Transport Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I have one last question.

On the topic of the cameras in cabs, I have a quick story. On my first day on the job that you now hold, which I was honoured to hold for a while, I was told I needed to have an emergency meeting with the major rail line in the country, which I did. Minister, the very first topic they brought up was the notion of having these cameras in the cab. It was something that took a lot of my time and energy over the last two years. However, I was always troubled by one particular issue, and I don't have clarity on it from your Bill C-49. It has to do with the utilization of this information for purposes other than safety management.

Your speech is clear. Your speech says very clearly that this is about safety management, that proactive safety management is what the tapes are going to be for. This week in testimony, rail companies and transport officials indicated that the tapes could also be used for discipline, which is where I have concerns.

Can you help me understand whether or not we are going to be allowing CN and CP, and any other rail company that puts cameras in the cabs, to utilize them for non-safety related disciplinary purposes?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

The purpose of the LVVR legislation is not to conduct discipline with respect to employees, it is related to safety. I think I'm very clear on that. It is a tool that is important to increasing safety.

The TSB would like to have it. In some cases where the TSB doesn't investigate incidents or accidents, Transport Canada would like to have access to that data. In certain very prescribed situations dealing with safety management, where we're concerned about the possibility of unsafe practices, under controlled conditions with random selection and privacy rights taken into account, there will be access to this data. It will be under very controlled conditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau.

Our next speaker will be Mr. Graham. I have to acknowledge that you had a very close relationship with our colleague, Arnold Chan, in the House leadership. If you want to take a moment to acknowledge that, I believe the committee would welcome that.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the immense contribution to this place of my close friend and our colleague, Arnold Chan.

I know he would want us to focus on our work, to move forward with what we need to do. When I visited him a few days ago, his concern was not about himself, but rather how everyone else was doing. He knew where he was going and wanted to make sure that the rest of us were going to carry on. He wanted to know what was happening here, to discuss our work in procedure and House affairs, where we sat together, and to pick up on the most recent gossip from around the Hill.

He loved this place. He lived this place. Of course, being Arnold, he apologized profusely between laboured breaths that he would probably not be able to join us at caucus the following day or at the House this fall.

On behalf of all of us here, I want to send my best to Jean and their three sons. We are with them at this difficult time.

To Arnold, we will remember to follow our hearts and to use our heads. As we do, Arnold, you will always be with us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I am hopeful that the committee would indulge in our having a moment of silence.

[A moment of silence observed]

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Graham, and thank you all very much.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Minister Garneau, for taking this significant step in modernizing the framework that governs transportation. From what the witnesses have said, Bill C-49 is very positive on the whole, but I would like to clarify a few points with you.

The Mont Tremblant International Airport in La Macaza is located in the riding of Laurentides—Labelle, which you know well. Commercial service is seasonal and is not very reliable. There are already problems with CBSA services, which are offered under a cost-recovery agreement. This has effectively killed international flights, since the costs are more than $1,000 per incoming international flight.

CATSA fees are currently the same as at other airports with a fixed cost per passenger. Can you reassure us that the cost recovery rates proposed by CATSA will not hurt small airports such as the one in La Macaza and small airports that are essential to survival in the North?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Graham.

When I was in opposition, I became aware of the issues with the Mont Tremblant International Airport. The issue at that time was the availability of CBSA services for incoming flights, usually charter flights with American passengers on board.

Bill C-49 addresses increasing refundable fees for airports that need this service in order to expand. There are a number of small airports all over Quebec and elsewhere that do not have that service and would like to, but they are not designated airports. In fact, this has been available for a while. What is new in a sense is that major airports, such as the Toronto airport, want to pay for additional CATSA resources in order to speed up security screening.

This bill seeks to increase CATSA services for airports that choose to do so. It will not remove services that already exist.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

On another matter, I would like to talk about railway transportation, which interests me a great deal.

Some witnesses said they were concerned that the bill would in some cases allow for service on railway routes to be discontinued within 60 days. A few witnesses also suggested expanding operating rights upon request as a way of enhancing competition.

The Canadian Transportation Agency already has the power to grant operating rights to other companies upon request, but has not done so to date. Will an increase in operating rights be possible in the future?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

There is no mention in Bill C-49 of discontinuing rail lines or of allowing a railway company to discontinue an existing line within 60 days. If a line was active, however, the service level could be raised by the Canadian Transportation Agency. In many cases, the lines that railway companies decide to shut down have not been used for a number of years. It costs them money to maintain those lines. The bill does not cover this issue, but if a line is in active use, it is certainly in the interest of our category 1 rail companies to maintain it, as that gives them better access to transportation business.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Let us hope that access can be given to local railway companies.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Are you referring to right of way?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

That entails expropriation to some extent. If a secondary railway company has permission to use other main lines belonging to category 1 railway companies, it does so knowing that it does not own the line. This happens under certain circumstances. For example, VIA Rail uses a rail line of which it owns just 3%. This is based on an agreement with the railway company in question. This is something that can be negotiated but that is not automatically granted.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have one more question.

I have a couple of points of clarification in the LHI exemptions. I notice that restricted dimensional loads—you might refer to your staff for these ones—are only exempt on flatcars. Intermodal is only exempt on flatcars. Intermodal usually runs on deep-well cars, and heavy dimensionals are often in Schnabel cars or other specialized equipment, so why is the restriction only for flatcars?

In the same vein, why are toxic insulation hazard substances exempt but not other special, dangerous, or highly dangerous haz-mats?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I'm going to turn to my officials for the first part of your question. I have to compliment you on your detailed knowledge of this bill.

On the issue of dangerous goods, the decision was taken with respect to transporting materials that could involve toxic gases. The LHI exclusion is based on the fact that one wants to minimize the handling.

Now, your point is that there are other dangerous goods. The decision was taken that at this point we would restrict it to toxic inhalation materials. It's something that certainly could be looked at, but for the moment, that was our primary concern. We recognize that there are other dangerous materials as well.

On some of the lines that are very congested, where there's a lot of traffic and there are dangerous inhalation products, we want to minimize the chances of accidental releases, which do unfortunately happen in the present circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Minister.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

On the issue of your other question, perhaps I could refer it—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

My time has expired.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

A short comment on that, please, because I don't want to take away from the other questions.

[Helena Borges, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport]

The answer is actually quite simple. The legislation only refers to dimensional loads. It doesn't specify what kind of car they would be carried on. Dimensional loads could apply in others. It's really to show where the challenge is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Moore is up, but she's had to exit for a moment, so we're going to go to Mr. Fraser, and then we'll go back to Ms. Moore.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you. I didn't think I'd be so lucky as to get a second round of questions. I always appreciate the opportunity.

Following up on the issue of the uptake of the infrastructure bank to ports, when we had Mr. Emerson here, he did express some concerns about the governance structure before money is made available to ports. In a conversation following the meeting, he acknowledged that the involvement of the private sector would likely lead to some improved accountability.

I'm curious. On the issue of engaging the private sector through the infrastructure bank and the port authority, is this either going to improve governance or allow us to.... My main concern here is to make the most of every federal dollar to expand our port infrastructure to get our goods to market.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Yes, as you know, the infrastructure bank has an important component that's related to transportation. We feel that at the moment it's not something that's accessible to our Canadian port authorities. Our Canadian port authorities, as the incoming and outgoing terminals of trade for this country, are extremely important. We just wanted to give them an additional tool so that in some cases where there was a good business case they could leverage the capability that would be available when the Canada infrastructure bank is in place.

We felt that this was good for ports that are continuing to grow in terms of their business. Some of the ports in this country are continuing to expand, so we want to help in that process.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On the issue of short-line railroads, we've heard a number of witnesses. Though it didn't necessarily relate specifically to provisions included in Bill C-49, we talked about the economic importance of short-line railroads to their communities in representing an area that's defined by small towns and rural communities in a province that's really only served by short-line infrastructure.

I'm curious as to whether the rail corridor funding available through your portfolio would help short-line railroads accomplish what they need to in order to ensure they're serving these smaller communities.