security stuff.
In the United States there is a lot of positive train control and I haven't heard much talk of that in Canada. Are we going in that direction?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
I will ask Brigitte to answer. It's a hot topic right now, but I'll ask her to give you some context on work that's under way.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
On positive train control, we are following very closely what is happening in the U.S., and we've been doing studies of train control in Canada. Last September or November, we shared with this committee a copy of the report of the Advisory Council on Rail Safety, which did an analysis of train control.
The conclusion was that positive train control, in its current form, was not something that we should be pursuing in Canada. Advanced train control technologies are definitely something that we should do, and we will continue to do those assessments. We are currently working with the rail research group at the University of Alberta to conduct further analysis. We will be happy to share future reports with the committee.
Liberal
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
My question pertains to the Federal Railroad Administration, which is also opposed to voice and video recorders. In the report, they say the recorders are detrimental to staff relations.
I raised the following question when I spoke earlier. I wonder whether recorders are really the solution or whether Bill C-49 should instead introduce every measure possible to prevent accidents. Consider the transportation of dangerous substances, for example, which is barely mentioned in Bill C-49. This refers to transporting all kinds of substances by rail. Yet Bill C-49 does not include the development of a transportation mode for the future or specific features for dangerous goods. These include inflammable products, for example. Since trains are getting longer and longer, the risk of rail crashes is even greater.
Have these issues been considered or are recorders being offered as the answer to everything?
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Thank you for your question.
Recorders are not the answer to everything. It is important to look at the factors that affect rail safety and what measures should be taken. Since the Lac-Mégantic accident, the department has implemented various initiatives and measures. Changes have been made to the Railway Safety Act. We also continue to examine ways to improve safety. Recorders are intended to confirm exactly what happened on the train. At present, there is no way of knowing what interactions took place among the team members so as to determine what happened during an accident or how to go about preventing future accidents.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada could provide further information about the incidents under discussion. The Board would like us to focus more on what happens on the train and, in particular, why people are missing red lights.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a final question, not that we're running low on time with these witnesses.
Mr. Garneau leveraged key findings from the 2016 Canada Transportation Act review. You were all a part of that, initiating a development of a vision for the future of transportation in Canada. With that, extensive consultations were in fact done. Those in the business, yourselves, were the experts to expand on the Canada Transportation Act review, and of course come up with the findings which we are witnessing today.
I do know that a strong consensus emerged from these consultations. We all understand that Canada's transportation system is critical to the well-being of our economy, moving goods and people throughout the nation, as well as internationally. Federal leadership and a national transportation strategy is, in fact, needed, and well overdue to support the system 20 to 30 years into the future, equalling a vision for transportation, the economy, safety, as well as efficiency.
Being efficient, as I just mentioned, and integrated, the national transportation system is vital to our economic growth, our trade, our social well-being, our environment as my colleagues across the way noted. Transportation 2030, anchored by five themes, responds to that and of course is a part of that.
Do you find that this legislation, based on your experience, which I might add is a lot more than our experience, actually achieves safety, efficiency, and finally, leverages all of our transportation assets throughout the nation to allow us to expand and enhance our global economic performance?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
My simple answer to that is yes.
This act, this legislative package, is one of our key initiatives to deliver on the five themes you mentioned that are in the minister's vision. It does improve the travellers' experience. It does support trade corridors. It does improve security. It does deal with making the best use of all the modes and making sure that those modes are integrated. There will be other pieces of legislation that come forward and other initiatives that will be announced. This is the crowning achievement in putting a whole bunch of things together.
The minister also announced last fall the oceans protection plan, which deals extensively with our waterways. There's another bill in Parliament, Bill C-49, that complements that, but this one deals with all the parts and all the five themes. In our view, the proposed amendments to the various bills, particularly the Canada Transportation Act, will put us in good standing to having a very safe, efficient, competitive, and sustainable transportation system for the long term.
