House of Commons Hansard #225 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-49.

Topics

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that this is not an omnibus bill, because 90% of it has to do with one subject. However, there is another 10%.

I call this bill the “trick or treat” bill, because there is some tricking involved and there is supposedly a treat at the end of it. He also mentioned that time allocation is the only option the government has to move forward legislation. There is actually a second option, which is negotiating in good faith with the opposition House leaders in the chamber to move legislation forward.

I do not understand the rush to not have us debate this bill and point out all of its inadequate components. It is incomplete as a bill. There are three things that we should be considering: cost, access, and user experience. Many have said that the only thing this bill really deals with is the user experience component.

Could the minister tell us why he is rushing through an incomplete bill?

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, my goodness, this bill is really something that I wish had been done by the previous government about 10 years ago. This is addressing something that is fundamentally important.

There is a part to the air travellers' side of things, which Canadians have been asking for, for a very long time. In fact, the government voted against private members' bills in the past that would have introduced the concept of a passenger rights' bill.

Second, the rail freight legislation modernization is really trying to get something right that has not been addressed or has been improperly addressed for decades. From the feedback that I have received, not only from shippers involved in the grain industry but from others, I think we have finally grappled with something that the previous government never wanted to touch and never did anything to.

I am extremely pleased with the result that we have had after a great deal of consultation. As I have said, my hon. colleague's party made six of the nine amendments in committee stage. If that is not listening to what the opposition has to say, then I do not know what is.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the minister pointed to the fact that this legislation, Bill C-49, addresses a number of pieces of transport legislation. It deals with trade, rail, privacy, competition, and passenger rights.

However, he somehow says that that is not an omnibus bill and wants to somehow distinguish the government's performance from that of the Harper government, where time allocation was brought forward over 100 times, with that member and his party standing with us to rail against the improper use of time allocation.

Can the member tell us what has changed?

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad my colleague brought up the fact that time allocation was invoked on over 100 occasions by the previous government. I was there, and I know the Speaker remembers it as well, as he was there at the time.

What we are trying to do as a government is pass sensible but important legislation. It is not an omnibus bill. I will give the House of an example of an omnibus bill, and perhaps my colleague will know of it. When there were massive changes to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, massive changes to change the Fisheries Act, and massive changes to change the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, all of that was done in the same bill. We were talking about a bunch of things that were vastly far apart, and this was all done under the guise of a budget implementation bill. That is an omnibus bill.

We are committed to not doing that kind of stuff. Ninety percent of this bill is dealing with the Canada Transportation Act, a very important act.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the minister and his department for presenting the legislation that we are talking about today. As he mentioned, it is encouraging when a government ultimately sees a bill pass and go to committee while looking for ways to improve.

The minister made reference to the amendments that were brought forward from opposition members that were accepted. It is very rare that would happen during the Harper era.

My question to the member is on the importance of the air passenger bill of rights. This is a very encouraging step forward. I believe many Canadians in all regions of our country have been waiting for a good period of time. Can the minister provide his thoughts in terms of how this could ultimately come into being? This is something that is really important to all Canadians.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, although people may have some doubts about this, I want to tell them that in our department we were planning to create a passenger bill of rights before the issue became very visible. Many will recall the passenger who was dragged off the United aircraft flight, which brought this issue to the fore. Then it seemed not a week would go by without some other incident coming forward.

We had planned this for a long time because we felt it was necessary. It had not been passed by the previous government. We decided the best approach to take was to enshrine passenger rights in regulations. It would provide the greatest flexibility. Changing legislation is always a difficult process. The best way to do that would be to give it to the organization most responsible for passenger rights, the Canadian Transportation Agency. This bill mandates the agency to create a passenger bill of rights. Afterwards, it will come to me for approval before it is promulgated in 2018. We feel that is the most sensible approach.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find it mind-boggling to hear our colleague from Winnipeg North applaud limiting debate, considering how much he actually talks in this House.

I want to go back to the minister's comments about the committee and how did they did so much great work together, etc. There were 27 amendments proposed, 24 of which the committee voted down. It is obvious the committee had some very serious concerns about this omnibus bill. I wonder why the minister is trying to push it across as a big Kumbaya moment. It is clear the committee, including the NDP and our side, had enough of a concern that it put forward well over two dozen amendments that the Liberals then voted down.

If this is such a great omnibus bill why would the Liberals vote down so many amendments, and then say that we collaborated and worked together to put it through?

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, having been in opposition for seven years and on many committees, I never saw a single Conservative accept a bill or a proposed amendment at committee. They were never accepted. However, there are amendments that we have accepted.

We accepted Conservative amendment number 23 that requires class I rail carriers to report service and performance information to the CTA within five days. We had proposed 14 and we accepted that.

We accepted amendment number 3 that requires the CTA to publish service and performance information it receives from class I rail carriers within two days of receipt. It used to be seven days, but we accepted this amendment. Combined with the previous amendment, this shortens the reporting period from three weeks to one week.

Amendment number 5 from the Conservatives requires the commissioner of competition to make public his report to the Minister of Transport on a proposed joint venture. That is a good suggestion and we accepted it.

Amendments numbers 6 and 7 require the Minister of Transport to make public a decision that varies or rescinds forms and conditions of a joint venture. These were sensible suggestions that we accepted from the opposition.

Amendment number 24 is to shorten the implementation period for a new freight rail data reporting system to 180 days, rather than the proposed 365 days.

Therefore, six of the nine amendments that went through at committee came from the Conservative Party. That is six more than I have witnessed myself in the seven years that I was in opposition.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Perhaps I neglected to say so in the beginning, but members are permitted to intervene more than once in the 30-minute period. We still have about seven and a half minutes remaining.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, if in this place we could make excuses by looking at past governments, every single government could do that. The Liberals have been in power for two years. They raised expectations to a certain level and now they are not meeting them. With the “trick or treat” budget, the “trick or treat” bill, it keeps happening. One thing is promised and another thing is delivered. The bill has been called by editorialists from the Globe “a strange beast”, kind of like a Demogorgon from Stranger Things.

The bill also contains no provisions about the enforcement of the rights of travellers. The minister called this a regulatory introduction of these passenger rights. I would call it differently. It is more of a punitive approach. Instead of increasing competition and providing for more opportunities for customers of different airlines to choose a different one if they do not get the service they want, the government's solution is more fines and punishment for the air carriers.

Why would we shut down debate now, where there is an opportunity for members of Parliament to deliver further criticism and potential improvements to the bill? If the minister says the committee did such great work, why is he not willing to listen to more members of Parliament as we debate and criticize the bill to offer more solutions?

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the last point, which is that we are not helping to create greater competition. It is not brought up very often, because I think all the parties agreed to it, but there are two critically important parts to the bill. One is allowing foreign ownership of Canadian airlines to go from 25% to 49%. That is specifically in order to increase competition. The second part is the joint venture. Subject to the competition commissioner and myself agreeing that it is not against competition and in the public interest, this would also provide more competition and more choice for Canadians.

On top of that, we are providing a passenger bill of rights. This is all good for the air passenger, and I have heard nothing but positive remarks on it. Therefore, I am not quite sure what my hon. colleague was getting at.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the bill. I know families in my riding of Whitby will appreciate the passenger bill of rights, particularly with recent events that have happened on airlines.

I want to ask the minister how the amendments would increase the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of transportation systems across Canada.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one part of the bill that focuses very specifically on safety, and it has to do with freight rail and rail passenger safety. We would be proceeding with regulations requiring locomotives to carry audio and video recorders in them. This is focused 100% on safety.

As minister of transport, I am unfortunately made aware of derailments on a very regular basis, some carrying dangerous goods. Also, sometimes, unfortunately, there are terrible accidents at grade crossings. I do not need to go back over what happened in the last few years in the area of rail safety. The Transportation Safety Board has been urging the Government of Canada for years, and it started under the Conservatives, to put audio and video recorders in locomotives. We believe this is an important step to improve rail safety.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the debate about whether or not this is an omnibus bill, because omnibus bills are something we should choose to avoid in this place. The bill amends 13 other pieces of legislation. If this is not an omnibus bill, what would he call it?

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I have to point out that 90% of what is in Bill C-49 are amendments, changes, to one act, the Canada Transportation Act. If one looks at the legislative agenda, it is virtually impossible, whenever legislation is passed, not to have an effect on certain other pieces of legislation. However, it is a small number of changes, about 10%, that will affect other existing legislation. The vast majority of the changes are focused on one act, the Canada Transportation Act.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, while I am not deeply familiar with all the text of Bill C-49, having been in the aviation industry for a long time, and for economic development purposes for small communities, I know that the aviation industry is very much a user-pay system, so any additional costs are downloaded to the passengers.

While on one hand, the minister is saying that foreign ownership should lower costs because of competition coming into Canada, and I would tend to agree, we know that there are other areas that could be downloaded onto smaller airports, which may or may not be able to compete in terms of some of the costs.

In terms of delays, we know that very often at this time of year we start to see weather delays that extend beyond three hours. I believe, and it is not mentioned here, that this could have a detrimental effect on small communities, more so than others, that are prone to weather IROPs, or irregular operations.

I would like to know whether our hon. colleague addressed weather delays and what types of delays are mentioned in Bill C-49 in terms of air passenger rights.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague that we very clearly will not be holding the airlines accountable for situations that are beyond their control. They cannot control the weather. They cannot control an outage by NavCan, which provides air traffic control. They cannot control a security issue at the airport that closes down the airport. There are a number of situations that are beyond the control of the airline itself. It is definitely not our intent, and I will make sure that this does not happen, because we have already discussed many of these parameters. For events that are within the control of the airlines, passenger rights would have to be respected. We would not hold the airlines accountable for things they cannot control.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation MotionTransportation Modernization ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #379