Debates of June 15th, 2017

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will debate Bill C-49, on transportation modernization, at second reading.

On Monday we will debate our changes to the Standing Orders. Following that debate, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-51.

Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-3, on Indian registration, at report stage and third reading.

Following that debate, we hope to make progress on the following bills: Bill S-2, the bill respecting motor vehicle recalls, at second reading; Bill C-17, respecting the environmental assessment process in Yukon, at second reading; Bill C-25, on encouraging gender parity on the boards of federally regulated organizations; Bill C-36, the bill to give Statistics Canada greater independence; Bill C-48, the bill to impose a moratorium on oil tankers off the B.C. coast; and Bill C-34, the bill to reinstate sensible conditions for public service employment.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am completely dismayed that time allocation has been moved on this bill. It needs to be known that this is an omnibus bill, yet it has received less than two and a half hours of debate. We are allocating one more day tomorrow, Friday, which is another two hours to debate a bill that would change quite substantively 13 acts in all three modes of transport.

The minister was not in a rush to deal with the measures that were going to be sunsetting in Bill C-30 to ensure that there was not going to be any gap, so why is he in such a hurry to get this debate finished in such a short period of time?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, actually I have been in a rush for a long time to get this bill passed, but there was an enormous amount of important consultation that needed to take place in order to put together a very solid bill, one that I know opposition members support.

I should clarify one thing: 90% of the legislative changes actually deal with one act, the Canada Transportation Act. This is not an omnibus bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to say a number of times in the House that the Minister of Transport is a minister who studies a lot and for a long time. We are still waiting for answers on a number of matters. I am thinking, for example, of the high-frequency train and the problems navigating Lake Saint-Pierre.

How is it that the minister so disrespects the opposition members by imposing, with respect to measures that the government has had sometimes two years or so to study, five hours of debate on a bill that will amend no less than 13 pieces of legislation? A quick calculation tells us that this is about 20 minutes for 338 members of the House to address each one. This seems to me to be a lack of respect, to say the least.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a bill that affects many aspects of transportation in Canada, and I am very proud of it. It covers passenger rights and experience. It modernizes rail freight, and also includes measures to increase rail safety with the use of voice and video recorders.

As we know, transportation is a vast sector. The fact that my colleague is talking about navigation on Lake Saint-Pierre and high-frequency rail, while other MPs have talked about things like the Canadian Wheat Board, clearly demonstrates that they are not focused on this bill because they have no objection to it, which is why it is important for Canadians that we move forward as quickly as possible.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, I represent a constituency in western Canada where the shipment of grains and oilseeds is the lifeblood of our economy. Often there is a strong tension between shippers and the railways and how the railways operate.

One of the policies that our government brought in that was very important was the concept of interswitching, which greatly improved the efficiency of grain transport and reduced the cost for shippers.

I gather from my own consultations that the issue of interswitching has not been dealt with in this bill. If the minister could clarify that, I would appreciate it. Does the minister know how many grain elevators and shippers will lose access to a second railroad once the 160-kilometre regulated interswitching expires?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify for the member what has been done in the act. It is a complex act.

The extended interswitching of 160 kilometres was a temporary measure that was put into the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. It was a temporary measure that was put in place because of the exceptional circumstances in 2013 and 2014. It has been replaced by something that is more comprehensive, called long-haul interswitching. It does apply to grain out to 1,200 kilometres, not 160 kilometres, but it also applies across the country and to all commodities.

This is the approach we have taken to fix something that has needed to be fixed for a long time. I will point out that after bringing in Bill C-30 in 2013-2014, the government had a golden opportunity to modernize freight rail legislation. Why did it not do it?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are asking why the government is bringing in closure after such a short debate on such a long bill, a bill that the minister just said in his response is quite complex, and basically his response is that it is a really good bill and the government really likes it.

I hope the minister thinks it is a good bill, because he proposed it. That is his job, to propose good legislation. However, it is also our job to debate that legislation, to drill into it, and to have time to challenge it.

If the House just rubber-stamped every bill that the minister thought was a good bill, there would not be much point in the House of Commons. Since I believe there is a point in the House of Commons, could the minister explain, aside from just telling us how he likes his own bill, why he is shutting down debate after such little discussion and examination here in the House of Commons?

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

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is very simple. I have been listening to what the opposition has been asking about. Instead of talking about the content of this bill, opposition members have been talking about things like carbon pricing and the Canadian wheat board, which is part of our past.

It is very clear to me that they do not have any substantive items to discuss with respect to this bill. We think it would be much more constructive for it to go to committee. I want to thank the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for agreeing to come back to Parliament a week early in order to discuss this bill and hear from witnesses, and perhaps to make some constructive changes to this bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this minister just epitomizes the arrogance of the government and the shame that it brings upon itself.

This is a very serious matter. This affects not only public safety but the economy as well, yet we have only two hours. The minister cannot even make sense of his own answers.

It is unacceptable to ram this bill through at this point in time. If the minister wants specifics in terms of questions, could he tell us exactly the penalties and the content of the airline passenger bill of rights in this legislation? Exactly how is it going to protect consumers? Could the minister give us the numbers and the amount of compensation they will get? What types of things will they have from this minister in this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, it is very clear from the feigned indignation that just came from that member that he has not actually read the bill.

The bill very clearly says that we are putting in place legislation that will ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to specify the specific rights and the numbers in terms of compensation. That is what this bill would do, and it will do it through a regulatory mechanism, so that if we make changes in the future, we do not have to come back with legislative changes.

I wish the member had actually read the bill.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister's answer to the question my colleague from Swan River asked about changing from the 160-kilometre regulated interswitching to the new proposal for the long-haul interswitching. The minister said this covered all commodities. I could be wrong, but according to the notes I have in front of me, fertilizer shippers are going to be excluded from the long-haul interswitching.

If that is correct, I would like to know why the fertilizer shippers are being excluded. Are there any other commodities being excluded, or are all commodities going to be included under the new long-haul interswitching the bill is proposing?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to answer that question. What we are talking about here with long-haul interswitching is specifically to address captive shippers. Those shippers may have commodities such as potash, which is used for fertilizing, also lumber, coal, minerals, and grain, which is a very important part of it. It would apply to those commodities and for the full length of Canada, not just the western provinces and grain.

Imagine captive switchers in the north of Alberta or Saskatchewan and they only have one rail line. Now there is a mechanism in place to offer those captive shippers more competitive rates with respect to the moving of their products.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the hon. minister's service in Parliament and his service in space, but it is time for him to come back down to Earth. He was deriding the opposition for not bringing substantive debate to this place. The government, in almost two years, has passed only 19 bills. That is it. It has had over 30 time allocation motions limiting debate on a very small record.

In the last few weeks, the Liberals are limiting time on a substantive bill, but they put forward motions on Paris and had a speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that really did not amount to anything. They also have Bill C-51 and Bill C-39, which are not substantive legislation either.

I agree with the minister that there are some serious issues addressed in the bill. He is limiting debate on the serious issues affecting Canadians, affecting rail safety, and affecting our transportation system, while having nothing before Parliament to justify limiting debate in the House. I would like to ask the member why they have only passed a small number of bills, and then when bills have an important element, like this one, they are not allowing debate in the chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe in the process of allowing debate to occur on bills and allowing proper scrutiny of bills, but we also have a responsibility as the Government of Canada to move forward with legislation. That is why we are invoking time allocation today, after the bill has been debated sufficiently.

It is quite clear to me, from reading the transcripts of the questions that have been asked over the debate time that the opposition supports the principle of the bill in general. They may have some exceptions to it, and we welcome their opportunity to come forward when the time comes in committee.

The committee has agreed to meet a week before Parliament resumes so that we can expeditiously reach the point of royal assent with the bill. The bill will have an important influence in modernizing freight rail legislation, and a host of other things, such as providing a passenger rights bill, which, and I know members agree with me, all Canadians would like to see as soon as possible.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old expression that says, “A lack of planning on your part doesn't make for a crisis on mine”.

The pace of legislation from the government in its first 18 months is about one-third of the average rate for new governments coming into office. The Liberals have passed a little less than 34% of the legislation that a new government typically passes in a year and a half. What do they do when they realize this? They hit the panic button.

With all due to respect to my friend, the Transport Minister, who I respect and admire, to suggest that he does not like the quality of the questions in the first two hours of debate on a bill and, therefore, he is shutting down the debate, reveals a level of intolerance and arrogance that is worrisome to me over such important legislation. If, as he admits, the bill is vital to rail, air, and marine transportation, then give it the respect it deserves, which is the scrutiny of the legislative body. This is our job. It is the job of all members of Parliament.

I am sorry if the minister does not like the quality of certain questions or interventions that MPs have made. If that was the test for debates of various governments, there would be no Parliament because government at any point could say it did not like the quality of a question and it would shut down the conversation.

This is Parliament. By its very definition, it is where we come to speak together as Canadians. The minister is preventing us from doing our job, to make our rail, air, and marine safety as good as possible. If we cannot do our jobs, if we cannot scrutinize things, mistakes get made. We saw that in the last government, when the minister was one of the chief critics of both omnibus bills and time allocation.

However, I think he may have studied the last government too closely. There are 30 time allocations from a government that has a problem moving legislation because it is preoccupied with things that do not actually matter to Canadian safety and the Canadian economy. I think he owes the House an apology for demeaning the level of debate that comes from other members in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, to make it clear to my hon. colleague, I did not say that I did not like the kinds of questions that were being asked. I was pointing out that the questions really did not address the issues that are pertinent in the bill. They were talking about all sorts of other things. I would welcome a series of robust discussions about the issues that are actually in the bill.

I would also like to point out to my hon. colleague that the opposition cannot have its cake and eat it too. Those members are telling us that we are not passing enough bills, yet they are trying to hold things up now.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was struck by the member opposite addressing the issue of the quality of the questions. He said he did not like the quality of them and did not like the content of them. I have read the bill, and there is a reason why these questions were asked the way they were. It is because there is a complete lack of detail in the bill.

When we talk about the air protection bill, the minister said that the government is going to set up some sort of regime, but the Liberals do not have any answers about what that might be. Also, we can see clearly that Transport Canada is going to benefit in huge ways from the bill, but very few producers and shippers are going to get any benefit.

The changes that we made impacted interswitching directly, it provided for minimum movement of grain product, and made sure that the system was working. The new changes the Liberals would make, such as the 1,200 kilometres, for the most part, cannot affect the areas they should because they have taken out a section of lower British Columbia that will not be applicable to that part of the bill. Therefore, we need to have debate on the bill. It is a complex bill that needs more explanation from the government side than it is certainly getting. I would like to see some more of that.

The minister talks about other issues coming into play. However, things like carbon pricing should be discussed on a bill that is a transportation bill. I pay a carbon price that is generated in British Columbia, because I ship grain. Therefore, for the minister to try to remove all of these other issues from the important parts of a transport bill, that is just making a mockery of what we are doing here. He needs to be able to sit down and listen to some of the criticism, and then come back in the fall and improve the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to start, but the bill has nothing to do with carbon pricing. It is a very specific set of measures that deal with the air traveller experience, with modernizing freight rail legislation, with bringing in locomotive audio and video recorders, and with making changes to the Coasting Trade Act with respect to cabotage.

Another example is that the member said he has read the bill, but he is asking where the specific measures with respect to the passenger bill of rights are. If the member had read the bill, he would know that what the bill does is that it mandates the Canadian Transportation Agency to produce the specifics of this passenger rights bill. Therefore, if one read that clearly, one would understand that when the legislation passes, the Canadian Transportation Agency will go away, do its homework, and come back with the specifics of the passenger rights bill. It is as simple as that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say something just to help the minister out a bit here. Because the government has invoked time allocation, the debate we are having right now is on the procedure of its shutting down this conversation. He seemed to suggest that any of the questions coming from the opposition right now about his shutting down debate are not warranted and that we should be talking about the bill itself. We would love to. However, his government has just invoked time allocation, which shuts down the opportunity to ask those very questions. I think it is a fair comment for the opposition, on behalf of Canadian consumers, to say if all the government has done is simply set up the regime, which can be from zero to anything the department wishes to see, in terms of fines, then that is a worthy conversation to have.

With the way the House of Commons works out, we get 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes for questions. That means in less than two and a half hours about four or five MPs will have had the opportunity to speak to the bill, which means a couple of government members and maybe a couple of opposition members out of 338 members.

How many of our ridings are impacted by marine? How many of our ridings are impacted by rail service or air service? Let me wager a bet here: all of them.

We have not even suggested that all of us need to speak, but the idea that two or three opposition members is sufficient and the reason the government has to close down to debate is that the Minister of Transport simply did not like the quality of questions is not right. He must admit that this is just simply the government hitting the panic button, running out of time in the calendar, which the government composed by the way, and its lack of planning is causing this panic and only makes for the possibility of mistakes and errors in important legislation like this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the transport minister, I notice there are quite a few people who want to ask questions of the transport minister, so perhaps we can make our questions and answers concise. Also, if we can cut down on the chatter, I and most of us will be able to hear the answers and the questions much better.

The hon. transport minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct my hon. colleague, once again, about the statements that he makes. When he talked about the passenger bill of rights he almost gave the impression that the CTA was going to go away and bring it back to the Minister of Transport who is then going to make the decisions about what is going to happen.

Actually, there is a very robust process in place where the Canadian Transportation Agency will be consulting with Canadians. In fact, it will be consulting with the airline industry. I can tell members that since we talked about creating a passenger rights bill, I have never heard as much support from Canadians for something that should have been done a long time ago.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us see if the minister likes this question.

The bill guts the Competition Bureau's powers to block joint ventures between carriers that would reduce competition on key routes. In 2012, the Competition Bureau blocked the consolidation of 14 routes by Air Canada and United. If the bill passes, the minister would be able to overrule the work of the Competition Bureau.

Why is the minister legislating anti-competition and anti-consumer measures?