Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 12 - Evidence - April 25, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-11, to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 6:33 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Today we have on our agenda Bill C-11, and we are pleased to have before us the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; and from Transport Canada, Ms. Brigita Gravitis-Beck, Director General, Air Policy; and Ms. Helena Borges, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy.
[Translation]
And Mr. Alain Langlois, Legal Counsel, Legal Services. Welcome to all of you. Mr. Minister, you may begin.
Hon. Lawrence Cannon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of this Senate committee. It is a pleasure to be here.
[English]
I am pleased to appear before the committee today on Bill C-11, which amends the Canada Transportation Act. I want to emphasize that there have been extensive consultations on the matters addressed in Bill C-11 and that many stakeholders not only support the bill but also are most anxious for it to be passed.
Consultations presently date back to the statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act that was conducted in 2000 and 2001. The statutory review led eventually to Bill C-26, which was tabled in February 2003 and which died on the Order Paper. That was followed by Bill C-44, which was tabled in March 2005 and which also died on the Order Paper.
You can understand why stakeholders are anxious. It has been nearly seven years since consultations started, and they are now facing the third attempt at getting legislation passed. I hope they will not be disappointed this time. Bill C-11 is the second piece of legislation derived from the former Bill C-44. The government felt that there were many good provisions in Bill C-44 but that, overall, the bill was too ambitious. Therefore, we decided to divide the former bill into three separate bills in order to facilitate passage.
The first bill, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, received Royal Assent on February 1, 2007. I hope to table a third and final bill in the near future. That bill will improve the shipper protection provisions of the act to help address the potential abuse of market power by the railways.
I am sure many of you have heard from members of the shipping community about the importance of this third bill. In addition, I understand that concerns about railway service were raised during your recent trip to Vancouver on the issue of containerized freight. Transport Canada officials worked closely with the railways and shippers in 2006 and in the early part of 2007 to reach a consensus on changes to the act. Unfortunately, a consensus was not possible. The government will introduce amendments that will strengthen the shipper protection provisions while also taking into consideration the interests of the railways and their need for regulatory stability.
[Translation]
Today, however, I would like to discuss the many benefits of Bill C-11. The Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities made a number of improvements to Bill C-11 during committee review, following almost two months of meetings last fall with witnesses from across the country. I want to thank members of that committee for their diligent work. We now have a very solid piece of legislation that I hope this committee can deal with expeditiously.
As you are aware, the Canada Transportation Act is the legislative framework governing activities related to air and rail transportation in Canada. It also establishes the Canadian Transportation Agency and specifies its roles, responsibilities and powers.
Bill C-11 amends a number of important provisions in the act and provides for several new remedies that will benefit Canadian consumers, communities and public transit providers.
I want to focus on six main elements of Bill C-11. They are: alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, the review of transportation mergers and acquisitions, protection for air travellers, improvements for commuter rail operators, railway noise and a reduction to the railways' grain revenue caps.
The first element is dispute resolution mechanisms. During consultations with shippers and railways on potential changes to the rail freight provisions, officials encouraged the two sides to develop and use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. These mechanisms are usually faster, less expensive and less confrontational than regulated remedies. To this end, Bill C-11 will give the Agency the authority to conduct mediation on any matter or complaint that falls within its jurisdiction, and to provide mediation and arbitration services for railway matters under commercial processes, if all parties agree.
The second element concerns transportation mergers. Under Bill C-11, the existing merger provisions related to airlines will be extended to other modes under federal jurisdiction for large mergers or acquisitions. The Competition Bureau will continue to review the competitive impacts of such transactions. In addition, the minister will be able to appoint someone to conduct a review of public interest issues, if warranted. This will provide the Governor-in-Council with a full assessment of the implications of the proposed transaction before determining whether or not to approve the transaction and under what conditions.
There has been significant railway rationalization within the United States over the last few decades. There is frequently speculation that further rationalization will take place, possibly involving either Canadian National Railway or Canadian Pacific Railway. It will be important to have the merger provisions in place if this does indeed occur.
[English]
The next element is protection for air travellers. Bill C-11 will improve protection for air travellers by requiring the agency to prescribe regulations on airfare advertising. The guidelines and objectives of this government regarding airfare advertising are set out in legislation and will assist the agency to develop adequate regulations.
For example, airlines will be required to include certain business costs in their base price and to indicate clearly all fees, charges and taxes collected on behalf of third parties in their price advertising. This will ensure greater transparency of advertised fares by airlines and allow consumers to readily determine the cost of an air service.
Other amendments related to air travel include integrating the role and functions of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner within the authority and permanent day-to-day operations of the Canadian Transportation Agency while maintaining the informal and flexible complaints resolution process in the existing legislation.
The bill also improves the agency's reporting of air travel complaints. In addition to information included in its annual report, the agency will report on the number and nature of complaints it received, the carriers against whom the complaints were made, how the complaints were addressed and systematic trends that it observed.
I should note that the agency already publishes information regarding many important airline consumer issues in its annual report and on its website. These changes would be improvements to an already open and transparent reporting process.
[Translation]
Bill C-11 has strong support from commuter rail operators in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal since it will improve their leverage in negotiating contracts with Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway. These agencies have been seeking this type of resource for 20 years. With Bill C-11, if contracts cannot be negotiated commercially, a new mechanism will allow the Agency to adjudicate the matter.
To improve accountability to local taxpayers, Bill C-11 will also require that contracts between publicly funded passenger service providers and main line railways be made public.
Amendments to the railway line transfer and discontinuance provisions will enable commuter rail operators or public transit providers to acquire lines and stations in urban areas — providing access to important infrastructure for additional transit services. The amendments will also facilitate the acquisition of discontinued rail lines by local municipalities.
Another element of Bill C-11 that has attracted a lot of attention and support by community groups across the country is the rail noise provisions. I can tell you that the standing committee heard from many witnesses on this matter, and made some changes that improve the provision.
The bill will require the railway to cause as little noise and vibrations as possible when constructing or operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operations, the interests of affected communities and the potential impact on adjacent residents. As well, the agency would be given authority to resolve noise complaints if a voluntary settlement cannot be reached between parties. This is a long-awaited remedy that we believe will balance the needs of communities with the need for continued rail operations to move ever increasing trade volumes.
[English]
Finally, the provisions regulating the maximum revenues Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway can earn from regulated grain movement will be amended to provide for an adjustment related to the maintenance of government hopper cars. This includes a one-time adjustment that is expected to save farmers an average of $2 per tonne or $50 million per year. The bill must be passed for Western Canadian farmers to enjoy this benefit.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that stakeholders are most anxious for this bill to become law for a number of varied but important reasons. I urge the committee to review it as quickly as possible.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you for your presentation and welcome here this evening.
I want to focus a couple of questions on the Competition Bureau and the merger provisions related to airlines and other modes that you mention on page 3 in the second paragraph. In your presentation, you said that the Competition Bureau will continue to review the competitive impacts of such transactions but there will be a public interest review process. Will that public interest review process be in parallel to the Competition Bureau? Will it be after the Competition Bureau makes its report? At what the time will that person be chosen, or is there a time when you do not need to choose that person at all?
Helena Borges, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Transport Canada: The application for review would be submitted to the Competition Bureau and to the Minister of Transport at the same time, and the process allows the minister to decide upon receiving the application whether or not there is a need to appoint a reviewer of the public interest. If the minister decides that there are public interest issues, then the review of the public interest issues will be undertaken at the same time as the review of the Competition Act, in parallel, but by the separate entities. The separate entities will then come together and make a recommendation to the minister, which the minister would take to the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Tkachuk: What if they are in conflict? If there is competition, public interest is served. That is not necessarily what some people may think, but that is what I think. In the end, does the minister have the final say in what happens, no matter what the Competition Bureau says?
Ms. Borges: The minister will try to understand why there may be differences, let us say, in the recommendation going forward. The Governor-in-Council would have the final decision as to whether the merger goes ahead.
To clarify for you, the public interest and the competition interest may not be the same where you are looking at the interdependencies of certain modes or operations on a mode. I will take rail, for example. Where one railway attempts to merge with another, the bureau will look at whether competition would be less, and probably it would be. There may be other issues that are not anticipated. For example, the commuter railways operate on those same railway lines. What would be the implications for the commuter rail services and existing contracts that they would have with the service provider?
Another example would be the implication for a port that is served by a railway. If there is a merger, what are the implications then for the people bringing containers or ships into the port where they are left potentially with one carrier and obligations elsewhere? The review is really looking beyond the competition.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sure it will also take into account, say, a railroad merging with an airline or with a large trucking company that serves farmers' interests, for example. Would that be another case where the minister would become involved in a public interest situation?
Ms. Borges: Yes, potentially. The transaction limit will be the same limit that the Competition Bureau looks at, which is over $400 million worth of assets. We are really talking about large mergers. If they are small, no, but large mergers, yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Will the person appointed by the minister have hearings or be studying it from an academic point of view? How will the public interest be served? Will there be hearings across the country? Will it involve politicians?
Ms. Borges: It would depend on the case, but that is the intent. You may recall that in 2000 there was a proposal put forward by Canadian National with an American railway. Under the current law, the minister has no ability to intervene or hold hearings on that; he has no authority to ask the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities or the Canadian Transportation Agency or some other panel or person to review it. That is one of the reasons for this bill. This would allow him to do that. In the end, if it is a big enough transaction, which it would be in this case, likely there would be hearings.
Senator Tkachuk: Will the person appointed be a legal person or could it be a group? Could it be the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities?
Ms. Borges: Yes. It could be a panel.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, the House standing committee proposed a major amendment to clause 29 of Bill C-11 which deals with noise and vibrations. You referred to this during your presentation.
Initially, one of the strengths of this bill was that it was the result of numerous consultations with, in particular, representatives of the railway industry.
However, a number of railway industry representatives have serious concerns about the use of the expression ``cause as little noise and vibration as possible'' which is now found in the bill at the request of the House standing committee.
In the original version of the bill, the expression used was ``reasonable noise.'' Apparently, reference to ``as little noise as possible'' is rather atypical and the terms ``reasonable'' or ``unreasonable'' are typically used in various federal statutes. I would like to have your opinion on this matter.
Furthermore, there is as much concern regarding the expression in the new section 95.1(d), which refers to the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway. The railways are wary of the vague and ambiguous nature of such terms and believe that the amendments cause the bill to upset the fragile balance between various conflicting interests. How can we reassure those with concerns?
Mr. Cannon: With regard to what is reasonable or unreasonable, I would ask Mr. Langlois to clarify the meaning of those remarks.
Mr. Alain Langlois, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Transport Canada: With regard to the terminology used, if you read the transcripts of the standing House committee, it is clear that according to the representations made, the expression ``as little noise as possible'' is not commonly used in federal legislation.
That said, there is no legal interpretation with regard to the meaning of this expression, whereas the terms ``reasonable'' and ``unreasonable'' are interpreted more or less the same way by the Canadian courts.
In order to try to determine what the expression ``as little noise as possible'' means, we must take into consideration the factors set out underneath the standard. There are four such factors and each must be weighed against the others. Balancing these factors will enable the Canada Transportation Agency to determine whether the railway is causing as little noise as possible or not.
This notion of balance was implicitly found in the terms ``reasonable'' and ``unreasonable,'' which were subject to interpretation by the courts. Will this have a huge impact from a legal standpoint? I do not think so. In one way or another, a balance between these four factors must be achieved and the Canadian Transportation Agency will have to take into consideration paragraphs (a) and (b), which are essentially railway-related considerations, as well as paragraphs (c) and (d) which were added during the Commons committee stage.
The Chairman: Legally, what difference will this make?
Mr. Langlois: Time will tell. The Canadian Transportation Agency will have to reach its own interpretation of what this term means. But will it interpret it in a way that is completely opposite to the way it has interpreted reasonable or unreasonable? I would be quite surprised if this were the case. I am not saying that it is impossible since the term does not yet have a legal interpretation in Canada. However, in principle, ensuring a balance of the factors found in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) means examining whether noise is reasonable or unreasonable in nature, within the framework of the investigation that the Canadian Transportation Agency will have to conduct.
The Chairman: You believe it is implicit.
Mr. Langlois: Given the number of factors, I do not see how the Canadian Transportation Agency could avoid ensuring a balance of what is reasonable. We will have to await some legal precedents since this is not a typical term used in federal jurisprudence. However, we are comfortable with the amendment made by the House of Commons. As for the rest, we will see.
Mr. Cannon: Quite simply this clause was added to ensure better cohabitation between both the railway industry and residents who decide to build or live in proximity to the railway. Although I do not like to use this expression, I think it is about both sides reaching a reasonable accommodation.
The Chairman: When I said that the railways fear the vague and ambiguous nature of the possible impact on individuals residing in properties adjacent to the railway, I was wondering whether you believe that these fears are unfounded?
Mr. Cannon: I can tell you that, based on my experience, be it at the municipal level or in glancing at testimony in preparation for the bill, the public is in fact concerned. Furthermore, the word vibration has been added to the bill.
We are trying to find a way to protect the railways and their operations while taking into consideration the fact that, on occasion, in carrying out their economic activities, trains pass by urban areas. I think that my colleagues in the House of Commons wanted to send a message, namely that we need to be much more sensitive to such things and to try to find a middle ground that would suit all parties. That was the spirit behind this initiative.
[English]
Senator Munson: Are there penalties if a railway causes as little noise and vibration as possible? I am still trying to figure out where the line is.
Ms. Borges: The Canadian Transportation Agency will have the authority to look at the nature of the complaint, what are the activity, noise and vibrations, and determine whether there are opportunities to mitigate those impacts. If the agency believes there are, and it can tell the railway to do it, it orders the railway to do it. If the railway does not comply, the agency is a quasi judicial body that can issue orders, and those orders have the force of law. There are stiff penalties if they do not comply.
Senator Munson: What are the penalties?
Ms. Borges: It would depend on what the agency has ordered them do, but they will have to comply with the agency's order.
Senator Munson: What is the difference between ``not cause unreasonable noise'' and the phrase ``cause as little noise and vibration as possible''? Is there a difference between the two phrases?
Ms. Borges: It is a matter of interpretation, as Mr. Langlois said. The courts and the agency will have to determine by case law what is unreasonable versus what is reasonable. It will depend on the individual situation. By asking to make as little noise as possible, it is balancing the obligations that the railway has in its operation. Proposed new section 95.1 contains a couple of obligations and factors that also have to be taken into account for railway operations, and they are to make sure that the railways are providing the service required by the shippers. Those operational requirements are in law and they have to be balanced against the needs of the communities in which the railways operate.
Senator Munson: With respect to the Pacific Gateway economy, trains moving back and forth and commerce in communities, the railway was there first. When a brand new community is built abutting the railway line that has been there for a long time, will it be able to use proposed new section 95.1 to fight the railway regarding what is described as ``as little noise and vibration as possible,'' even though the railway may have been there for a hundred years?
Ms. Borges: Yes, possibly. In the provision, there is a requirement that they try to solve the matter voluntarily. Over the past two years, the Railway Association of Canada has been working with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to develop guidelines to help municipalities plan better. In certain provinces, there are legal requirements for setbacks from railways. Ontario has that, but Quebec does not. These are measures that encourage better planning within the municipalities. The agency will consider who is the senior in the environment, and often, if the municipality is coming in later, the agency will take those factors into account in its decision.
Various measures can help mitigate these issues. Often, there is an issue of the level of traffic, and the measures are not always regulatory. Sometimes it is a matter of improving the grade crossings where the trains may be blocking traffic or building grade separations, and we are working on such measures. In the Pacific Gateway, for example, we are doing a big initiative to build a series of grade separations along that rail line.
Senator Eyton: My question follows on that of Senator Munson. We are not talking about grade separation so much but about noise and vibration, and the railway is a railway; trains are trains. In general, they were there before the residents, and yet there is a wishful thought that somehow any disputes can be resolved collaboratively. I find it hard to understand how that will work.
Ms. Borges: Many issues are resolved collaboratively. Today, there is nothing in the law that allows the agency to intervene, but the agency does mediation. We have been doing it on a pilot basis. This bill would give the agency formal authority.
These issues happen every day, and the minister gets calls from members of Parliament or from community groups. We intervene often, bringing the parties together, and often they come to a solution. This bill is more for those situations where it gets so tough that you need to intervene.
Senator Eyton: Trains will make noise and vibration no matter what. They cannot move because the right of way is there. Their ability to resolve or compromise is pretty limited.
Ms. Borges: Yes and no. Often the complaints come because they are impeding the movement of road traffic. That is usually when the complaints come.
Senator Eyton: We are talking about noise and vibration.
Ms. Borges: Often the noise is happening at yards. In some instances, municipalities have built condo developments around yards, and those should not have been built. That being said, there are opportunities to locate certain activities, such as shunting operations, which cause a lot of vibration. We are encouraging the municipalities to do better planning, hence the guidelines, and the agency will be issuing the guidelines to ensure that these events are minimized and that the municipalities are planning better.
Senator Phalen: The Railway Association of Canada sent us a letter with respect to the issue of ``as little noise as possible.'' They say that the words are not used to set a standard and that the concept of reasonableness is generally used to establish a standard and that these words have been tested before tribunals.
Have you any comment on that?
Ms. Borges: ``Reasonableness'' is the terminology that tends to be used, but we do use a similar phrase in the Canada Transportation Act. Section 95 of the act, which also regulates the construction of railway facilities, stipulates that in constructing railway facilities, railway companies ``shall do as little damage as possible.''
That is in the act already. Is it a proven, tested thing as much as reasonable? It is probably not, because we have not had the jurisprudence in this area. It will develop as soon as this is implemented.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Representatives of major urban transportation agencies seem satisfied with the bill and transportation authorities for various municipalities will find that the proposed provisions are to their advantage. They will be right behind the provinces, but before the municipalities, in lining up to request access to railway corridors that might be abandoned. I would like to hear more from you about the process being put forward to transfer abandoned or unused railway corridors to other entities. Should various corridors be abandoned, could they be used for public transit?
Mr. Langlois: In sections 145 and following, the act establishes a process that railway companies must follow for dealing with the transfer and abandonment of their railway lines. Commercial transfers between companies are permitted without regulatory approval.
With regard to the abandonment of a railway line, companies must follow a three-step process. First, a company has to publish a notice in its triennial plan indicating that it intends to abandon operations on a line. The notice must remain in the triennial plan for at least 12 months before the company can proceed to the second step.
Second, the company shall offer to transfer its interests in the railway line to other business interests, so that they can continue to operate the line. Negotiations have to take place in the case of a commercial transfer. If no company expresses an interest in purchasing the line, the railway company shall proceed to the third step, namely to offer the railway line to various government authorities, that is to the federal and provincial governments, as well as to urban transit authorities and municipalities. If no offer is made and no interest is expressed in acquiring the line, then the company may abandon the line without any further obligation.
The Chairman: Are lines being abandoned as we speak?
Ms. Borges: At present, there is a line in downtown Vancouver that has been the subject of negotiations between the city and the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is the only line being considered at the present time for a possible abandonment of service.
The Chairman: The bill also amends the national transportation policy as set out in the Canada Transportation Act. It talks about a sustainable environment and about a competitive, economic and efficient national transportation system that meets the highest practicable safety and security standards and contributes to a sustainable environment. I find that the reference to a sustainable environment is a positive aspect. I would like to know what the potential impact of that could be on the interpretation of the new act. What changes does the department intend to make to properly give effect to the new strategic direction of the Transportation Act?
Ms. Borges: I think that that will have a positive impact. Now, we talked about the new projection concerning railway noise and the abandonment of railway corridors. That all contributes to a sustainable environment. These are things that are not in the current legislation. This will help the department and the agency to better interpret legislation and give serious consideration to such transportation issues in the future.
Mr. Cannon: I simply would like to add that I met with various associations that are in favour of expanding public transit services. Public transit has been proven to be a key element in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. We have adapted our bill to these important principles in order to embark on the path to sustainable environment.
The Chairman: The provisions regarding mergers and acquisitions refer to the various consultations that can be held between the minister and the commissioner. Might those meetings or consultations not undermine the commissioner's independence?
Mr. Langlois: The objective of those meetings is simply to deal with common issues they might have on criteria identified through interest tests and those brought forward pursuant to the Competition Act.
The Chairman: That does not guide the commissioner.
Mr. Langlois: Indeed. The purpose of those provisions is to allow the commissioner to do the work he is currently mandated to do under the Competition Act and report to the minister in an independent manner, pursuant to his own enabling legislation; the minister can then take the commissioner's findings and bring them to the Governor-in- Council.
The Chairman: A pilot project was launched in June 2000 by the Transportation Agency, whereby mediation was used as a dispute settlement mechanism between air carriers and their clients. I seem to recall that the pilot project was a success, and the current bill focuses on mediation as a way of resolving potential disputes between carriers and their clients. Given that this part of the bill is based on a successful project, I would like to learn more about that pilot project. What criteria were used to conclude it was a success? What type of complaint was involved and what kind of follow-up was done?
Mr. Langlois: The pilot project was set up in 2000. Each time a complaint was filed with the agency, both sides were offered mediation. Of course, this was all voluntary, so mediation occurred when both parties agreed to it. The project was a success. I do not have the exact figures, but the success rate of cases that went to mediation was quite high, that is, above 80 per cent. The project showed that, insofar as both sides are willing to sit down at the same table, negotiate a common solution and settle the problem themselves, the success rate was very high. That prompted the framer of the bill to want to include these provisions in the draft legislation and to provide the official legislative authority to proceed with mediation in all cases under his jurisdiction.
The Chairman: Does that then facilitate follow-up?
Mr. Langlois: In what way?
The Chairman: Although the pilot project was deemed a success, what kind of complaints were addressed? Were they major complaints? And what action was taken to follow-up on these complaints?
Mr. Langlois: The project dealt with all kinds of complaints. There were some very significant ones. Just recently, a major service complaint was settled in Vancouver. It also included noise complaints. As you know, the agency was responsible for responding to noise complaints up until 2000, when this responsibility was shifted elsewhere. However, in actual fact, the agency has continued to act on such complaints since 2000, in cases where two parties request mediation services. The success rate was also very high. Many complaints about costs associated with railway crossings were also settled. Mediation is used by the agency in all cases it addresses, including airline complaints.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, you told us that the Competition Bureau would continue to look into the impact of mergers and acquisitions on competition. However, it has been noted that the wording in section 53.2.4(b)(ii) differs from wording used in the Competition Act. Is the difference intentional? Would it not have been better to use the wording contained in the Competition Act? Why was the wording changed?
Mr. Cannon: While my colleagues are looking for that information, I would respond to your last question by simply saying that I will make sure you get a copy of the report on mediation efforts, so that you can consider it and use it in your deliberations. You were saying that the wording differs from that found elsewhere. Is that correct?
The Chairman: The wording in your bill is different from the wording used in the Competition Act. Was that intentional?
Ms. Borges: We developed these provisions in conjunction with the Competition Bureau.
The Chairman: So you did this in conjunction with bureau officials?
Ms. Borges: Yes, we did, we consulted them and they were pleased with the provisions.
[English]
Senator Phalen: Before I ask a question, I would like to refer to your brief. On page 3 of your statement you indicate that airlines will be required to include certain business costs in their base price and clearly indicate all fees, charges and taxes on behalf of third parties in the price of their tickets.
Thank you very much. That was really needed and was past due. It is good to see it there.
The briefing material we received states a number of objectives of the National Transportation Policy. One objective is that the rates and conditions do not constitute an undue obstacle to the movement of traffic within Canada or to the export of goods from Canada. Are there any legislative or regulatory changes in Bill C-11 that will ensure that this objective will be met?
Mr. Cannon: I will defer the question.
Ms. Borges: This provision is a simplification of what is in the act today. Basically, we are trying to ensure that the rates and conditions do not obstruct the movement of any traffic within or outside of Canada. There are no provisions in the act that do that at all. In fact, the provisions in the act that pertain to freight, which is the subject of another bill, provide shippers with a series of remedies so that if they feel the railway is charging too much or the conditions of carriage are unreasonable, they have recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency to solve those problems.
Senator Phalen: Does that mean we will be getting another bill?
Mr. Cannon: That is correct.
Senator Phalen: Will it take one or two more bills?
Mr. Cannon: One more. I believe I indicated that previously when I first appeared before the committee. I called it the trilogy of Bill C-44.
Senator Phalen: This bill proposes reducing the number of members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five and requiring them to reside in the National Capital Region.
Do you now have or have you in the past had any regional offices or regional agencies?
Mr. Cannon: I will first give you a general appreciation of why we have done this. We feel that the Canadian Transportation Agency will be able to carry out its responsibilities more efficiently with five members located here in the headquarters rather than seven. There are financial savings to this, such as travel costs and operational expenses. Expenses will be saved for office space, et cetera. The agency has been working and operating with five members over the last two years.
Ms. Borges: Currently, the members are in the region and their office is their home. When a case is being heard, they often fly into Ottawa. As the minister said, this bill is an effort to bring more efficiency to the way hearings are done and to make sure cases can be handled expeditiously by having everyone here in the National Capital Region.
You were asking whether there are other agencies with similar requirements. Yes. Most of the federal courts — the Supreme Court, the Federal Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal — all have requirements that members be in the National Capital Region. This is also a quasi-judicial body. It is important that the members be available when cases are being heard.
Senator Phalen: With respect to having seven members instead of five, this legislation adds to the responsibilities of the agency the responsibilities of regulating airfare advertising, handling complaints about railway noise and vibration, and mediating disputes. With this increase in service, do you still feel you can reduce the number of members from seven to five?
Ms. Borges: Yes. As Minister Cannon mentioned, the agency has been operating with five members for the last two years. The members are reviewing large and difficult cases. Much of the day-to-day dealing with mediation is done by the agency staff.
The agency has, I believe, approximately 260 people. They have established a mediation team of between 30 and 40 people. They are people in the agency, the actual officials, doing a lot of mediations, and not the actual members. The members are looking at complaints and more difficult cases.
We are pretty comfortable. The agency has appeared before the standing committee twice to indicate whether or not they felt they had sufficient resources. Moreover, having them in the National Capital Region will allow them to do more work because they are all here together five days a week full time, increasing their efficiency.
Senator Eyton: I find the provision in your response quite incredible. If anyone in the country should be using planes and trains to get anywhere, it should be the guys in the agency.
Airports are a big concern, but where are the major concerns? They are in cities such as Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and perhaps Halifax. That does not include the Ottawa airport. With respect to trains, the vital questions, particularly on freight, relate to the West Coast with the Asia Pacific Gateway, the East Coast and the commuter systems that service the four or five cities I just mentioned.
Here on an island in Ottawa we will have five people who should know about trains and planes and use them frequently, and somehow they are expected to do their job. I have trouble with that.
Mr. Cannon: I think my official alluded to the fact that a large number of Crown corporations and agencies are located here in Ottawa. I might be mistaken, but I believe the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, for instance, has its head office here and hears complaints.
Senator Eyton: Travel is expensive.
Mr. Cannon: Yes. On some occasions, the CRTC does travel when it wants to do extensive review. In this case, we are not looking at that.
You raised the issue of whether or not we should be decentralizing some organizations to be able to ensure that these organizations are closer. I am not of that view. The system has worked extremely well in the past. That is another debate, and I do not want to debate with you on that issue.
Senator Phalen: Unlike like its predecessor, Bill C-11 proposes no changes to the final offer arbitration provisions in Part IV of the Canada Transportation Act. What were the changes in the final offer arbitration provisions proposed in Bill C-44, the previous bill, that are not contained in this bill?
Mr. Cannon: I am sorry; final offer arbitration is not in this bill, it is in the freight bill. We are not in the right bill here.
Senator Phalen: What is the arbitration procedure, then?
Ms. Borges: As Minister Cannon said, the final offer arbitration is one of the remedies for freight transportation between the railways and the shippers. When negotiating rates and conditions of carriage, it allows that if a shipper is not satisfied with the offer put forward by the railway, he can complain to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the matter is referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator has the option of selecting either the offer of the railway or that of the shipper.
Complaints have been heard frequently, most of them having been in favour of the shippers, but that is the subject of the other bill.
Senator Phalen: That was the reason for my question. Just recently in the Senate we had a bill, Bill C-46, and the resolution mechanism was binding arbitration in the same form that you just suggested. I have a problem with that.
I am asking the question because I want to know just how it is working. Normally in the arbitration system, the arbitrator hears the case and probably reaches a compromise position with the two parties. In this instance, the arbitrator is picking one or the other. I personally think that could be dangerous.
Ms. Borges: You should be aware that the provision currently in the act was created in the late 1980s. It has been in effect for several years. It has worked fairly well. It is a very expedited process. Shippers gets a decision within 60 days. If they wish to turn to a commercial arbitrator who would conduct an arbitration much like you are describing, they are free to do so. This is a regulated remedy, which is why it is different.
Senator Phalen: The emergency bill that was passed in the Senate the other day does not allow for that.
Ms. Borges: That is right. That was the labour dispute with CN.
Mr. Cannon: However, that option is there, senator.
Senator Carney: Minister, thank you for taking the time to come to talk about this bill. As my colleagues have indicated, there are few departments of government that impact Canadians, particularly Western Canadians, more than does your ministry. I endorse the position taken by my Central Canadian colleague about the need to diversify the residence of the commissioners. They must be experts in their regions the way senators are. Many of us would query the need to have them all sitting here in Ottawa.
I want to talk about the public interest provisions. I want to point out for the record that not all human settlements follow the railway. In British Columbia, believe it or not, the human settlements were there before the railway, because the railway was only built as a condition of joining Confederation. Many of our issues in transportation involve the fact that the settlements were there first, and that is particularly true of the Asia Pacific Gateway where there is much concern about the destruction of farmland, the viability of agricultural industries and the grade crossings of transportation, which I hope will be another issue before this committee.
Who decides the criteria for the public interest? This committee spent much time dealing with a review of media. We found in that review that the competition policy was too narrow. Presumably, that is one reason that you would want to have the public review. How will you know which ones they are? For instance, in British Columbia, the biggest concern on the merger or acquisition, whatever you want to call it, of British Columbia Railway Company, BCRC, and CN is the enormous increase in the number of derailments, pollution and destruction of fishery streams, the loss of life and limb, because the operations of CN are much different than those of BCRC. There are longer trains and less engine power, and that is being blamed for truly appalling levels of destruction and damage by derailments.
Who decides whether that is an issue you will look at, given the fact that we are very rocky and mountainous while some other areas of Canada are not? I would like you to deal with that issue, and then I have a question on air safety.
Mr. Cannon: I will let my officials deal with the public interest issue but I want to give you a specific definition on the public interest notion. I want to reassure you, senator, that we take safety issues in high regard. When I was appointed to this portfolio, there were a number of train derailments and safety issues related to those. We acted immediately with railway audits. We do them on a specific basis and we do them either generally speaking or specifically speaking. We did that. We have called upon CN to conform itself to a certain number of rules and regulations. We had to invoke section 32 of the Railway Safety Act.
Later in the year, I went to cabinet and asked for a full review of the safety tools that are there, because we want to make sure that the tools that we will apply and that should be applied are fair and equitable across all levels of transportation.
I did appoint a former minister, Doug Lewis, to head a panel. He is actually in the midst of setting up public consultations on that. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met today with officials from CN to discuss this issue. We take this issue very seriously and we want to get back to the members of Parliament with specific recommendations on how to tighten up our rules and regulations regarding safety issues.
I will let Ms. Borges and Mr. Langlois respond to the public interest aspect.
Ms. Borges: In clause 13 of the bill, proposed new section 53.1(2) states that the minister shall issue any guidelines and that he shall determine the public interest. The issue that you are mentioning is but one of them. Safety would be an important consideration.
Senator Carney: No, my issue is who decides the criteria to judge the public interest. The public interest is huge, and if you have this process, I am trying to focus you: Who decides what are the terms of reference for a public review?
Ms. Borges: The minister would set out the terms of reference, and then if he appoints a panel to review, the panel would be looking at the guidelines that will be established for this process. They will also take into account proposed section 5 in clause 2 of this bill, which provides the policy direction, as well as other acts and legislation that may pertain to safety. The policy objectives in the Railway Safety Act would be important in that regard. They will take into account the framework that would have implications for that one factor, the safety factor.
Other public interest issues would also be considered — for example, the impacts on employment. I mentioned earlier the impacts on other service providers, such as a passenger rail provider or a port provider. Things like that may not be directly related to the issue of competitiveness, but they will be published. Once the entities that are merging file an application, that information will be publicly available regarding what information they must provide to the minister.
Senator Carney: You raised a good point about publishing. We have under Industry Canada a requirement that any acquisitions by foreign companies must meet a Canadian test of net benefit to Canada. However, you can never actually find out what those are, because of ``competition factors.'' Would the criteria and how they meet those criteria be published?
Ms. Borges: Yes. This process is envisaged to be a public process. As you mentioned, the Competition Act is a closed process because of the competition dimensions. This process is to provide interested parties in the Canadian public with the opportunity to make their views known on the implications of a potential merger for the public interest, so it is a public interest review.
Senator Carney: Is that within 42 days?
Ms. Borges: Yes.
Senator Carney: There is not much time to do that on a national issue.
This may not be covered in the bill, but here is a chance to raise it with you. My son, the pilot, flies 747s for an international airline. Occasionally the safety reports come to my address; I do not know why, as he is long gone. As I read them, if anyone knew about the actual incidents and the number of near misses that happen, they would not get on an airplane, which would be difficult.
At the same time, we read in the paper that Transport Canada is moving away from safety inspectors and moving towards putting the onus on the airlines to carry out the safety audits. Could you comment on that? That is very much in the public mind right now.
Mr. Cannon: I think, senator, that you are alluding to Bill C-6, which is now in front of the standing committee. The idea here is to be able not only to continue but to add an additional layer of safety to the airline industry, as a matter of fact. The system being proposed is a safety management system, SMS, which has been proven now over many years.
Contrary to what you might have heard, we are not diminishing in any way, shape or form the number of inspectors. Ten years ago there were 1,400 inspectors. With the emergence of NAV CANADA, some of those inspectors have gone there, and some have gone to airport services. Generally speaking, we maintain a level of roughly 870 inspectors throughout the Tier 1 and Tier 2 airports in the country.
SMS is an added feature that is recognized by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Moreover, this system is in place in a large number of communities and countries across the world. Canada plays a leadership role in this domain.
I cannot give you a timeline on how the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will move this piece of legislation forward, but when they get into the clause-by-clause aspect of this legislation, I have indicated to them, yesterday afternoon or the day before yesterday, that we are interested in ensuring that there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation. Colleagues around the table can be reassured that we are not deregulating the aviation industry. On the contrary, we are adding an additional layer of safety.
Senator Carney: On another matter, I have left you a letter about an issue on the West Coast concerning the dumping of sewage into coastal waters by cruise ships. There are currently no anti-sewage regulations. This is a concern to some of my colleagues. There is no enforcement; compliance is voluntary only, and therefore there are no penalties. There are regulations coming down the track that have gone through the first phase. Now we are waiting for the second phase, which would require the cruise ships to comply with the new regulations.
The cruise ship season is starting. Three hundred ships will be operating in our waters, bringing $1 billion worth of economic activity, but thousands of people generating waste. I would ask you, as soon as possible, to announce when those new regulations will be posted and put into effect, because the coastal communities want them before the cruise ship season starts. Thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Cannon: I will be more than pleased, senator, to look at your letter and respond to you. I was in British Columbia not long ago and did receive representation on behalf of the small-vessel owners, who thought that this was an atrocious way of doing things. I do not want to get into a long discussion about that.
Senator Carney: You do not want to hear about the sewage disposal of small vessels?
Mr. Cannon: I do. I am extremely sensitive to the arguments being put forth here. We just cannot use our waters as a dumping area for sewage.
Senator Zimmer: I too would like to have this bill expedited as quickly as possible. As you have stated, Bill C-26 and Bill C-44 died on the Order Paper. I understand that some organizations in the other House wanted to make some major amendments to the bill, which would have killed it, so, in wisdom, they divided the bill up into, in your terms, the trilogy. It is a good thing, because those issues will be addressed in the new bill. I share your vision to move on this as soon as possible. It has been long in happening.
My first question has been dealt with by other honourable senators, but I wish to refer again to the issue of unreasonable noise versus as little noise and vibration as possible. I share the vision of my colleagues in that I feel that unreasonable noise is more reasonable.
I have a question regarding airfare advertising. Not so long ago, when we went to the airport we were confronted with having to pay $10 to board the airplane because of the improvement fee. It was a bit annoying and delaying. Now the charges are being handled by the carriers, including extra security fees caused by 9/11 and extra fuel costs caused by the environment.
The fees appear to be misconstrued. These are not the air carriers' charges. The carrier is not the villain in this case but the intermediary. The carrier is passing the charges along and handling the fees to give back to the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is unfair that Star Alliance, Lufthansa and others are able to not show these other charges, and they also sell the same fares. It is a disadvantage for the air carriers who have to show those fares in advertising, because it gives the wrong impression that they are charging those fees themselves. Is there a way that this could be more fairly dealt with?
Mr. Cannon: Ms. Gravitis-Beck is the expert in this domain, so she will respond to that question.
Brigita Gravitis-Beck, Director General, Air Policy, Transport Canada: The intent of the bill is for airline carriers, which are regulated federally, if they are selling to the public, whether they are international carriers or domestic carriers, to bring their pricing practices to a common approach. As the minister noted in his introductory comments, this would ensure that business costs, such as NAV CANADA charges, are clearly reflected in their base costs and that flow-through charges that carriers collect on behalf of third parties, whether taxes collected on behalf of the government, the air security charge, or airport improvement fees collected on behalf of airports, are broken out separately. Therefore, the consumer would be aware of the bottom line, the total charge, and everyone would have a very transparent understanding of what the ticket charges would be.
This approach would bring carrier prices into line with prices currently being advertised and proposed by resellers. Resellers are managed through provincial legislation, not through federal legislation. They include wholesalers and tour operators. Ontario and Quebec, the two largest provinces in terms of reselling activity, have already introduced legislation and have regulations that require all-in pricing. This approach will ensure that direct carrier sales, as well as the reseller sales in the two largest provinces, will be in line.
Provincial jurisdictions have slightly different approaches across the country, and not all provinces require all-in pricing. We will still not have national uniformity because some resellers in some provinces will still have flexibility. We will not have a perfect situation, but we will be bringing greater parity and comparability.
Senator Zimmer: That was the intent of my question, to bring in the legislation in a way that makes it fair for all and does not imbalance the presentation.
Ms. Gravitis-Beck: Correct.
Senator Zimmer: In view of this additional airfare advertising they will have to do, will the government be providing the carriers with any financial assistance for costs such as changes to the website?
Ms. Gravitis-Beck: No, it will not.
Senator Zimmer: Can you please provide the committee with examples of the types of information that the Canadian Transportation Agency could, under Bill C-11, compel carriers, from intermediaries in transportation movements and others, to provide for security reasons?
Ms. Borges: The data provisions are being amended basically to enable the department to collect data for security purposes. It has nothing do with privacy. It is more to help in planning the needs for security at airports or port facilities.
Right now the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority relies on the department or the airport authorities to provide information about when the greatest numbers of passengers are coming through and it relies extensively on that data for planning personnel requirements. The same issues are happening with security measures at ports. It is a matter of providing the department with the authority to collect data that can be used for security planning purposes.
Senator Munson: Are any of the amendments passed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities unworkable for the department?
Mr. Cannon: No. I would say no.
Senator Munson: So it is all good, as my son would say?
Mr. Cannon: It is all good, Senator Munson.
Senator Eyton: Does the bill do anything to promote or enhance competition? I recognize that the Competition Bureau is referred to here, but its role is to keep it the same or reduce it a little. It seems to me there is a tremendous value to competition and it is the only protection to consumers over a long period of time. I do not see any expressed value for more competition or any drive within the bill itself that says this is something we believe in and it is, in itself, an objective.
Mr. Cannon: I suggest, senator, that we look elsewhere for that. This of course has a number of provisions that are consumer-friendly and that turn the corner on sustainable development.
We can look at the policy that the government has put in place in terms of what I call blue skies, which is air liberalization and agreements that we have now struck with the United States and with Great Britain. We do have a list of countries we are negotiating with. That will enable Canadians to reach out and use other air carriers. That is a fine example, I believe, of fostering competition and driving prices down. That is a policy that is now in place with this government. This piece of legislation does not necessarily focus and drive that issue of competition in the way that you are mentioning.
Senator Eyton: It is important that the agency runs the system and is aware of that and respects it, because they ultimately control airplanes and trains.
Mr. Cannon: You are absolutely right, but I might have misunderstood your question in terms of economic competition. Of course the agency must play a role here — a fair, level playing field.
Senator Eyton: I am a Toronto boy, so excuse me if I am a little local.
Mr. Cannon: All politics is local, senator.
Senator Eyton: That is right. The bill talks about trains and planes. Is there any mechanism, I suppose through the agency — and here I am thinking out loud — that will make them work together more effectively? I am thinking particularly of Toronto where we have tremendous traffic congestion and an airport that handles over 30 million people and grows dramatically every year. There has been deadlock in terms of progress that could be made to provide efficient commuter rails that could service the airport and relieve the congestion. I am thinking of London and Gatwick and Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle in Paris. Much of the world has gone in that direction. Toronto has the rights of way with local authorities that run commuter trains but that has not worked at all in combination with the airport. I find that remarkable.
Mr. Cannon: Senator, there are efforts being made in that direction. For instance, if we look at Vancouver, that is what the Canada Line is all about, with its spur off to the airport. It is in construction now. That is a fine example of what we are looking at.
I think you are alluding to the 20/2020 project in Toronto, which is also receiving support. I do understand there are issues around completing that.
In Montreal, which is the other community that we are looking at, we are working quite strongly with the Quebec government and the municipal government of course to be able to set that up. You are absolutely right, senator, when you say that in terms of efficiency, in terms of economic competitiveness, we must be able to put forward projects of that nature and of that scope. We have many tools available to us, whether they be the different infrastructure programs or public-private partnerships, but those are things we are looking at.
I am completely convinced that you are absolutely right: we must be able to find new ways of intermodal transportation and to make more seamlessly connected networks to be able not only to support our growing economy, but also to make sure that people are able to commute in a better fashion.
Senator Eyton: I raise it because I think the agency is ideally situated to help as an intervener, obviously not with the money, but in making that happen. To me, the ideal is in Victoria Station in London: I check my bags, buy my ticket and I am boarded on the plane. I go out to the airport and in a few minutes I get on an airplane without anything further. It is seamless and it is a combination of the airport and the train line.
Senator Adams: I remember when I worked here with the committee at the time that we lost the short run railway somewhere around 1990.
The closest railway to where I live in Rankin Inlet is in Churchill, Manitoba. I have to go down there and buy a ticket to go to Winnipeg and it takes me two days to get to Winnipeg from Churchill by railway.
We have things coming through from Winnipeg going up to the community where we live. For example, I bought furniture in Winnipeg, about four pieces. It cost $800 to ship them from Winnipeg to Churchill and another $1,100 from Churchill to Rankin Inlet.
When you speak of merging airlines and railways in the future, are you talking about cargo as well or are you just concerned about merging the railway and the airline for passengers?
Mr. Cannon: Senator, the costs involved in many of these initiatives are horrendous. They are extremely important costs. If we are talking about northern development, adaptation measures are required. On a competitive basis, of course, we must be able to recognize that costs there are much higher, which have just mentioned.
What are the programs, what are the elements, what are the tools that could be put in place to be able to support and sustain that? I think that we have already looked at that through our infrastructure programs. As a matter of fact, we are looking at that now.
With the cooperation that we can get from the provinces and local municipalities, we will be putting together some interesting features in our next program — which I am not privileged to divulge tonight — in terms of infrastructure to be able to sustain that kind of growth in areas such as the one to which you are referring.
Senator Adams: If there is a merger between some of the airlines and if you are looking at that, does it matter what kind of airline you are talking about? We have many different kinds of airlines in Canada. If I want to go to Toronto from here, can I make a reservation on any airline, WestJet or Air Canada or any other airline?
Mr. Cannon: Yes, of course, if they are already there. Clearly, if the air carrier is not there, he will go there if there is an economic challenge, a possibility of doing it.
A couple of years ago, there was no Porter Airlines. I am not citing Porter as being one airline or another, but they were not there and now they are; they fly regularly into Toronto City Centre Airport. You have WestJet there and Air Canada is doing that.
With the Open Skies agreements that we have signed now, we have the possibility of having more international services. As we move forward with policies such as Open Skies, we will be able to see better opportunities such as the ones you are looking for.
Senator Adams: Between the railway and hydro, I have a piece of property here in the east of Ottawa. They want to build something there close to where I live. They had to go to either the CN railway easement or to hydro. Is that still working?
Ms. Borges: Actually, the line here in the Ottawa area is owned by VIA Rail now. In most cases, it is the two railways — either CN or CP — that still own the rights of way. Any passenger services are usually contracting with them for access to their lines.
In some cases you mentioned earlier, the short lines come out of CN and CP when they do not have the need for the freight services. There are various mechanisms in place, and the process set out in this act allows local interests — if CN or CP is no longer operating a line — to take over that local interest, whether it is a government entity or a private sector entity. Often it is very expensive; buying the infrastructure is expensive and maintaining it is equally expensive. There has to be a business case for it, but the opportunities are there.
Senator Adams: You still have to work with the municipality; do you know exactly the easement in the municipality there?
Ms. Borges: Yes. For example, if CN or CP is discontinuing a line, or, for that matter, if any short line that is federally regulated is no longer needed for freight rail operations, provisions in the act allow a municipality to look at acquiring the line for urban transit services; or if there is no need for other transportation, they can take that line for bike paths and things like that so that the right-of-way is preserved for community purposes. In fact, a lot of the Trans- Canada path across the country is former railway rights-of-way.
Senator Adams: The pipeline was part of the easement process too, was it not?
Ms. Borges: Yes.
Senator Adams: The path went right down and continued through the United States.
Senator Munson: I wanted to bring this up because rail safety is a big issue right now and it has always been a big issue. Clause 47 in the bill proposes to replace the current section 158 with a provision that permits the minister to enter into an agreement with a provincial authority to authorize the latter to regulate the construction, operation and safety of a railway, as well as rates and conditions of service in the same manner and to the same extent it may regulate a railway in its own jurisdiction. I like national standards, but I wonder whether you worry that delegating to the provinces could lead to lower standards.
Senator Carney: Only under Liberal governments.
Mr. Cannon: This provision was put into the piece of legislation specifically for the O-Train in Ottawa. Ms. Borges can speak to that but that is the case here.
Senator Munson: Okay, but obviously it could happen elsewhere, could it not?
Ms. Borges: In fact, if you are familiar at all with the urban transit systems today, the federal government really only regulates, under the Railway Safety Act, the interprovincial or international lines. Anything that is operated within a province — the metro systems in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the sky train systems, the O-Train system, because Ottawa has acquired all the rail lines from the railway and it will be operating within this jurisdiction — follows the standards of the American Public Transit Association. They are North American standards and they apply specifically to urban transit.
Those standards are different than what is in the Railway Safety Act because they are operating different kinds of equipment and they are not mixing with the freight trains. If they mix with the freight trains, then that falls under the federal Railway Safety Act standards.
This is broad — it is to accommodate the O-Train — but it is allowing that if, in the future, any other urban transit entity acquires a line, they would be able to operate within those standards.
Senator Munson: I guess it could be called the ``oh, oh train,'' because we really do not have much of an O-Train.
Mr. Cannon: I cannot let that one go by. I just want to reassure Senator Munson that the money is still available for a light rail train system in Ottawa. It has already been said, I know.
Senator Carney: I want to correct the record because I misread the clauses in the bill. In reviewing clause 53.1(6), I used the figure of 42 days that the public interest review would have to be done. That is not correct. The 42 days applies only if the minister decides that there are no public interests.
Subclause 53.1(6) states:
The Agency or person, as the case may be, shall report to the Minister within 150 days after being directed under subsection (5), or within any longer period that the Minister may allow.
I wanted to bring that to your attention because my earlier remark would indicate that the public review system would have to be done in 42 days. That is clearly wrong; this clause provides whatever the minister deems is necessary. That is 150 days or longer and I wanted the record to show that.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Minister, I would like to thank you for joining us here today. It is always a pleasure to see you again and to discuss various bills with you. We are going to keep up our work on Bill C-11. We wanted to start with you and your officials in order to get a different perspective on what other witnesses may tell us. It was important to meet with you this evening.
Mr. Cannon: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and stay the course.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we adjourn, I want to say we will be meeting next week, Tuesday and Wednesday. Senator Tkachuk will chair both meetings since I will be away.
The committee adjourned.