House of Commons Hansard #222 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of constituents from my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills who are calling on the Government of Canada to include regenerative agriculture in its climate change plans.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from a number of residents from southwestern Ontario who are very concerned about the fact that the Conservative government of the past stripped environmental regulations covered in the Navigable Waters Protection Act and that the current government has failed to keep its promise to reinstate the environmental protections gutted by that original bill.
The Thames River, in London—Fanshawe, is an incredible and historic river, and we would like to protect it. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support my bill, Bill C-355, which would permit the government to prioritize the protection of the Thames River by amending the Navigation Protection Act.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition in the House today calling on the government to support the energy east pipeline. This petition was signed by the petitioners before the project was, unfortunately, cancelled, but they were concerned, and continue to be concerned, that the government is not supportive of pipeline construction. In fact, the government is looking for every opportunity to put barriers in the way of pipeline construction, and it has indirectly killed the success of the energy east pipeline.
The petitioners want us to do more to support the project, and they want to see it come back.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I encourage members, as happened in the last two days, to not engage in debate when presenting petitions.
The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition calling on the government to identify hospice palliative care as a defined medical service covered under the Canada Health Act. Signatories of this petition would like to see provincial and territorial governments entitled to funds under the Canada health transfer system to specifically make hospice palliative care accessible to all residents of Canada.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions signed by Canadians highlighting that many Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups have murdered and injured Canadian citizens and have committed heinous acts against foreign diplomats. As such, these petitioners are calling on the government to maintain the listing of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from people across Canada, but mostly from Whitehorse, Yukon. There is even one from a mobile home a couple of hundred yards from the mobile home I live in.
The petitioners explain that Falun Gong is a spiritual practice. It consists of the principles of truth, compassion, and forbearance. They say that the United Nations, Amnesty International, and western governments have condemned the terrible torture and deaths of Falun Gong practitioners, including reports of thousands being killed for their organs.
The petitioners call for the immediate release of Canadian citizen, Ms. Sun Qian, who has been detained in Beijing for practising Falun Gong.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
There are 15 motions and amendments standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-49.
Motions Nos. 1 to 15 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motions in amendmentTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec
Liberal
Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-49, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 18 on page 8 with the following:
“aux termes de l'article 53.8, le commissaire rend”.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
moved:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motions in amendmentTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders
October 25th, 2017 / 3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
moved:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Clause 74.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and speak to my report stage amendments to Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act.
This bill amends 13 other acts. It deals with planes, trains, and ships. It touches on airports and seaports. It is vast in its reach and wide in its scope. Yet, if I had to state my thoughts on this bill in two words, it would be “missed opportunity”.
Through Bill C-49, the government had the opportunity to make great strides in improving our Canadian transportation system to ensure that it works well for all Canadians. Instead, the government let that chance go by.
The transport committee began special hearings on Bill C-49 in the week prior to the House's return from its summer recess. Over the course of that week, we heard 44 hours of testimony from dozens of stakeholders and expert witnesses in each of the sectors touched on by Bill C-49. We were given briefs and letters, consisting of thousands of pages of data, with over 100 suggested technical amendments from those whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by this bill.
We heard, almost unanimously, that Bill C-49 was a good start, and that if the suggested amendments were made, the bill would actually accomplish its stated objectives. However, after only two weeks to review this mountain of information, the Liberal members of the transport committee defeated over 24 reasonable technical amendments. Again, these amendments were suggested by a wide range of stakeholders and experts, and were written to make the bill a workable solution for all involved.
The good new is that there are still some amendments we can make here at report stage of this bill. I will be suggesting four amendments, as they were moved. The first of these has to do with airline joint ventures. Joint ventures, while sometimes useful for creating efficiencies for airlines on routes in the air passenger industry, can also run the risk of comprising consumer interests due to the loss of competition on a given route, and the ensuing increase in ticket prices.
That is why the decision to grant or deny an application for a joint venture has historically been left in the hands of the very capable Competition Bureau and the Commissioner of Competition. Bill C-49 would change that. If the bill were to pass in its current form, the Minister of Transport would have the final say on whether or not two airlines could combine routes and share cost and profit.
Further, this bill stipulates that the Minister of Transport must consider the nebulous terms “public interest”, and not simply whether or not a proposed joint venture would reduce competition. I use the word “nebulous” to describe the terms “public interest”, because over the past two years, far too often we have seen the Liberal government and its ministers claim to be serving the public interest while, in fact, they are only serving their own political or personal interests.
The recent political machinations that led to the cancellation of energy east come to mind as an example of the government serving its own political interests rather than the interests of all Canadians.
However, getting back to the amendment before us, this change gives an uncomfortable amount of power to the Minister of Transport over the currently non-partisan process and over the Competition Bureau. Bill C-49 risks taking a non-political process and politicizing it.
Bill C-49 also introduces an option for airport authorities to purchase the services of additional security personnel from CATSA. Ostensibly, additional staffing would increase the speed at which travellers are processed through security. On the surface, increasing security and processing speed to ensure that travellers remain safe while not missing their flights sounds like a good idea. However, there are two significant areas of concern.
The first has to do with costs. Air travel in Canada is already among the most expensive in the world. This provision could increase the costs even more. We all know that any added cost for the airports would simply be passed along to the end user, making air travel for middle-class Canadians even more expensive.
Second, we heard in testimony throughout the study of this portion of Bill C-49 that the federal government currently takes more in security fees than it provides back to CATSA to perform its duties. I believe this is unacceptable.
This is the opposite of making travel more affordable for Canada's middle class. Bill C-49 would, rather than addressing the issue, simply impose yet another de facto tax on Canadian travellers. For this reason, I have proposed a report stage amendment to remove this clause from the bill.
I am also proposing an amendment to remove two other clauses, clauses 73 and 74, from Bill C-49 that would give port authorities access to the Liberals' infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank is funded by taking $15 billion away from infrastructure projects for small and medium-sized communities across Canada through the Liberals' imposition of a $100 million minimum cost requirement for projects to qualify for support from the infrastructure bank. Small and medium-sized communities would see almost no benefit as a result. While I understand that our ports are in need of infrastructure investments, the infrastructure bank is not the way to address this.
While these are the report stage amendments I am proposing, I was very disappointed by the display of partisanship at committee when this bill was reviewed. At committee, my colleague from the NDP, the member for Trois-Rivières, and I proposed small, reasonable, technical amendments, which were defeated by the Liberals at committee.
For instance, with the introduction of long-haul interswitching, the Liberals sought to create their own solution to a problem which had already been addressed with a reasonable Conservative solution.
In the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, the previous Conservative government had created a regime of extended interswitching that worked so well in the prairie provinces that shippers from across Canada requested that it be extended to the entire country.
Instead, the Liberals created the complicated, inefficient long-haul interswitching regime that has such poor conception, and so many exceptions, it will be all but useless to shippers. For example, the member for Trois-Rivières and I both proposed an amendment requested by many stakeholders that would have made LHI work that much better.
This minor technical amendment would have changed the wording of the provision to allow the first interchange point to be in the reasonable direction of the shipper's destination. What does that mean exactly? Simply put, shippers did not want to have to send their product potentially hundreds of kilometres in the wrong direction to reach the nearest interchange point, as this would increase their costs. What happened to this very reasonable technical amendment? The Liberals defeated it. It was another huge missed opportunity to make this bill work.
Meanwhile, not content to make this measure simply worthless, the Liberals may have actually succeeded in making it harmful. In Bill C-49, toxic inhalation hazards, known as TIHs, are exempted from long-haul interswitching, supposedly due to safety concerns. However, this is not a reasonable exemption to make. TIHs are shipped under an extensive safety regime, as prescribed under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and its regulations.
The real concern is that this exemption undermines the principle of the common carrier obligation. This principle essentially states that railways are obligated to carry all products without discrimination, and allows shippers to access the railway's services without unreasonable carriage fees or threats of denial of service. Denying access to long-haul interswitching for TlHs could be the thin edge of the wedge that would one day break apart the common carrier principle.
Ten minutes is not nearly long enough to list every reasonable technical amendment that the Liberals voted against. Suffice it to say this bill is full of missed opportunities. It is my hope the government will take a small step forward, and accept our report stage amendments.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her presentation. I admit that I agree with the key components of her speech. It is truly a pleasure to work with her at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would not have believed it when she was in the Conservative government and that brings me to my question.
Since she was once on the government side, and it will surely be my turn in 2019, what happens to members when they arrive in government to make them suddenly think that they have all the answers and that every amendment proposed by the opposition is out of order?
That is what we experienced with Bill C-49, and that is what we recently experienced with Bill S-2 as well.
What makes the Liberal government members think that the light only shines when it is red?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can manage to get inside the head of a Liberal. This is really an omnibus bill that amends 13 different acts, and has consequential impacts on all three modes of transportation.
As I mentioned, we heard from many stakeholders in a short period of time who all agreed that if the government would be willing to make some small, very technical amendments, this bill would actually go a long way in addressing many of the concerns they had. It is sad the government is not actually listening to those stakeholders, and to those experts who recommended these technical amendments.
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a mentor who said that public service is good for us. As the member here mentioned earlier, we really are seeing a government that does not put the public's interest first at hand, or really their political interests, let alone what we are seeing from the finance minister and his lack of transparency.
With respect to this bill, and clause 14 that amends the Canada Transportation Act with respect to airline joint ventures, it takes the final decision-making authority pertaining to joint ventures away from the Commissioner of Competition and gives it to the Minister of Transport. In giving the Minister of Transport that final authority with respect to airline joint ventures, the clause mandates the minister to keep the act in the public's interest, but exceptionally subjectively.
Could the member comment in detail on what her concerns are with respect to this clause. I do not believe it is in the public's interest; it is only in the political interests of the current Liberal government. I know she believes in the public's interest. I am looking forward to her comments.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, quite simply put, as we have seen time and time again from the government, and the last number of weeks would highlight this, it has great difficulty in distinguishing between its own political interests and the public interest.
A potential effect of clause 14 would be that Canadian consumers might have fewer airlines to choose from on certain routes. As a result, Canadians might face higher costs for air travel. This is one of the reasons why we raised this at committee and why this amendment was brought forward. Again, that nebulous term of public interest is what is really concerning when it comes to the Liberal government.