:
Thank you, and good afternoon everyone.
This is meeting 16 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Following the orders of the day, we're here to deal with Bill .
Joining us today are Gilles Dufault, Joan MacDonald, and Seymour Isenberg from the Canadian Transportation Agency.
As we are right on schedule, I would ask that you make your opening presentation, and the committee will then have some questions for you following that.
Mr. Dufault, the floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is Gilles Dufault and I have been the Acting Chairman of the Canadian Transportation Agency since July 1st of this year. It is my pleasure to be with you here this afternoon to answer any questions that committee members might have with respect to Bill . I am accompanied today by Mr. Seymour Isenberg and Ms. Joan MacDonald, respectively Director General of Rail and Marine Transportation and Director General of Air and Accessible Transportation.
First of all, I would like to take a few minutes to describe our organization and its responsibilities. Before I begin, it is worthwhile to point out that the current Canadian Transportation Agency is actually Canada's oldest administrative tribunal, one whose mandate and fields of jurisdiction have evolved along with the changes that have taken place in the country's transportation system.
:
The modern-day Agency is an independent administrative tribunal with a mandate to interpret and apply transportation legislation as well as the federal government's related policies, act as an economic regulator (when necessary), and via various means such as education, consultations and essential regulation, ensure that market forces prevail in the pursuit of an efficient and accessible federally-regulated transportation network.
The current legislation stipulates that the Agency is made up of a maximum of seven permanent members and three temporary members. The members, who are named by Order-in-Council, come from all regions of Canada and bring to our decision-making process a vast array of personal experience. The Governor-in-Council appoints from among the members a Chairperson, who serves as the organization's Chief Executive Officer in addition to being a full-time member, as well as a Vice-Chairperson, who replaces the Chair when absent. Currently the Agency has a complement of six permanent, full-time members.
Because of its mandate and various fields of jurisdiction, the Agency has built a multi-disciplinary team of a wide variety of experience and professional skills. Some 260 staff members support the members in their decision-making and in resolving disputes between transportation providers, shippers and transportation providers, and consumer and transportation providers.
The Agency is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that renders decisions on a great number of economic matters related to modes of transportation subject to federal jurisdiction (that is, air, rail and marine) and has the powers of a superior court in exercising its jurisdiction. In doing so, we assist both providers and users in resolving their disputes outside the formal litigation process (when possible) and impose regulation only when necessary.
In the rail sector, the Agency issues certificates of fitness for the construction and operation of railways, rules on rate and service complaints as well as on disputes between railways and other parties on infrastructure and access issues. We also set interswitching rates, determine net salvage value for the transfer of lines and establish the maximum revenue entitlement for the transportation of Western grain.
On the marine side, the Agency is the tribunal of appeal for pilotage authority fees and has a mandate to protect Canadian shipowners by ensuring that Canadian-flagged vessels are given priority for any marine transportation between two ports in Canadian waters.
With respect to air transportation, the Agency issues licences to Canadian and foreign airlines, applies the requirements related to these licences and issues charter permits. It also takes part in negotiations for international air agreements and oversees their implementation, in addition to handling consumer air travel complaints.
Finally, the Agency enforces legislation in various areas and works toward the accessibility of Canada's transportation system. Eliminating undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities is an important part of the Agency's mandate. Through its decisions, issued in response to complaints, the Agency contributes to the progressive elimination of these obstacles. It has the power to impose regulations, but prefers a more flexible and effective approach: consultations, education, and voluntary code of practice development in cooperation with the community of persons with disabilities and industry representatives.
[English]
Given that much of our work is case-driven, the agency has developed mechanisms that allow it to deal with complaints quickly, effectively, and fairly. A review panel made up of at least two members hears every case and issues a decision. Our decisions are the result of a process based on integrity, transparency, and fairness to all. Thousands of cases, some major, some minor, but always important to the people concerned, are handled by the agency every year. In 2005 we ruled on some 3,800 cases. At any given time, each member carries a caseload of more than 100 files. The agency has duly noted the growth in the popularity of mediation and facilitation as dispute resolution options.
I'm convinced that we will increasingly use these alternative methods in the future in keeping with the expectation of businesses and citizens who look to the Government of Canada to answer their concerns more rapidly and efficiently. We will continue to fulfill our mandate by using modern approaches focused on clients and citizens through dispute resolution and by dealing with complaints filed on the Internet.
Our priority remains the same: being responsive to the transportation industry, its users, and Canadian citizens while operating in an effective manner.
[Translation]
This concludes my brief snapshot of the Agency and its work. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Chairman, we would now be pleased to answer any questions committee members might have.
:
Thank you very much, Monsieur Dufault.
Merci beaucoup. I have a couple of questions to start, if I could.
To put this in context, you're going to be given some pretty major mandate-expanding responsibilities under this bill, from what I can gather. Maybe they're not as expanding as I assume them to be. But I just want to set that context before I ask you a couple of questions, because I have a remaining fear that you may or may not be able to handle the responsibilities that are being transferred to you. Maybe you can address that, any of you, in your remarks to me and my colleagues to help allay that fear.
I have a couple of specific questions.
First of all, how would the CTA determine airline airfare clarity regulations? How would you determine they were necessary or not necessary in Canadian society, given what the bill is compelling you to do?
Secondly, I want to go to the question of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Mr. Hood, the former commissioner--the former NHL referee as well--eventually ascertained that the ATCC was more than simply a complaints process; it had become a place for advocacy. He has been very critical of the notion that we would remove the independence of the commissioner and have it inserted into a regulatory agency. It reminds me a little bit of law societies, which are at once supposed to be governing the profession while disciplining the profession and at the same time promoting the profession.
I'm just trying to get my head around an average member of the public with a problem. If it's inside the CTA, will the public know if there's a trend? Will the public know that there are fifteen complaints of the same kind going to the CTA, as they might have through the independent Air Travel Complaints Commissioner, for example?
Those are my two points. First, when do you think airline airfare clarity regulations will be necessary? Second is the question of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner and its being embedded in the CTA.
:
I'll deal with your second question first.
The Air Travel Complaints Commissioner was created to handle complaints for which no remedy whatsoever exists in the legislation. It was to be done on an informal basis through facilitation or mediation, and all the work was to be done by CTA employees under the guidance of the commissioner and so on. If, at the end of the process, an intervention by the commissioner was required, that was done. When we receive complaints there can be multiple subjects in them. If part of a complaint cannot be resolved informally by the air travel complaint people, it is referred to the agency, the agency handles the complaint on a formal basis through its regular processes, and we render a decision based on the evidence provided and submitted by both parties.
Two years ago, the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner position was not abolished, but when the incumbent's mandate finished, she was not replaced. At the same time, following the expenditure review, the government instructed the agency to carry on with the air complaints program while reducing the funding for the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner and also the funding for the program.
Since then we have been carrying on the same responsibility on the air complaints side. In 2005 we dealt with over 1,300 complaints.
The disappearance of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner role hasn't created a significant problem. We simply lost the senior person at the agency. We continue to handle complaints. We continue to deal with that. We continue to resolve complaints, and we continue to handle complaints that deal with tariffs and other issues under existing CTA jurisdiction.
:
My next question is for Mr. Isenberg.
Clause 29 of the Bill makes a change in the rail sector by amending subsection 95.1 of the Act with respect to noise regulations. Up to now, when there have been complaints, you could not take any action. The new regulations will enable you to do so.
Can you give me an example of the type of action that you will be able to take?
I know that in some cases, you attend meetings, but you have said openly that you were not able to impose any noise reduction requirement on operators.
What new way will you be able to use to deal with these problems?
:
The new legislation gives us the power to order a rail company to change its operations from time to time, if possible. We did not have that power under the former legislation, but now we can do that.
If I may, I will continue my answer in English.
[English]
As it reads, the legislation gives us the authority on last resort. In other words, it's intended so that the parties try to solve their problems themselves first. We would enter into a case only if the parties involved could not resolve the issue. Now the legislation gives us the authority, in consultation with the fact that railways do have to operate, to develop a process and a solution that we feel confident will be able to work towards solving the problem.
Noise is a complex issue. It deals with perceptions, individual issues, history, and so on. I'm confident that with this legislation we will go a long way in helping people resolve this issue.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Dufault and Mr. Isenberg and Ms. MacDonald, for being with us here today.
Following up on the questions asked by Mr. Laframboise and Mr. McGuinty, I want to come back to how the Canadian Transportation Agency operates. How many employees do you have? You have talked about the number of members, but I would really like to know at what point the cases are dealt with by employees and members respectively.
:
The members are involved in all cases at some stage since every case has to be signed off by an Agency member.
The employees are there to handle the cases. They do the research and the analysis, and they recommend approaches and various alternatives to the members.
There are a wide range of cases. Some are routine matters, such as the issuing of a licence, for example. Over the past year, we issued 1,800 air service licences. Those kinds of cases are all handled by specialized staff. When all the research has been done and the applicant meets all the requirements for a licence, the members issue the licence.
On the other hand, when there is a problem, when a company does not meet all the requirements, the members have to decide what to do and what additional information is needed. The staff work very hard to prepare cases, so that members can concentrate on the major issues and not on the details.
:
Air travel complaints that used to be handled by the commissioner are dealt with informally. It is really the parties that influence how long it takes.
We have performance standards for dealing with complaints. For example, when someone phones the call centre, the call is returned right away. If the call comes in after working hours, the person is called back the next day. If the complaint comes through the Internet, an acknowledgment is sent back electronically. If we receive a written complaint, we send an acknowledgment within a few days. That way, the complainant knows that the complaint has been received and that the Agency is dealing with it. These complaints are handled informally and they used to be dealt with by the complaints commissioner.
In the case of formal complaints, the Agency has standard procedures. The act stipulates that a decision must be handed down within 120 days. We write immediately to the complainant and the party concerned to inform them of the timeframes and give instructions on how to provide the necessary information.
Then there is an exchange of correspondence until the arguments are heard. Once that stage is completed, after around 60 days, the case is analyzed and the substance of the complaint is discussed. Finally, the Agency makes its decision, which has to be written, translated and produced. That is the way we work.
I want to thank all three of you for appearing before us today.
I'd also like to focus on the dispute resolution process, but in a different part of the bill, and that's clause 44, which creates a number of new sections addressing the whole issue of setting rates for publicly funded commuter rail services that want to use the assets of some of the main-line carriers. It would be sections 152.1 and 152.2, which would be added to the act.
My questions arise from an experience in a community across the river from us, the city of Mission, which is at one end of the West Coast Express line that runs into Vancouver. It goes through a number of communities and picks up passengers along the way. When negotiations were under way to establish a rate to be paid to the main-line carrier, there was some public discontent that the rate the public was paying was so high.
I notice from the bill that there's still an initial negotiation process, but if the two parties, the publicly funded carrier and the main-line operator, can't come to an agreement, the matter is now referred to you for settlement. At that time it's no longer an arbitration; it's simply a decision you would make based on a number of factors.
If I were a main-line carrier I would be somewhat concerned about this intrusion into the normal free market process when negotiating these rates. Have you consulted with the industry, and what has been the reaction?
:
Commuter rail lines have been an issue for cities that are running out of room for automobiles--that would be Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. This is an attempt to provide a backstop. So if the parties can't negotiate themselves, they can apply to the agency to set a fair rate, given the cost of providing that service and any impact it has on the freight line. This is a North American problem, by the way. Freight lines sometimes don't mix too well with passenger lines, as you can guess.
We'll try to determine a fair cost for what the commuter line is asking the railway to do and give the commuter corporation the opportunity to access those rail lines for a compensated fee. Each case would be treated in a separate way. Analysts would go out and say, “What does this mean?” It's designed to give the railways their normal rate of return on access to their asset but not an unreasonable rate of return. That would certainly be the intent of the members who make that judgment, and our costing analysts, who are familiar with railway costing, will provide some of that data.
We work on a natural justice process, so both sides will be given an opportunity to put their points across, and from that we would hope to reach a decision. That's the intent of the bill.
:
Yes, I have a quick preamble question.
I wanted to get it on the record, Mr. Dufault, if I could.
My colleague, Wayne Easter, has been doing a lot of work on Canadian farmers and the issue of hopper cars. I have a single question that I'm hoping you'll answer with a yes or no.
Was the CTA involved in developing the methodology that resulted in the minister's $2 per tonne statement in May? If that was the case, can you provide an analysis of that statement? Can you give us the background analysis? Is that possible?
I have two questions. One relates to railway noise complaints. In my community of North Vancouver we have a problem with CN taking over BC Rail's operations, and what we have is a change in the level of noise as a result of the change in the operators. We have shunting and whistle blowing at night on crossings that never happened before. The argument is that because it's federal they have to blow it, but this is at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning that the communities are being bothered by both excessive shunting and whistle blowing. There are municipal bylaws that have dealt with it, and previously the rules with BC Rail were that if the municipality passed a bylaw waiving the requirement for whistling at the crossing, then they wouldn't whistle and it wouldn't bother them. That's for West Vancouver and for North Vancouver.
I know one of the questions is on how you measure it. Normally you measure noise complaints at a property line and you get decibel readings. The problem is with whistle blowing and shunting, it's intermittent noise, which can be unreasonable. When I was mayor of North Vancouver, I used to get phone calls at two o'clock in the morning asking whether I could hear it. I live several miles away, and yes, I could hear it. I just make that point. I guess the issue would be this. How long, when you talk about trying to resolve things, do you wait before an issue gets taken up? How long do the people have to suffer, in other words?
Before you try to answer it, I want to tackle the second issue that Mr. Fast talked about as well. I was on the TransLink board when we were dealing with the issues of the commuter access for West Coast Express to CP. Our concern was that the anecdotal information we have—because everything is supposed to be confidential—was that the gross margin that CP was getting was over 1,000%. What incremental costs are added when a commuter railway is added to a line, and what is a reasonable rate of return? Is it 1,000%? I think it's down to 700% now.
West Coast Express put $65 million to CP for the set-up of centralized train controllers, double tracking--necessary things--but once you've paid for all that...it then seems that they were being gouged, if you want to call it, compared to other commuter rates that were being charged. We asked for that and were told that we can't know what those are. I'm hoping this legislation is going to in fact provide that information.
Finally, is this bill going to provide some guarantees to have access to the tracks? I noticed in one section here it says that if a railway gets sold and someone else takes it, they have to protect the continuity of passenger rail services. Is that these rapid urban lines? Would they be protected? Is there a guarantee for access to the tracks? Otherwise it sounds as if in this legislation railways can just say no to having access, and we need it. That's part of the problem of communities.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Dufault.
People out there have high expectations about having the noise problems resolved. In Quebec, there are a lot of complaints from people who feel powerless in dealing with the government, which is unable to control that aspect. So they are putting a lot of hope into this legislation.
But what we read here is that a railway company "must not cause unreasonable noise", which is already ambiguous. Everyone is asking what is meant by unreasonable noise. For an operator standing by the track, it might be significant noise, but for people living and sleeping nearby, it may be a huge problem.
A little further, the bill states:
95.2(1) The Agency may issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to
That means that you will be able to do something, but you will not be forced to do so.
I would like to know how you are going to enforce that provision. Are you preparing to issue guidelines? If you undertake to set standards once the act has been passed, will they be uniform for the whole country or will they be specific to each municipality? That could take time, since there are a number of provinces and municipalities. What is your opinion on that?
:
It is a good tool for you and it makes sense.
Clause 42 of the Bill stipulates:
146.2(1) A railway company shall prepare and keep up-to-date a list of sidings and spears that it plans to dismantle and that are located in metropolitan areas—
All of that concerns commuter rail authorities, which are being considered for the first time in terms of the transfer of these railway lines.
According to this wording, it is entirely up to the railway company to come up with this list. If it turns out that a railway line is no longer being used, but the company has not put it on the list, even though it is required to do so—it is a right that the company has under the legislation—will it be possible for the agency to take action, if a commuter rail authority makes representations, so that the unused line can be put on the list?
There is a problem right now with respect to the transfer of these lines, which are hung onto by the companies, but the new legislation says that it is the company that comes up with its own list.
Do you understand what I mean?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will bear that in mind. Thank you.
I would like to welcome the Canadian Transportation Agency representatives to our committee.
I have two questions for you. The first is for Ms. MacDonald, and relates to the air transportation sector, a subject that we have not really addressed today. My question is a general one, and somewhat open ended. Would you like to suggest any amendments or improvements to the current wording of the bill?
I know that you want to ensure a greater transparency in airline ticket pricing. There is also the matter of integrating the complaints program to your service. How do you foresee the bill affecting your activities has they relate to the air transportation sector? Are there elements that you consider to be of particular importance that could be improved?
Secondly, I would like to come back to the matter of noise pollution, which is one of the key components of this bill. In answer to an earlier question, you indicated that you were in the process of preparing guidelines. Many groups have expressed concerns to us on this matter and I am sure that future witnesses will raise the same points. I imagine that they will propose amendments to give the bill more teeth.
Are you planning to include decibel standards in your guidelines? Do you have something from existing European or US models? Are there any precedents for the type of guidelines that you wish to develop? We are, after all, talking about a North American railway service.
Those are my two questions: one on air transportation and one on noise pollution generated by the railway sector.
:
Mr. Blaney, I never said that the CTA was in the process of preparing guidelines. We are developing parameters that we will then use, in consultation with stakeholders, to draw up guidelines.
We have not yet reached that stage. We cannot consult with railway companies, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or municipal or provincial associations until the bill is passed.
Once the bill is passed, we will launch the consultation process. We will discuss with the various stakeholders to determine what is feasible and what is not. This will give us the opportunity to get feedback from all interested parties.
But, thus far—
:
Firstly, it is very important to stress that we are independent from Transport Canada. Our relationship with the Minister is an administrative one, as it is through him that we are accountable to Parliament. We are, however, completely independent.
When Transport Canada drafts a bill, the professional expertise of some of our personnel is sought in order to determine whether the department's recommendations are practical, workable and enforceable.
The CTA also holds meetings with the committee that reviewed the act. Six years ago, the CTA made recommendations about the revision of the act. Every year, in its annual report, the CTA is required to report on how the act is working. That's the extent of the relationship between the two organizations.
:
Help me to understand. I haven't seen the last report. Is it an evaluative report? Is it a descriptive report? Is it an interpretive report? Or is it a statistical report? For example, as Mr. Hood suggested, if he came across 15, 18, or 25 similar complaints, he might have judged that to be a pattern of behaviour by a particular airline carrier.
Does your report go that distance in interpreting the statistics, helping my mother, who flies a lot, to understand that there are problems or not problems with a particular airline carrier in terms of a specific pattern of conduct? Or is your report restricted to statements such as, “Here are the incidents, here are the number of cases heard, and here are the number of cases resolved?”
I'm curious about whether or not your mandate, given the new provisions, will allow you to regulate.... You mentioned in one of the first rounds of questions how you regulate as far as noise, etc., is concerned. Are you able to regulate hours of operation? You mentioned how you regulate for a yard, but are you also able to regulate for train traffic to alleviate congestion in some of the cities? Is that part of the new mandate, or has anything been looked at as far as that is concerned? You mentioned the hours of operation--you'd be able to restrict them?
:
I hope for our sake that the corporate memory has not been lost, because we receive a lot of complaints on this matter.
I would like to go back to my colleague's earlier question. You said earlier that if a private company did not want to divest itself of a railway line, you would not intervene. We are talking about public property and public interest here. If, at a time when public transport networks are being developed, a company is not using a particular section of railroad, do you not think that it would be the moment for your to act as a mediator and ask the company why it wishes to maintain ownership of that section?
Many questions are being asked within the network. Towns and cities are all in the process of studying how they can develop public transport networks. They often turn their attention, in the first instance, to sections of railroad that are not being used. With 2007 almost upon us, do you not think it is time that the CTA had the authority to ask companies to explain why they want to hold on to these sections of railway line? Do you not think that the time is ripe to hold a transparent debate on this matter?
You are thinking of the chair of the review panel. The chairman of the CTA assigns members to panels. He is both a member and chief executive officer. If he chooses to sit on a panel, he will hear the case and confirm the decision issued by the other, or other two members of the panel.
Normally, two members are required for quorum; however, when a case is controversial, there are usually three members to ensure that there is always a majority decision.
Obviously, you are all aware that the objective is to discuss the security failures noted at Montreal airport, but I am sure that you also understand that this situation could arise in other Canadian airports. Mr. Duchesneau made some very important comments. Bear in mind that he did not focus exclusively on his service. He did, however, say that biometrics were going to be introduced to his service in an attempt to resolve security problems.
A Senate committee was mandated to study the situation. Furthermore, there were comments in today's Journal de Montréal to the effect that biometrics are not the best solution. Apparently, other measures are also required to ensure that security failures are avoided within the service. Mr. Duchesneau spoke about organized crime at Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau, Montreal's international airport. The same is probably true of other Canadian airports. He also addressed security issues, not only within the airport, but on the tarmac and all airport land.
There are four organizations responsible for security in Montreal, and I have been informed that there are around 20 at the Lester B. Pearson international airport. The time has perhaps come for us to put some questions to Mr. Duchesneau, who dared to speak about problems affecting not only Montreal's Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, but other airports as well.
It is time for us to call him before our committee. I was hoping that it could be arranged for the next meeting, but I am open to negotiation on that point.