Bill C-11 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act. Certain amendments apply to all modes of transportation, including amendments that clarify the national transportation policy and the operation of the Competition Act in the transportation sector, change the number of members of the Canadian Transportation Agency, create a mediation process for transportation matters, modify requirements regarding the provision of information to the Minister of Transport and modify and extend provisions regarding mergers and acquisitions of air transportation undertakings to all transportation undertakings.
It amends the Act with respect to the air transportation sector, in particular, in relation to complaints processes, the advertising of prices for air services and the disclosure of terms and conditions of carriage.
The enactment also makes several amendments with respect to the railway transportation sector. It creates a mechanism for dealing with complaints concerning noise and vibration resulting from the construction or operation of railways and provisions for dealing with the transfer and discontinuance of operation of railway lines. It also establishes a mechanism for resolving disputes between public passenger service providers and railway companies regarding the use of railway company equipment and facilities.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to create provisions for the appointment of police constables with respect to railway companies and procedures for dealing with complaints concerning them.
In addition, it contains transitional provisions and consequential amendments.

Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House of Commons on private member's Bill C-459, an act respecting the rights of air passengers, which was introduced in this chamber in November of last year. Our government strongly supports consumer protection measures, however, the bill is fundamentally flawed and would likely have impacts contrary to what it seeks to achieve. Furthermore, it is redundant given the passenger protection approach that already exists in Canada and this government's effort to strengthen it in recent years.

Let me start by noting that the bill calls for all-in advertising. I am pleased to remind the House that our Conservative government has already put in place these measures by way of regulations that were brought into force in December 2012, following extensive consultation with industry, consumers and other stakeholders.

Beyond that, Bill C-459 proposes a prescriptive regime that would increase the regulatory burden on air carriers and on travellers. It would introduce additional costs into our air transport system and it would not improve the passenger protection approach that already exists in this country. In Canada today, airline passengers are protected through provisions in the Canada Transportation Act. All carriers operating in Canada, or arriving or departing from Canada, are required to develop terms and conditions of carriage that they must respect. They must make those terms and conditions readily accessible to passengers.

The Air Transportation Regulations under the act specify the items that must be included in the terms and conditions of carriage, such as the carrier's policies regarding cancelled or delayed flights, lost or damaged luggage, and denied boarding due to overbooking. This establishes a clear basis on which passengers can raise concerns if they feel they have not been treated appropriately.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is mandated to resolve travellers' complaints by examining whether the carriers are acting in compliance with their terms and conditions of carriage and by assessing the reasonableness of the terms and conditions. The act also includes significant provisions to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities.

If a traveller is not able to resolve his or her issues directly with the carrier and submits a formal complaint to the agency, the agency would begin by seeking a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem by way of alternative dispute resolution. If this is not successful, arbitration is an option. We know that in fact most complaints are resolved by way of mediation. In some instances, the agency has found that a carrier's terms and conditions of carriage are not reasonable, resulting in significant changes to the benefit of passengers. Recent such decisions have addressed questions such as lost baggage and denied boarding.

In short, our current system works. Furthermore, it does so because of the proactive stance that our Conservative government has taken on passenger rights.

In 2007, we took action to strengthen the consumer protection regime for air travellers by introducing measures as part of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. These amendments improved the transparency of carriers' terms and conditions of carriage and made the complaint process under the Canadian Transportation Agency permanent.

In 2008, we introduced Flight Rights Canada, an initiative to inform Canadians of their rights under the act. This also resulted in the creation of a plain language voluntary code of practice, which our major carriers adopted into their terms and conditions of carriage. I have already mentioned the airfare advertising regulations brought into force last year.

The prescriptive regulatory regime proposed in C-459 is not consistent with Canada's approach to consumer protection in transport. As written, the bill raises a number of questions and creates systems that would ultimately increase the burden on all parties.

To begin with, the proposed bill would only empower the agency to enforce provisions relating to duty to disclose pricing, announcements at airports and obligations to inform passengers of their rights at check-in. With respect to other matters such as cancellations, delays and denied boarding, consumers would seemingly have to seek redress through the courts if they are not satisfied with a carrier's response. This would be costly, time-consuming and a burden on the passengers as well as on the Canadian court system.

Bill C-459 seeks to address concerns that were identified with previous private members' bills on this subject, which made air carriers responsible for problems that are the fault of other parties, such as airports or navigation providers.

However, the current bill would introduce a new regulatory burden, namely that carriers would need to make a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency proving the third party's responsibility. This would result in more red tape for the carriers and more work for the agency. The additional costs, obviously, would likely be borne by travellers and taxpayers.

Furthermore, the bill would recognize that carriers would not be made responsible for cancellations arising as a result of force majeure, particularly weather. The carriers would remain responsible for the situation resulting from force majeure, such as airport or tarmac delays, and we all know that weather is a major factor in this country.

The bill would create confusion between its provisions and the current provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. There is also potential conflict between Bill C-459 and the Carriage by Air Act, which brings into force passengers' rights provisions enshrined in the Montreal convention, an international treaty to which Canada is a party.

In conclusion, we are committed to promoting passengers' rights by way of an approach that minimizes costs and regulatory burden on all travellers in the air industry.

Bill C-459 would add nothing to this, but it does have the potential to significantly increase the regulatory burden and cost to Canada's air transportation sector and to create confusion within the regulatory regime without further addressing passenger needs.

For this reason, we cannot support Bill C-459.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the House regarding Bill C-459, the air passengers' bill of rights, which would establish terms and conditions including compensation and rerouting for the treatment of air passengers under various circumstances when air travel is cancelled, delayed, or baggage is misplaced.

This is a big country and as a result Canadians travel more by air than most people elsewhere. Many of us have experienced situations where our flight was delayed or cancelled due to weather conditions, mechanical issues or other reasons that we may not understand. Occasionally the delivery of luggage may be delayed due to tight connections, mishandling, malfunctions and various human factors. That is the key part.

People make mistakes every now and then. We do not like them, but they are a fact of life. Sometimes as passengers we feel we have not been treated fairly. We all find these situations frustrating. I have been there and I am sure all members have. One thing should be noted though. We are fortunate that in Canada there is a mechanism that provides passengers with a means to address these situations efficiently without engaging in onerous or costly legal wrangling.

Consumers have the right to expect to be treated fairly by airlines and therefore a process is in place for the impartial investigation of concerns. In particular, this means that a passenger, who has been inconvenienced and feels that his or her concerns have not been addressed adequately by the airline, can choose to file a formal complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. The agency is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that has a mandate to review unresolved consumer complaints against air carriers and to assist consumers to the extent possible.

Please allow me now to describe the regime that exists in Canada for the protection of air passengers' rights. As I have noted, Canada's policy for airline passenger consumer protection is based on a complaints-driven process. The carriers are expected to comply with their terms and conditions of carriage, which must be made readily available to the passenger. The terms and conditions of carriage are set out in carriers' policies with respect to important consumer protection matters including, but not restricted to, acceptance, loss and damage of baggage, taxes and fees, reimbursement, claims, flight cancellations, et cetera.

Air carriers are required to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites and to live by these terms and conditions. This is enshrined in legislation through specific provisions in the Canada Transportation Act. If a passenger feels that a carrier is not respecting its terms and conditions of carriage, he or she should begin by bringing a complaint first to the airline. As I mentioned earlier, if not satisfied with the airline's response, passengers may then take their complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is empowered to provide recourse.

In 2007, our government took action to strengthen Canada's consumer protection regime for air travellers by introducing measures as part of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, which improved the transparency of carriers' terms and conditions of carriage and made the complaints process under the Canadian Transportation Agency permanent.

During the same period, our government introduced Flight Rights Canada, an initiative to inform the travelling public of the consumer protection approach that we have in place in Canada, their rights under this approach and how they can seek redress if something goes wrong when they are travelling by air. Flight Rights Canada included a six-point, plain language code of conduct defining service standards.

Canada's largest airlines have adopted these standards into their terms and conditions of carriage. They are now accountable for them as they are for all their terms and conditions of carriage. As my colleagues have no doubt noticed, Bill C-459 also includes provisions that regulate full fare advertising. On this issue, I am pleased to remind hon. members that this government has already taken action with the recently announced all-inclusive airfare advertising regulations.

On December 14, 2012, new air services price advertising regulations came into force that required any person who advertised the price of an air service to display the total price, inclusive of all taxes, fees and charges when selling flights within or originating in Canada. That is something I have experienced. Individuals book a flight, they think they have a price and all of a sudden all the other little things get added to it and it is not what they thought it was at the start. That is no more, thanks to this government.

The two key objectives of this new regulation are to enable consumers to readily determine the total price of an advertised air service and to promote fair competition between all advertisers in the air travel industry. When Canadians are travelling by air, they expect to be treated fairly by their carrier, as well as to be able to readily determine the full price of the air services they are purchasing.

Hon. colleagues must consider this private member's bill with prudence, as we cannot overturn the current policy by implementing a prescriptive and more burdensome framework. The bill could result in consumers having to take their cases to court in certain situations, as well as changes to the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency. It could translate into more red tape and costs to the taxpayer. That is the last thing we need.

Furthermore, elements of the bill could potentially have significant financial implications for airlines, which would translate into higher costs for travellers. This is not what we want. For example, while the bill recognizes that airlines should not be held responsible for incidents that are caused by third parties, such as air navigation service providers or airports, the onus could be on the carriers to prove that this is the case in a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Similarly, under the bill, carriers would not be responsible for cancellations caused by weather, which is a major factor in our country. However, again, they could be placed in a situation where they would have to prove this by way of submissions to the agency. All of this would result in additional work and cost for both the airline and the agency. I need not remind members that higher costs to carriers would definitely translate into higher fares for air travel.

Let me underscore that this government is, as always, firmly committed to promoting a healthy Canadian air industry, without compromising the protection of the rights of Canadians. We have a robust system for protecting air passengers' rights and this government is proud to reiterate that it has taken steps to reinforce this and will continue to do so.

We do not have a perfect system, but it is a pretty good one. The bill would definitely make it worse, not better.

Railway Noise and Vibration Control Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway noise and vibration control).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my seconder from Laval—Les Îles who is one of the new bright young lights in the NDP caucus.

In many parts of the country, we have rail yards in urban areas where there are excessive, noisy activities in the evening. We are talking about idling of diesel engines, shunting and extended whistle blowing. This interrupts the sleep of constituents in my riding and, of course, Canadians right across the country.

The amendments to Bill C-11 simply have not dealt with the problem. Mediation has not worked. We have many examples where mediation has not been respected by the railway companies.

I am bringing forward this legislation to give very clear guidelines about what rail companies can do in the middle of the night in urban areas. They cannot do the shunting, idling and excessive whistle blowing that interrupts the sleep of so many Canadians.

I hope to get all party support on a problem that many urban areas experience. I am sure all members would agree that every Canadian has the right to a good night's sleep.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

To offer some background on the subject, Bill C-11—some of you might know it as the act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—contained some provisions that required air carriers to include all fees and taxes in the advertised prices. Clause 27 also included the provision allowing the agency to make conditional and restricted regulations, to be enacted as Section 86.2.

With the exception of clause 27, the bill was brought into force on June 22, 2007. Madam Chow is quite right in her chronology. The reason that the Senate standing committee on transport infrastructure added that clause to the bill was to provide the airfare advertising clause some time to come into force, in order to reflect the transition that would be necessary for it to happen without harming competition.

Since 2007, the European Union has introduced regulations to the same effect. The United States did the same, and it has now come into effect on January 24, 2012. Clause 27 of the original bill is expected to be brought into force in the reasonably near future, and that will trigger the regulation. It was actually brought into effect already, in December last year—quite recently—but that just triggers the Canadian Transportation Agency to now develop the regulations, and that's exactly what the CTA is doing as we speak.

The government is committed to competition and to enhancing consumer protection with full-cost ticket advertising. That being said, we do need to ensure that the regulations are drafted properly, and that they are not harmful to an industry that employs people across this country. The agency has commenced the process of drafting regulations. Consultations with stakeholders are part of that drafting process, and it is expected to take approximately one year.

I do appreciate the urgency with which Ms. Chow wants to treat this matter. She has been passionate about the subject for a very long time, and I credit her with that. At the same time, I think she will agree that it is important that the agency is meticulous and precise in the way it applies these regulations and that the industry is able to transition towards them.

I think it's important to keep in mind a couple of things. This is an international business. This is not the kind of business where you're transporting someone down the street; you're transporting people across borders and across continental divides. There are countries in this world that don't have this regulation. When Canadians go online and try to find, for example, a connecting flight from Paris to Dubai, they'll have a whole series of options. If that same flight is advertised by Air Canada and the price is, let's say, $1,500—but that's an all-in price—and then they see that Emirates offers the flight for $600, but that's not all-in, the consumer could be tricked into believing they're getting a vastly better deal by buying from a foreign carrier.

As a result, that puts Canada's airlines at a potential competitive disadvantage. The problem I just identified is mitigated by the fact that the EU and the United States have now gone toward this regulation, but it is not completely eliminated as a problem. We believe the best way to move forward with full-price ticket advertising is to provide a window of transition, so that industry can find ways to confront the challenges that this new rule will bring in and to prepare ways to communicate to customers, who might be looking at a flight like the one I just described and do not understand the variance in regulations between the rules that apply to domestic Canadian carriers and foreign carriers that are in competition on some international routes.

That's the approach we're taking, and we are moving as quickly as it is responsible to do. So our members will have to oppose this particular motion, while acknowledging its worthy intent and the good work that the honourable member who moved it has done on the file.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-310 brought forward by the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Over the past Christmas season, severe weather wreaked tremendous havoc at airports across the country. I know that because I travel quite frequently. Being a member of Parliament from northern Alberta, I have the opportunity to travel on planes. I can assure the member and others in the House that if anyone knows what it is like to travel in Canada and enjoy the diverse weather across this country, it is members from the west because they have to do more travelling. I remember that bad weather forced many cancellations and delays, which obviously were beyond the control of the airlines. Unfortunately, too many people spent hours in airports lying across plastic chairs and getting snacks from vending machines. Some members in the House probably had that unfortunate experience.

Let me be clear. Protecting Canadian travellers is a priority for this Conservative government and will remain a priority for this government. We are committed to consumer protection and have taken measures to strengthen that protection.

In 2007, for instance, we brought forward Bill C-11, which improved transparency by requiring air carriers to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites, a good step to put forward for consumers to understand what their rights are. The Canadian Transportation Agency was also mandated to continue its complaints process as a permanent program.

In 2008 our government introduced the flight rights program as a result of, in part, Parliament's wish to protect consumers more thoroughly. This is a campaign to inform air travellers of the rights and options available to them should they encounter difficulties when travelling.

In budget 2009, again we introduced measures to modernize the Competition Act and to better protect Canadians from price fixing and misleading advertising, things which are simply not acceptable. The changes that this government made will instill greater confidence in advertising and more meaningful penalties to deter misleading advertising and mass marketing fraud, again things which are unacceptable.

I would like to highlight a few key components of the consumer protection measures we as a government have put in place for air travellers.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, all carriers operating within Canada are required to have written terms and conditions of carriage readily accessible to passengers. These are often printed on the back of the ticket or agreed to when reservations are made online so that consumers will know their rights at the time they purchase their tickets.

These terms and conditions must reflect the carrier's policy regarding persons with disabilities, the acceptance of children, cancelled or delayed flights, lost or damaged baggage, denied boarding due to overbooking, and ticket reservations. These currently exist. They reflect the passenger's rights as a consumer and the carrier's obligation.

Carriers are actually obliged to live up to these terms and conditions and if they fail to do so, consumers can turn to the Canadian Transportation Agency for recourse. The agency can impose different measures, including corrective measures, such as a refund of expenses incurred by the passenger, and can also direct a carrier to change or suspend its terms and conditions of carriage.

It should be noted that in the United States consumers must actually turn to the courts instead of an agency like the Canadian Transportation Agency when carriers fail to live up to their commitments. We all know that turning to the courts is very expensive and time consuming and, quite frankly, not acceptable to Canadians.

Countries in the European Union are required to have a complaints process, but the complaints processes in the European Union actually vary in their effectiveness and are more limited in scope to what we currently have in Canada. In Canada we have a consumer protection regime that ensures that the terms and conditions offered by carriers in Canada are not only reasonable but that carriers actually stand by them and stand up for consumers.

These terms and conditions are determined by international norms of practice, normal travel practice and healthy competition, which is so very important in today's global economic crisis. They are the carrier's commitments to its clients.

It is easy to understand the frustrations of passengers because, let us face it, many in the House are very frustrated by travel from time to time. The people who experienced the frustration of flights being delayed or cancelled over the Christmas season were, quite frankly, unhappy. Everyone travels hoping to arrive at their destinations on time. However, we live in a winter country. We live in a huge country, approximately 1.2 people per square mile, the lowest population density in the world. Given our climate, inevitably there will be unfortunate delays and inconveniences in travel, particularly in our harsh winters, our large snowfall and our dispersal of population.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard from many industry representatives. I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives from WestJet, Air Canada and from other airline carriers that service our country. Let us talk about what they think. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated that it shares the concerns raised by the NACC, the National Airlines Council of Canada, regarding many aspects of the proposed legislation and does not believe that the highly prescriptive and punitive measures such as Bill C-310.

This sentiment was echoed by the Canadian Airports Council and the International Air Transportation Association. It represents 230 international carriers around the world, including all major airlines in Canada. The National Airlines Council of Canada said that while Bill C-310 claims to safeguard consumer interest, the proposed measures would in fact exacerbate delays and add a new layer of traveller inconveniences and costs.

It is also important for us to try to understand the operational realities of running an airline in today's competitive environment. For instance, bad weather in Vancouver will cause delays in Toronto. It will cause ripple effects across the country, especially during the busiest time of travel and especially during the harshest part of winter. We must also be mindful that safety must be the primary concern for our transportation system.

The Air Transportation Association of Canada in a letter dated March 4, 2009, states that it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking.

Yes, it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking. There is nothing more important to this Conservative government than the safety of Canadians and we are going to make sure that they remain safe while they travel. Safety must come first.

We can and must learn from other countries. We must review the United States' legislation, the European legislation and look at other options. We must also be mindful that Canada's weather and geography are truly unique and these realities must be taken into consideration when we think about what must be done to enhance consumer protection legislation and ultimately serve those whom we all serve in this place, Canadians.

I look forward to working with the member who introduced this bill and all members of the House and the committee cooperatively to find solutions that will protect Canadian consumers without punishing Canadian carriers for factors beyond their control.

We must ensure during this time of economic global downturn that we protect Canadians' interests and at the same time make sure that airlines remain competitive. It is a balancing act and we as a government will do the best job for Canadians.

Airline Passenger Bill of Rights

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Motion No. 465, put forward by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte. This motion deals with protecting the travelling public and is something that many people have been waiting for. The story of how this all came about is interesting.

During Christmas 2007 some major storms were experienced in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Atlantic Canada. Many flights were cancelled or delayed which created major havoc especially for people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and among them, people in my own riding of Avalon.

Many people in Conception Bay South, a town in my riding and one of the fastest growing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, have the opportunity to travel back and forth to other parts of Canada.

A movement was started at that time by Woodrow French, the mayor of Conception Bay South. I met with Mayor French on a couple of occasions to discuss this issue and other issues. Mayor French involved many families and people who travelled. He sought and received the support of the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador association. He also sought and received the support of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. With that combination of support, Mayor French found a need and a want for a passenger bill of rights in Canada.

I am certainly delighted that the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte brought his motion forward because it gives us an opportunity to protect the travelling public. We hope we can do that through this process.

A lot of people are not aware that there is protection already in place in Canada. Canada's complaints process has been in place since 2000 and was made permanent by Bill C-11. It is one of the strongest features of Canada's consumer protection regime. However, like many other things, the regime and its strengths are not well understood by Canadians. We have not done enough to inform travellers of the consumer protections that exist and the redress available to them through this process. If passengers do not know their rights, they are unlikely to take steps to protect those rights.

There is no way that we can bring forward in this House, or any government can bring anywhere for that matter, a bill of rights that would dictate what the weather was going to be on a Friday or Saturday night, or whatever the case may be. Therefore, we have to work within the existing system. A bill or a motion will not dictate what the weather will be on any given night.

How passengers are treated when their carefully laid out plans are suddenly disrupted because of the weather or because of some other situation that might arise is what we are trying to deal with through this motion. Common courtesy is not something that we can legislate.

Because of the Christmas panic that ensued in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a regime in place that we hope can provide some protection. Hopefully, by enhancing that and working with all members in the House we can bring forward something that would at least give people some kind of protection.

I heard many stories from people in my riding who contacted my office. Some had been in Halifax on December 22 and were told that due to flight cancellations, the next flight they could get to go home would be on January 2. Some people were in Toronto on Christmas Eve and were told that the first opportunity for them to get home would be on New Year's Day. Some people had to return to work on January 2 or January 3. That is totally unacceptable to the government and it is totally unacceptable to the travelling public.

I was delighted to hear the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca state earlier that we are not only supporting this motion, but we are going to make a concerted effort to inform Canadians of the rights and protections that are already in place.

I was delighted to hear the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, because if there is any area or town in this country that knows the importance of the travelling public, especially from Newfoundland and Labrador, it is Fort McMurray. A direct flight was brought in sometime in 2007. Every single day there is a direct flight from St. John's, Newfoundland to Fort McMurray, Alberta. There are in excess of 60,000 people travelling back and forth between Fort McMurray and St. John's, people who either live in Fort McMurray permanently and visit family in Newfoundland, or who travel back and forth on turnovers. This is a major concern for all those people. Many times we refer to the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca as the eighth member from Newfoundland and Labrador because there is no doubt that his constituency is made up of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I was delighted to see the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca on his feet here today announcing that our government is supporting this private member's motion. We are taking the concerns of the travelling public of Canada very seriously. We have a situation here where, as I said earlier, we cannot regulate the weather or how things happen, but we can provide protection. We can provide at least an opportunity for the travelling public to be treated fairly in a situation where people cannot have their concerns addressed in an airport at 2 o'clock in the morning.

I want to congratulate Mayor Woodrow French of Conception Bay South, who on February 13, I believe it was, sent a letter off to the Prime Minister, asking him to look at bringing in a passenger bill of rights similar to ones in other parts of the world. When we did some research on that, we found that the passenger bills of rights in other parts of the world do not exactly fit everything that we have here in Canada.

Hopefully, we can enhance what we already have in place to protect consumers and the travelling public. We want to ensure that the concerns that are being brought forward to members of Parliament are addressed and that we can have something in place so that at least people travelling do not have to worry that they are not being treated fairly.

We have a large geographic region. I mentioned the daily flight between St. John's and Fort McMurray. We travel long distances. Sometimes people arrive in one town but their luggage is in another city. Some people do not find their luggage at all. The attitude sometimes of the airlines is well, too bad. That is not an attitude Canadians should have to put up with. It is absolutely unacceptable that the travelling public of Canada have to put up with anything less than the service they pay for and deserve.

We as a government are here today to make sure that the protections that are in place are enhanced for the travelling public. of Newfoundland and Labrador in our case. I am delighted that a member from Newfoundland and Labrador brought this motion forward. In that way, every one who travels can know that if something goes wrong, if something does not work out, there is protection and that those who are responsible have to step up to the plate and say, “We are responsible for what happened”. They are not responsible for the fog, they are not responsible for the snow, they are not responsible for the wind, but they are responsible for the paying customers who deserve a service that sometimes we find is lacking.

I am delighted that we are here today to support the motion. I look forward to enhancing the protections that are in place now so that members of the travelling public of Canada feel that they are protected in some ways and feel more comfortable when they sit on a plane. After all, it is a major mode of travel now.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Motion No. 465.

I want to read the text of the motion so the folks who are watching will have some understanding of what we are actually considering tonight. The motion reads:

That the House call upon the government to bring forward an airline passenger bill of rights similar in scope and effect to legal instruments being either proposed or enacted by jurisdictions within Europe and the United States for the purpose of protecting passenger interests in a consistent and rules-based way and to provide a means of ensuring adequate compensation being offered by the airline industry to airline passengers who experience inconveniences such as flight interruptions, delays, cancellations, issues with checked baggage and other inconveniences incurred while travelling on commercial passenger airline services originating from anywhere in Canada.

I appreciate that we have the opportunity to discuss this this evening and have had another occasion to do so. At that time, the NDP transport critic, the member for Windsor West, indicated that this motion had his support, and it is something that has my support as well. It is an important initiative.

Over the years, consumer protection has been an area where we have fallen short in Canada. There was a time in Canada when we actually had a minister of consumer affairs and that was an integral part of our government. It was seen as an important post in government, someone who had the specific responsibility to look out for Canadian consumers in all manner of ways to protect consumers. That was specifically on the agenda.

Unfortunately, over the years that capacity of government has kind of dwindled down and is not what it once was. It might be a desk in a department someplace now rather than a full-fledged department in its own right. There has been something significant lost with those changes over the years.

Recently, in many ways we have seen concerns around consumer protection come to the fore again, whether that be with regard to food products, with regard to toys imported from overseas or with regard to the concerns with pet foods that were very much on the minds of many Canadian pet owners in recent months. There have been many places where we seem to have fallen short of offering appropriate protection to Canadian consumers and where our government has been slow to take initiatives to offer that kind of protection.

That is an appropriate role for government. It certainly seems to me that Canadians, as we come together collectively, as our government, would want us to take that kind of responsibility to ensure that our fellow citizens are safe and secure, and that they get value for the products that they consume and the services that they purchase. It seems to me that is an entirely appropriate role for our federal government, especially so in the area of transportation, which is clearly something that is a direct responsibility of the federal Government of Canada.

This is an important initiative to be discussing. There is a lot of room for improvement in how we ensure that consumers of airline services are protected in Canada. It is very important that we have clear, accessible information about what the protections available to passengers are,. The clearer, more accessible and better organized that information is the better off we will all be.

I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport say that Canada would be taking measures to publicize the protections that are available now to Canadians. That is a good initiative but I wish it had happened sooner. I wish we could have seen some tangible result of that commitment by now, but perhaps organizing that in some way that makes sense to consumers, with information that they can use easily and readily, will be an important step to take.

However, that commitment should not deter us from pursuing the motion that is before us today. It seems to me that we have not had that commitment, that we have not seen the government move in that direction.

Since we do not have that kind of information readily available, the House should put pressure on the government to organize an airline passenger bill of rights and organize it in that kind of format so people will know what the airlines' responsibilities are and what their rights as passengers are.

We know there have been very serious issues related to airline passengers. We had the 10-hour incident where people were kept on a plane on the tarmac and were denied access to appropriate hygiene and food. It took a 911 call to get the kind of help those folks needed. I am sure we all believe that it should never happen again and that it should never have happened in the first place.

We also have seen situations arise, especially at times of mergers or bankruptcies of airlines, where many passengers are inconvenienced or right out of luck when it comes to their travel plans. I think all of us would agree that it is not an appropriate time either.

We have seen weather delays but we know we cannot always control that. However, we do want to ensure that the response to those kinds of delays is done appropriately and with the consumer and passenger in mind.

There is also the issue of pricing of airline tickets and the advertising of those airline tickets. We have seen a significant concern around the hidden costs in airline advertising about ticket prices. This is something that we thought we had taken some initiative on in the House. There were proposals in Bill C-11, which was passed almost a year ago, that would have had some effect on that had the government taken the necessary action to implement it. We are still waiting on that and I think it is very important.

The member for Windsor West has asked in the House, as recently as April, when we would be seeing the implementation of that policy that was passed in the House.

We need to ensure the airlines are not hiding fees and not misleading consumers about the actual cost of flying in Canada. We want to ensure that what is called all-in pricing is the standard for airline advertising here in Canada. The mechanism to do it is in the legislation but, unfortunately, the government has not acted to actually put that into practice yet in Canada. It needs to do that without delay because that would be a significant improvement in consumer protection for Canadians.

There are a number of proposals already. We have heard that the European Union has such a consumer airline passenger bill of rights in place. We have seen attempts to do it in the United States and we know there are ongoing discussions in the United States.

The Canadian Association of Airline Passengers and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre have a proposal around an airline passenger bill of rights that includes things like public participation to ensure the public is consulted and is part of the process of developing such a code and developing awareness around issues of safety, pricing and service quality; that safety principles are important; that the importance of public safety and decision making is emphasized; that normal and emergency levels of service are clearly elucidated; that there is a culture of safety in the airline industry; that additional risks arising from mergers and restructuring that would affect passengers are addressed; that there is access to public safety information for passengers; and that in the event of accidents that passengers are entitled to rescue and firefighting services that are equal to or better than international standards.

Those are all some of the things that would be part of that kind of passenger bill of rights. There is also the whole category of service quality, that there needs to be full passenger information disclosure, that there are certain standards of onboard quality and that there are general service standards available to the public, just basic common courtesy needs to be one of those. The whole area of fair pricing rules is one that is very important.

The regulation of the airline industry is another key area that is part of this proposal from the Canadian Association of Airline Passengers for an airline passenger bill of rights. I think this motion gets us going in the right direction and I am happy to have been able to speak in favour of it this evening.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion No. 465 from the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, concerning rights for airline passengers.

The spirit of my colleague's motion is not unique to Canada. Similar regulations already exist in other countries, and could even serve as models for an airline passenger bill of rights.

In 2004, the European Union adopted Regulation No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council of the European Union. This regulation came into force on February 17, 2005, in the 25 member states of the European Union. The United States has a similar regulation established by the Air Transport Association.

In general, these regulations set out the rights of airline passengers and the responsibilities of carriers, for example: to provide compensation for passengers who are denied boarding by the carrier; to reduce any problems and inconveniences to passengers whose flights are cancelled, by encouraging carriers to inform passengers of cancellations and propose an alternative; to see to the needs of passengers with reduced mobility and their attendants; to inform passengers of their rights if they are denied boarding or if their flight is cancelled or significantly delayed, so that the passengers can properly exercise those rights.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of adopting such a bill of rights, although it recognizes that airlines cannot be held responsible for any mistakes made by other industry players such as NavCanada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority or the Canada Border Services Agency.

It is important to answer two distinct questions regarding the motion we are discussing today. First, what are the responsibilities of all the service providers in the airline industry with respect to this issue? Second, what exactly are airline passengers' rights? The Bloc Québécois recommends that Parliament take decisive measures on a matter that is of vital importance to Canadians: creating guaranteed protection for the rights of airline passengers.

These measures will apply to all industry players involved in serving passengers. The industry as a whole will be responsible for implementing these measures.

I would now like to talk about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, of which I am a member. In 2007, the committee heard a number of witnesses when it examined Bill C-11 concerning complaints about air travel.

The witnesses included Marie-Hélène Beaulieu and Christiane Théberge of Option consommateurs, a Montreal-based consumer advocacy group, Michael Janigan and Michael Pepper of the Travellers' Protection Initiative, and Fred Gaspar, Vice-President, Air Transport Association of Canada, all of whom appeared before us on October 5, 2006.

I would like to read part of Ms. Théberge's testimony:

The second concern we would like to address is with respect to [much-needed] airfare advertising transparency.

[Travellers' Protection Initiative] does not believe that the airlines will willingly change their advertising practices. We see every indication that they increasingly tend to break up their airfares and announce one way fares when these are not even available. We have seen cases where consumers, upon completing the transaction, had paid 25%, 50% or even 90% more the amount initially advertised by the airline.

In the past, the airline industry has promised to take voluntary measures but they never delivered the goods. We are therefore skeptical of arguments put forward by the airlines, in other words that the airline industry can be self-regulating with respect to consumers' interests. Despite years of discussions with the airline industry and a series of false starts, the airline industry has not moved voluntary on this issue.

We believe that the requirement to full disclosure, with details, should be firmly entrenched in the legislation and apply to all airlines which advertise in Canada. After all, air carriers providing services in United States are already subject to these requirements.

As I said earlier, many of the issues we are discussing today were addressed during the committee's study of Bill C-11. That bill was passed here at third reading, was passed by the Senate, and received royal assent on June 22, 2007.

This legislation provides enhanced consumer protection for air travellers. These enhancements were in addition to existing consumer laws. Under this legislation, airlines are now required to prominently display and post their terms and conditions of carriage at their business offices. This legislation also made permanent the informal and flexible complaints resolution process within the Canadian Transportation Agency. It integrated the role and functions of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner with the authority and day to day operations of the agency.

In order for these new measures to be officially adopted following royal assent to Bill C-11, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has to approve them by order in council. Almost a year after the new legislation was passed—it has been just about a year now—these measures still have not been ordered by the minister.

This week, in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we passed a motion calling on the minister to appear before our committee in order to give us some follow up on his discussions with the industry, which might explain the delay in adopting the order in council regarding the provisions of Bill C-11.

Despite the passage of Bill C-11 nearly a year ago, it is clear that consumers are still not benefiting from the provisions of that legislation. This is why the Bloc Québécois will support the motion being debated here today: in order to do something about the Conservative government's failure to act when it comes to the rights of air travellers.

My colleague has had to move Motion M-465 in order to do something about the unwillingness demonstrated by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities regarding the bill introduced by his own government.

If the motion were adopted and enforced, consumers would receive a good deal of publicly available, government sanctioned information.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support the motion before us, in order to ensure that air travellers get the real protection they deserve and in order to strongly urge the minister to take action on this issue, which greatly concerns consumers.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 465, moved by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

Members of the House should realize that this motion is actually motivated by events that happened in Newfoundland during Christmas, 2007 and again in central Canada during reading week in 2008. In both cases Canada's airlines were flying full airplanes during a peak travel period. Indeed, in both cases severe storms closed major airports and resulted in hundreds and hundreds of flight cancellations. Because of the huge numbers of people travelling, the airlines had real trouble finding empty seats on other flights in order to accommodate the passengers from the cancelled flights. In some cases the airlines actually removed luggage from their airplanes in order to be able to carry as many extra passengers as possible. In another case one of the airlines actually added three extra wide-body jets for flights to one destination in a desperate effort to clear the backlog.

No jurisdiction anywhere has passed legislation that would force airlines to operate in a storm, or to bump paying passengers in order to accommodate other paying passengers from a weather cancelled flight.

This motion proposes a Canadian airline passenger bill of rights based either on the European model or U.S. legislation that has been proposed.

European regulation No. 261/2004 establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and deals with the very concerns raised in this particular motion, and it has the force of law. I will refer to it as the European charter. It deals with denied boarding, delays and cancellations.

Curiously though, the European charter does not deal with luggage at all. In that sense it does not address one of the most significant complaints of the Newfoundlanders whose Christmas nightmares prompted Mayor Woodrow French and Mayor Graham Letto to call for this motion.

Furthermore, article 5(3) of the European charter takes away a passenger's right to compensation if the airline is forced to cancel a flight due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Extraordinary circumstances clearly include weather conditions that are incompatible with the operation of the flight.

The European Directorate-General for Energy and Transport stresses the importance of flight safety in evaluating weather as an extraordinary circumstance. It states:

Weather conditions are by their nature unpredictable and it is not therefore possible to create an exhaustive list of the circumstances that may lead to weather related disruption. In evaluating an incident, [one] has to bear in mind that the safety of flight operations has to be the overarching priority and should therefore consider each incident on its own merits.

The Canadian approach is similar in that it recognizes, for this government especially, that safe operation of the aircraft is absolutely paramount. In fact, Canada's air transportation regulations specifically excuse “delays due to weather conditions affecting safety or abnormal operating conditions”.

However, the motion also refers to legal instruments being either proposed or enacted by jurisdictions within the United States for the purpose of protecting passenger rights.

The major advocate of airline passenger rights in the United States is Kate Hanni, president of the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights. She is very familiar with existing airline passenger rights in the U.S. and understands that a European style bill of rights is not what North America needs. Her 11 point bill of rights focuses almost entirely on providing relief to people stranded for hours on an airplane. The only other major new idea is to compensate bumped passengers, or passengers delayed due to flight cancellations or postponements of over 12 hours, by refund of 150% of the ticket price.

Although there are various legislative proposals in the United States, none at this time have the force of law. I repeat: none. The only one ever to be passed by a legislature, specifically New York state, dealt almost exclusively with rights for passengers detained on an aircraft prior to takeoff or after landing.

Before members of Parliament spend a lot of time examining legislation in other countries, it would probably be very helpful to look at the current Canadian situation.

First, after researching this, I will note that it is important to understand that Canadian air travellers have more legislated rights than travellers in any other country in the world. That is right: currently we have more legislated rights than anywhere else in the world.

Further, through the passage of Bill C-11 just recently, the government has strengthened the complaints provisions in the Canada Transportation Act and requires airlines to publish their tariffs or the terms and conditions of carriage for both domestic and international travel. The Canada Transportation Act requires Canadian airlines to actually file their tariffs with the Canadian Transportation Agency. This makes those tariffs legally binding.

The United States does not have a realm of legally binding passenger rights at this time. The European realm has inconsistent enforcement and, as I said, does not cover baggage claims. In practical terms, Canadian travellers already have far more rights, with better enforcement, than travellers in either the United States or Europe.

Canadian travellers currently have the following rights. I would like to go through them. First, there is compensation for denied boarding. Second, there is compensation for flight cancellations. Third, there is care during delays. Fourth, there is compensation for lost or delayed baggage.

First, on compensation for denied boarding, in order to be eligible for denied boarding compensation a passenger has to meet the airline's minimum check-in time. In a situation where an aircraft is oversold or a smaller aircraft is substituted at the last minute, it is the practice of Canada's airlines to call for volunteers to take a later flight. Indeed, typically a volunteer will be offered a credit for future travel of $100 or more as well as transport on a later flight.

If there are not enough volunteers, though, passengers may be denied boarding on an involuntary basis. Here, the passenger is typically offered free transport on another flight or a refund of the fare paid. In cases where the airline's next flight is not relatively soon, the carrier will often try to get the passenger a seat on another airline flight, even if that seat costs more than the passenger paid.

Where a passenger must wait another day to take the airline's next flight, the carrier will pay for meals, hotel accommodation and airport transfers as necessary. I know this because it recently happened to me. The carrier was very accommodating.

Second is compensation for flight cancellations. If a Canadian airline cancels a flight, the airline will undertake to ensure that the passenger is routed or transported to his or her ultimate destination as per the contract of carriage, within a reasonable period of time and at no extra cost to the traveller. If this cannot be done, the passenger is actually offered credit for a future flight or a full refund.

Third is care during delays. If the delay is within the carrier's control, such as a mechanical problem, the carrier will pay for meals as well as a hotel stay and airport transfers if appropriate.

Finally, there is compensation for lost or delayed baggage. If an airline loses a passenger's baggage, it will pay provable damages or a minimum financial compensation. The actual amounts vary by airline, but in each case the full legal details are contained in the airline's tariffs. They have the force of law in Canada and they are enforced by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

In conclusion, even though Bill C-11 received royal assent a year ago, most Canadians do not know what the rights of air passengers are or how to go about enforcing those rights. Thus, as a result of the passage of this motion and the support by this Conservative government, Canada will take steps to publicize passenger rights of Canadians and the ways to enforce those rights. This is good news for Canadians.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will be equal to the task of demonstrating the degree of respect you have observed.

I want to compliment my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte because I think he presented his motion in a most precise, persuasive and, I might say, compelling fashion.

I note that in part of our discussion we highlighted some of the points by focusing on what happened in the beginning of March. However, I remind all colleagues who have made some very thorough and thoughtful presentations that the motion was actually presented before the events of the beginning of March which underscored the need for this motion.

I think that the motion has stimulated good debate. I want to focus on a couple of points, if I might, first, before I carry on.

This is a debate that has been long overdue. We have, from Canada's four major airports, at least 60 million passengers utilizing plane service every year. That is twice the population of Canada. So, as my colleague in his motion indicated this is not a service for the elite; it is for everybody. We have come to point where we need to address the specifics about good service. It is time, as my colleague from Windsor West said, that Canada got with the program.

The Europeans have gone through this kind of turmoil. They continue to go through turmoil, but they have recognized that what needs to be put in place is a rules-based system to which both the service provider and the client can point to for an appropriate level of service.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel says more or less the same thing. He says what we need to do is point the finger at all of those who have a responsibility but the responsibility, first and foremost, rests with the regulator.

My colleague from Abbotsford pointed out that perhaps we might be moving a little too quickly on this, and perhaps unnecessarily so, because we have already passed Bill C-11 in this House after some thorough discussion in committee and that provides the bases for a bill of rights, that is, a series of services to be provided by the carrier to its clients whether they be passengers or material that needs to be transported. So, we are dealing with a system that is not only a transport system but it is a transportation system.

I dare say, if I might, that we can add that this is no longer just a service; it is in fact an experience with real live individuals. Roughly 60 million of them a year in Canada are engaged in just those four major airports.

Back to what my hon. colleague from Abbotsford indicated in Bill C-11. There is a clause, clause 27, that calls on the government to help put in place what we might refer to in this motion as a bill of rights, to work with the industry, to consult with all the stakeholders, and to come forward with a basic standard of service criteria to which everybody can point. The government has not acted on that, yet.

Furthermore, there is another clause in Bill C-11, and I know my colleague knows this for sure because he, along with me and the member for Windsor West and the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel worked on this in committee, clause 64, that imposes on the cabinet an obligation to ensure that clause 27 is enacted. In other words, that those consultations take place and that the criteria, the regulatory framework, be put in place.

Not only has been clause 27 not been acted upon, clause 64 has virtually been ignored and so, one should not be surprised that my colleague would present Motion No. 465 in order to address these issues.

It is important for us to get a handle on that relationship between carriers, for example, one of them, Air Canada, who last year reported operating revenues in excess of $10.5 billion, and its vast clientele. There has to be a relationship where the clients, the passengers, can accede to a rules-based system that says this is what we contract to receive. I pointed out Air Canada perhaps unfairly. It is all carriers.

I point to Air Canada because my colleague from Windsor West and I both were part of the panel. I see that he pointed to it again today, that in response to the activities to the events of last March, instead of looking at how to enact some of these rules voluntarily, Air Canada came forward with a package that said “pay $25 or $35 and you can enhance your service”.

Now we are talking about increasing prices for a level of service that everyone expected would be part of the ticket price initially. I do not know whether that was good public relations or not. The people who we deal with at Air Canada are always wonderful people, but certainly the company in this instance made an error.

However, this motion is not in response to that error. It is in response to a genuine need, a get with the program need for Canada to join such other countries like those in the EU and the United States in coming forward with a bill of rights that says that passengers are entitled to this kind of service.

It cannot simply be case of caveat emptor. It has to be a case where there is a reciprocal obligation implied, understood and accepted by the carrier that receives the money as its part of the contract.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel says we should include as well all the other service providers. He points to the fact that the Air Transport Association of Canada says it accepts this concept in principle. It does accept it, but we should bring into the equation all those other associations, many of which operate thanks to the regulator's authority, for example, Transport Canada, and that is fine.

However, my colleague's motion is very specific about what should be included. It does not necessarily point to what CBSA and CATSA and what anyone else might do. They have their responsibilities under a different set of regulations and they are held accountable for them. They should be held accountable for the service that they must provide not only to the airport authorities or to the carriers but to the passengers as well.

The most important thing is for this House to be seized with the thrust of the motion. The thrust of the motion says there are already models for us to follow. People have already gone to court to ensure that some of these be enacted, witness the example in the United States that my colleague so rightly pointed out.

However, there are also examples in Europe and 27 European countries are getting together and accepting it. All 27 countries and jurisdictions are in a position to adopt a bill of rights that addresses specific items. My colleague from Abbotsford said yes, but there are three specific areas. Three specific areas no doubt, but there are an addition 12 others that indicate the kinds of elements that must be addressed in this bill of rights.

We have models. We have American models and we have European models. There is no reason why we cannot adopt both. As the mover says, if everyone else can provide that service and constrain our carriers to provide that service when they fly over foreign airspace, why can those same carriers not be constrained, compelled and encouraged to provide a bill of rights for those same passengers over Canadian airspace?

That is the essence of this motion. Let Canadian passengers be treated on a par with Canadian passengers flying other carriers in other jurisdictions. We should offer no less and I encourage this House to adopt my colleague's motion.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 465 this evening. The NDP supports this motion.

About a month ago, I issued a challenge to the government to bring forward a passenger bill of rights. Motion No. 465 is very complementary to that. I would like to read the motion for those who are joining the debate tonight.

The motion is very open and also provides a mode of flexibility and has been crafted in a very good way. The member should be recognized for that because it provides an opportunity to have a good debate about airline passenger service in this country and the way in which problems and issues are dealt with and whether or not we are satisfied with the status quo.

Most people across the country are not satisfied. Most people recognize that, not only in the European Union but also in the United States.

The motion addresses a few of the concerns. I am concerned that members of the Conservative Party do not want to participate in this type of process. This process would be helpful and would also get to other airline issues that need to be debated in this country.

The motion states:

That the House call upon the government to bring forward an airline passenger bill of rights similar in scope and effect to legal instruments being either proposed or enacted by jurisdictions within Europe and the Unites States...

I will halt there for a second, because what the member has done, and this is what I was concerned with in regard to the government's presentation, is clearly outlined that other jurisdictions have enacted legislation, for example in the European Union. The Bloc member went through some of the details of that legislation which was to deal with very difficult problems that the EU had and the EU felt that it had to enshrine something.

The member also recognizes the fact that the United States is going through a process. There is a bill in the house and a bill in the senate in the United States with respect to a passenger bill of rights. There has been a significant change in the U.S. airline industry and it has rocked the nation in many respects. There are going to be continued issues around passengers and their ability to get value because there is going to be another potential merger. There has been a lot of change, a lot of bankruptcies and many other issues. We have seen all too often footage not just in terms of weather delays but also cancellations related to aircraft being grounded and airlines that have gone bankrupt. A lot of travelling Americans and Canadians have been left high and dry.

These are very important issues. The member has acknowledged that those are the ones to be looked at.

When we look at this issue we cannot put our heads in the sand and say that the European Union has not solved everything and the United States has not quite done it yet so we should just forget about it and wait and see what happens.

There is an opportunity in the House to actually engage in this. Airline travel involves everything. We travel on personal visits with our families and our friends but airline travel is also very important for business and economic development across the country, especially as we are looking at competing in larger markets.

These issues are very important. When a person purchases a ticket, it should come with some basic rights. That is what we are really getting at.

The motion continues:

...for the purpose of protecting passenger interests in a consistent and rules-based way...

I want to stop there. When we talk to airline passengers and when we talk to people who work in the industry itself, the rules based approach is very important. People do not understand all these aspects. There are hidden charges. I know the industry is very concerned with a number of different fees that have been added on by the government. One example is the airline security tax. There have also been increased costs for landing fees. Also Nav Canada has been allowed to accumulate over a $60 million surplus. All these costs have to be passed on to the passenger.

There is concern from the industry that there has not been a real review of those types of things and those costs get passed on to the consumer. Similarly, there has to be a rules based approach when it comes to expectations when a person buys a ticket.

Bill C-11 was mentioned, but the fact of the matter is even when there is legislation the government has failed to live up to some of the principles of the legislation. In particular on Bill C-11 there was supposed to be consultation with different groups of Canadians about how to bring in a ticket pricing element that was fair and transparent.

CBC's Marketplace had very good program that outlined how some ticket prices have increased 50% because of fuel charges. People see a flight advertised at a certain price, but when they go to purchase their ticket, they are in for a big shock. We should have a rules based approach on issues like that so consumers know when an advertised price includes that charge, when it does not and all the airlines would have to follow that.

Having that element specifically mentioned in the motion gives some good ground to create fairness. This would create expectations not only with regard to when passengers should arrive, but what they should do to prepare themselves for air travel and what they should do in their conduct in air travel. Also, there would be an understanding of the company's obligations so that passengers can meet those types of conditions.

I have talked to representatives of some of the companies. They have expressed a bit of concern around issues related to checking in and so forth. For example, if there are not enough security officers to screen people, there is a problem. If people arrive too late, there is a problem.

In this debate, we can look at that context. We can look at the issue of whether the security charge that has been applied and continued by the government is going to be one that has value in terms of making sure that air travel is safe, but also making sure that we are going to reduce wait times and meet a mandate within a passenger bill of rights. Those issues can now come to the forefront.

The end of the motion is important as well. It talks about:

...adequate compensation being offered by the airline industry to airline passengers who experience inconveniences such as flight interruptions, delays, cancellations, issues with checked baggage and other inconveniences incurred while travelling on commercial passenger airline services originating from anywhere in Canada.

It refers to “such as”, and therefore, it does not have to be exclusively those items. The items can be looked at to determine whether they are appropriate or not, but at least it opens up that opportunity.

It is important to note that some airlines are actually moving on some of these items right now but they are charging extra fees for them. One airline has introduced a new service where for $25 or $35 passengers rise up a level and are able to bump other passengers. There are also emails and other services with regard to food and hotel accommodation.

Some of those things should be included in the price of the ticket right now but they are going to offer those services, the costs of which are going to be passed on to the customer. It is going to create another class of individuals who will be able to afford that $25 or $35, depending upon the fee, who will then purchase better tickets than other people who did not want to put that money on the table or could not afford to put out that money. That is important, because if we do not set some minimum standards and expectations with regard to airline passenger travel, then the companies are probably going to take advantage of customers. That is not right.

I only have a couple of minutes left, but I want to touch on a couple of issues. The issue of the Cuba to Montreal flight was mentioned. It is really important to acknowledge that those people were stuck on a plane for over 10 hours without the proper hygiene, nourishment or supports. They were having to sit in those seats for a long period of time. The basic health and sanitation systems had failed on the plane, and it took a 911 call to get some action.

That is enough to say if this extreme situation is going to happen in our country, in our nation's capital, there needs to be a change. We cannot simply leave things to the courts and other types of operations where there are no expectations or rules. We need to establish a bill of rights.

I will conclude by pointing out that we are going to once again have an opportunity to move forward on this or we will fall behind and watch our competition move ahead. It is important to point out that we will lose out on this.

In my area, many people choose to fly from Detroit, Michigan as opposed to going from Windsor on another air carrier to Toronto. That is because of the extra rights they are granted. The airlines and groups that are involved want to develop something right now. They want to clear the air. This motion is a start.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this motion forward. In principle, I do support the motion. Whatever we can do to strengthen consumer rights in Canada is welcomed.

I am also an air traveller. I travel every week to and from my riding, and I know what it means to be delayed, to sit on the tarmac waiting for a plane to take off.

I want to start by unequivocally stating that our government is committed to consumer protection for Canadians. Our country has a solid, effective and constantly improving consumer protection regime, and that applies to those Canadians who travel by air.

Canada's approach to air travel has always been to put the safety of the travelling public first. That is non-negotiable. That is why Canada is a world leader in aviation safety, as the member mentioned. Canada has even been cited by the International Civil Aviation Organization as having among the best safety standards in the world. Safe operation of our aircraft is our paramount consideration.

What about some of the other aspects of air travel? What about the comfort, safety and convenience of the travelling public?

The motion before us asks us to do a number of things. It calls upon our government to protect air passengers' consumer interests in a consistent and rules based way. It also asks us to provide adequate compensation to air travellers who experience inconveniences and delays on commercial flights originating in Canada.

The motion seeks to address those concerns by formally calling upon our government to implement a passenger bill of rights similar to the one in Europe and the one in the United States. Let us look at those models. Let us first review the situation in the United States.

As it turns out, the United States actually has no national passenger bill of rights. Although the state of New York tried to adopt a law which would have addressed health and safety concerns related to long delays on the tarmac, the U.S. Court of Appeals actually struck down the law. Despite past efforts, the United States has never been able to implement a broad passenger bill of rights to date.

Not only does the United States not have a passenger bill of rights, but it does not even have a complaints mechanism available to passengers. A discontented passenger is left to deal directly with the airline and has no other recourse for resolution aside from the courts.

Only Europe has a passenger bill of rights at this time, and it is appropriate for us to reflect on the particular circumstances of that bill of rights.

The fact that the European Union has some 20 different member states, many with their own air carriers, explains why the EU was so anxious to have a consistent set of rules and approaches to consumer complaints.

What was worse was that in Europe there were persistent challenges with congestion and overbooking, challenges which existed as early as the 1990s, which is approximately when the European passenger bill of rights was originally introduced. The European aviation industry was known to regularly overbook passengers, cancel undersold flights and make refunds very difficult.

Europe also faced serious challenges when its airline industry saw over 35 low cost carriers exit the market between 2003 and 2006. That in itself would have been a huge blow to consumer confidence in the European airline industry.

The European Union passenger bill of rights addresses specific situations where either boarding is denied by the carrier or flights are cancelled or delayed for a long period of time.

That bill of rights also requires each member state to have an enforcement body to deal with consumer complaints. Surprisingly, its enforcement process has many similarities to our Canadian approach. Just as in Canada, enforcement bodies in the EU provide recourse to passengers for complaints not resolved by the carrier.

However, European Union resolution of complaints is limited to the very issues I have already articulated: denied boarding, cancellations and delays. This is different from our system where our complaints enforcement body, the Canadian Transportation Agency, has a much wider mandate. The agency has the power to address a wide variety of air traveller complaints as reflected in the broad range of carriers' terms and conditions.

The EU passenger bill of rights does not address the concerns raised by the United States regarding lengthy delays on the tarmac, nor does it address the issue of lost baggage.

Let me elaborate further on the situation right here in Canada.

I would first like to address the unfortunate circumstances that have probably triggered the motion before us. Let us not beat around the bush. This last winter was a tough one for Canadians. It is easy for me to sympathize with those people who were victims of delayed and cancelled flights during the 2007 Christmas holiday season as a result of the winter storms in eastern and Atlantic Canada. I happened to be one of those passengers. Indeed, some Canadians rely on air transportation as their only means of travel. It is also regrettable that vacationers had their reading week and spring break trips cancelled or significantly delayed as a result of the massive storms that hit Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal on March 8 and 9. These were very unfortunate events that are a product of our northern climate.

I began my comments with the statement that we in Canada are fortunate to have strong consumer protection laws. Let me take a few minutes to remind members of what that regime actually entails.

In Canada, as in most other countries, the terms and conditions of carriage are set by carriers that compete aggressively with each other. They are not set by government. This approach is consistent with our privatized air industry framework which relies heavily on the competitiveness of the marketplace to ensure that terms and conditions of carriage are reasonable and fair.

In Canada, airline passenger rights are protected through the provisions in the Canadian Transportation Act. All carriers operating within Canada or arriving or departing from Canada are required to develop terms and conditions of carriage and to make them readily accessible to the public. The information contained in the carrier's terms and conditions of carriage is important to consumers because it sets out that carrier's obligations and commitments to passengers.

As my colleagues in this House know all too well, the Canadian Transportation Act was recently amended unanimously by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I am a member of that committee and I was part of that review process.

Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, was passed and received royal assent in June of last year. It included enhanced consumer protection for air travel. These enhancements were in addition to existing consumer laws that we already had in place. I would like to list some of those improvements we made under Bill C-11.

Under that bill airlines are now required to prominently display and post their terms and conditions of carriage at the business offices of their domestic airlines. Bill C-11 also made permanent the informal and flexible complaints resolution process within the Canadian Transportation Agency. It integrated the role and functions of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner with the authority and day to day operations of the agency.

The changes introduced under Bill C-11 are improvements to an already open and transparent reporting process. It is also important to understand how the complaints process in Canada works.

Canadian passengers are first required to address their complaints directly to the airline. To me, that seems reasonable. They then have recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency if they are not satisfied with the carrier's response. Consumers can also seek redress and file a complaint with the agency if an airline fails to follow its terms and conditions of carriage. As a result of the complaints process, the agency can then assess monetary damages, if appropriate.

When considering whether to introduce our own passenger bill of rights, we have to consider many of the elements that are already in place in Canada. These are terms such as those that lay out the obligations of a carrier when flights are cancelled or delayed, conditions that determine how lost baggage is dealt with, which does not happen in the European Union, and an existing thorough and comprehensive complaints process.

The bottom line is that Canadian air passenger consumer protection laws are much stronger than those in the United States, and they more than hold their own when compared to the passenger bill of rights in the European Union.

Let us wind up this discussion by simply saying that Canada should not sell itself short. We are doing a good job in the area of consumer protection. What I do not want to do is till soil that has already been thoroughly tilled.

While I do not for a moment question the motives of the mover of this motion, I am not yet certain that a new passenger bill of rights is absolutely necessary, but I am certainly open to hear his remarks and the rest of the debate on this motion. I am certainly open to having my mind changed on this issue.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share a concern that consumer protection be robust in Canada, especially for those who use the airlines to travel. He made specific reference to a model that I think he would like us to follow, the model used by the European Union, which has a bill of rights for airline passengers.

Given the fact he has quoted that as a model, could he elucidate for us a little further the advantages that model would have over Canada's current system? Perhaps he could also comment on Bill C-11, which was passed in the last Parliament and which seriously enhances consumer protection for airline passengers in Canada?

Air Transportation

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 2007, the House passed Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill, for one, required airlines to provide details about pricing when tickets are sold.

Amendments from the Senate, supported by the Conservatives and the Liberals, who gave in to pressure from airline industry lobbyists, removed this requirement. The Bloc Québécois was opposed to these amendments, believing that they went against the collective good. One year later, airline companies continue to hide fees from consumers. This is unacceptable.

As it stands, there is no law or regulation requiring airline companies to publicly declare all of the fees included in ticket prices, unlike travel agents and wholesalers in Quebec and Ontario. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities must step in immediately and require that airlines publicize all of the fees included in tickets sold to passengers.

[Robert Ballantyne]

Yes, that is our position, that's our preferred position, that the bill be passed as written. I do understand there are, for example, several administrative issues that related to the timing of this bill and Bill C-11, which has become law. That will mean there will be some technical changes, and that's of course understandable. In terms of the issues of substance, yes, we think that clause 1 of the bill, which deals with subsections 27(2) and 27(3) of the act, should be repealed. This is something that, as I recall, was recommended by the statutory review committee back in 2001. We think this is a hurdle that is particularly difficult because “substantial commercial harm” isn't particularly well defined, and our understanding is that the Competition Bureau doesn't look favourably on these kinds of provisions. So we think the repeal of that is fundamental and very important.

With regard to clause 3, we think the wording is fine the way it is. It's clearly meant to deal with charges other than what would commonly be called the freight rate or the charge for the movement of traffic. So we think this covers it off all right, but I would assume that when the Transport Canada people come for the clause-by-clause next week they'll do whatever they feel is appropriate there. We've had some discussions with them about the kind of change they want to make, and while we would prefer to see it left the way it is, they'll play it however they think is appropriate.

I'm sorry, on your other point...?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'd say at the outset that there are provisions. The provisions in this piece of legislation clearly indicate that 30 days after the adoption of this piece of legislation, this kicks in—the level of service study will kick in. So that's quite clear.

We want to make quite sure that there are no loopholes that would prevent us from doing that. That's the commitment we've made to the shippers and to the railways.

Second of all, I think that we do have—I might be mistaken here, but I do believe that in the other pieces of legislation we've put forward.... I'm not talking about the one that deals with the bridges and tunnels, but Bill C-11 does indeed provide for municipal input in terms of how they can express their views and their concerns, particularly in areas where there's strong urbanization. I know that there have been long discussions between my friend Mr. Laframboise, who's a former mayor, and myself, who's a former town councillor and your predecessor in that position, on how I think it's extremely important that, yes, municipalities do have a buy-in to this. There are pieces at least in the legislation that was adopted more recently and sanctioned in the month of June to be able to enable that. That concern, I think, is addressed.

[Helena Borges, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport]

As you mentioned, Mr. Volpe, there is an elaborate process—not totally addressed in this bill, but it was addressed through Bill C-11—whereby, if one of the main railways, either CN or CP, no longer finds a line suitable for its business, which is providing the transcontinental business, it offers it up for sale to what are called short line railways. We have about 40 of those in Canada right now.

Those short lines are, in fact, providing a lot of the service to the smaller shippers on these smaller lines and then feeding into CN and CP. In fact, there hasn't been an abandonment of a lot of rail lines in the past 10 years. Even though the railways have shed some of their lines, these have been picked up by the small short lines, and we're comfortable that the provisions allow that to happen and that most of the shippers have service.

There are situations, if it is in an area where there isn't a lot of industry, that you may not have it, but there is trucking available throughout most of Canada.

We are, through other programs, helping the short lines ensure that they have good infrastructure to continue the service, through the funding programs the minister has announced through the Building Canada Plan.

So we are taking various measures to protect the smaller rail lines and ensure that they provide service. The objective of the law is make sure there are opportunities for other companies—or for municipalities, if it's related more to passenger service—to take on the lines.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts--Chapter 15;

Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)--Chapter 16;

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act--Chapter 17;

Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and to make related amendments to other Acts--Chapter 18;

Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 19;

Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)--Chapter 20;

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act--Chapter 21;

Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification--Chapter 22;

Bill C-60, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2008--Chapter 23;

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)--Chapter 24;

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 25;

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 26;

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act--Chapter 27;

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)--Chapter 28;

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007--Chapter 29;

Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol--Chapter 30.

It being 12:23 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2007, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

The first session of the 39th Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 14, 2007.

Canada Transportation Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced a bold bill to regulate the activities of railway companies, particularly to deal with noise in the vicinity of marshalling yards.

This bill was debated at length and was even improved by members of all parties in committee, after lengthy discussions, in order to protect citizens and to ensure that their rights are respected.

Unfortunately, the Senate diluted the bill by giving in to pressure from the railway companies. Consequently, Bill C-11 will not benefit from the improvements made by the members of this House. It is regrettable that some members of the Senate substantially altered a bill adopted by Parliament and did not respect the will of those elected by the people, even members of their own party.

Rather than playing ping-pong with the Senate and having the bill delayed indefinitely, we will forge ahead in order to provide Canadians with the means to limit unreasonable noise near marshalling years, after years of waiting. Despite the obstacles, our government is doing its job.

Motions in Amendment

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at the report stage of Bill C-6. After first reading and the debate at second reading, the Bloc Québécois was opposed to the bill. We had a lot of concerns about comprehensive safety management systems, which came with no guarantees that the detailed inspections by federal check pilots could continue. At the same time, there were many signs that the number of check pilots would be reduced in the future.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and I studied the bill carefully. The committee held 11 meetings to hear witnesses from all the stakeholder groups—pilots, federal officials, lobby groups—and six special meetings to examine the bill clause by clause. After studying all the clauses, we wrote a report, which was recently tabled in the House and proposed 20 amendments to the bill.

The Bloc's concerns have to do with the safety management system and the designated organizations, because we did not have a clear idea of what responsibilities they would have in the overall system.

We heard the different parties, including Justice Moshansky, an aviation expert who even conducted an inquiry into a plane crash. He said that the clause on designated organizations should be kept, but with provision for oversight. This is what we did, as it was clear to us that, in light of all the positive comments we had heard, this safety management system could give good results.

However, we made sure government inspections would continue, in particular by means of the Bloc amendment, which stated:

The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister.

We proposed this amendment, which was included in our committee report, because we wanted to ensure that the inspections that are already part of the air transportation system would continue, despite the more general implementation of safety management systems.

In this way, we made sure that Transport Canada would not just have audits of the systems themselves done and not carry out its own visual and technical inspections of aircraft. By doing this, we are bringing about what the minister and the department were talking about—a dual safety system—and not just replacing inspections with a safety system. Continuing with the inspections and implementing the systems across the board ensures that, as a basic principle, all companies will be governed by a safety management system. We can at least rest assured, thanks to the continuing inspections, that the system itself will improve safety overall within companies.

However, I am particularly disappointed that 16 last-minute amendments are being introduced at this stage. Of these, 10 or 12 have been moved by the NDP. One amendment asks for the elimination of clause 12. We studied designated organizations together at length and now, all of a sudden, we are told that all that will be eliminated, at the last minute, even though these views were not accepted when the bill was studied in committee.

The most surprising is the government's amendment No. 2, which seeks to eliminate everything pertaining to safety systems. The NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals worked together to come up with a good definition, which was not in the legislation. It is a matter of regulations, establishing regulations for safety management systems.

We went to the trouble of spelling out the definition of these systems. Suddenly, at the last minute, just before the vote, the government wants to eliminate this definition—which is very binding for the government, it is true—that allows us to give our full support to this bill.

My colleague read it earlier, but I think it is important to read it again:

(c.1) safety management systems and programs that provide for

(i) the appointment of an executive

(A) responsible for operations and activities authorized under a certificate issued pursuant to a regulation made under this Act, and

(B) accountable for the extent to which the requirements of the applicable safety management system or program have been met,

(ii) the implementation, as a result of any risk management analysis, of the remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety,

(iii) continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved, and

(iv) the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system or program;

This is a set of obligations for companies and their staff to ensure real involvement in this safety management program.

We also looked at railway safety, where safety management systems were implemented roughly five years ago.

We heard from a number of witnesses during consideration of safety. Most of the witnesses said they had never heard of a safety management system in their company.

With this legislation, we want employees and bargaining agents to be involved and play an active role in the safety management system. We do not just want to have a nice system that comes from management and is in the company's files, but does filter down to the core to ensure full involvement of the entire company.

Today, the government is proposing to eliminate this entire nice definition that we worked on together. It is not very reassuring as far as any wish they might have to implement a good safety management system, which we subscribed to only after examining it and hearing from all the witnesses.

I noticed earlier that the representatives of the official opposition will not support such an amendment. They took part in this, just as we did. We do not want this amendment to be adopted. They put forward three or four other admissible amendments that simply make corrections to the text.

I hope this amendment will not be adopted. I also hope that after the bill has been considered by the other place, there will not be any surprises, like the ones we had with Bill C-11.

Canada Transportation Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak the a bill that has just come to the House for second reading. Therefore, we are debating the bill in principle. It is an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, railway transportation. I know the NDP transportation critic, the member from Burnaby—New Westminster, has already given a lot of thought to the bill.

In looking over the bill, the NDP is prepared to support Bill C-58 in principle. We will very carefully examine it when it goes to committee. Obviously witnesses need to be heard and we will look at moving amendments that stage of the review. At this point we feel the bill deserves support in principle. It seems to address some of the valid concerns shippers have had for many years over the current conditions of the Canada Transportation Act, which allow for the potential of use of market power by railways.

We believe the intent of the bill is to lower the shipping costs for farmers, and that is very important. Farming in the country has so much Canadian history, culture and heritage. It is increasingly difficult to carry out, in part because of the shipping costs farmers face. It is very important the committee have the opportunity to examine the bill and amend it to deal with the concerns of farmers and shippers.

There is no question that the Canadian Pacific Railway, CP, and the Canadian National Railway, CN, have a virtual duopoly on shipping prices, which is an interesting term. We often talk about a monopoly, but in this context we have a duopoly. There is also no question their financial stranglehold is choking Canadian shippers that rely on the rail system to transfer their products from the farm to the marketplace. Under the current environment, transportation costs are the second or third highest cost of business for bulk shippers. Under this duopolistic regime, these shippers do not have an alternate way to transport their products. This is the reason for the bill.

This is a very serious situation for shippers and the goods they ship from our farming communities. They rely on these railways to get their products across the country or to international market, yet there has been this monopoly stranglehold that has produced a very difficult financial situation.

Although there are over 30 federally regulated railways in Canada, many freight rail customers are captive shippers. That is, only a single railway company offers direct service to their area. For these shippers the railway transportation is not naturally competitive and in the absence of adequate legislative measures, there is a tendency for the railway company to take advantage of its position as a monopolist in a region. Again, that is a very serious situation where local producers and shippers have no competition. They have to rely on a single server, a single railway company, and are held completely captive. I cannot imagine anyone would consider that to be a healthy business environment.

A monopolistic railway would have an incentive to offer lower levels of service at higher prices than it would under competitive market conditions.

Shippers believe this problem must be alleviated with modifications to the Canada Transportation Act that can facilitate real competition.

We heard from the member opposite a while ago. We know that in 2005 the previous government brought in Bill C-26, which allegedly sought to amend the Canada Transportation Act to deal with some of these problems. It needs to be said on the record, that bill was denounced by the Western Canadian Shippers’ Coalition and by other interest groups because they saw it as a half measure. It was not, in any substantive, way dealing with the very real problems these shippers had. In fact, ultimately that bill failed and did not become law.

Now we have a new bill that was introduced by the transport minister on May 30. We believe that this bill has had a more favourable response than the previous bill put forward by the Liberal government. That does not mean it is a perfect bill, but as we are debating it here in principle, we think it merits support and should go to committee.

One of the positive impacts of this bill is that it will remove the requirement for the Canadian Transportation Agency to be satisfied that a shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm before it grants a remedy. I think this is a very key point. The current requirements are so onerous that it becomes very difficult for any mechanism that would grant a relief to any shipper to kick in, so that effect of this bill is very important.

The bill will also extend final offer arbitration to groups of shippers on matters relating to rates or conditions for the movement of goods, provided that the matter submitted for arbitration is common to all and the shippers make a joint offer that applies to them all.

Again, we see that as a positive measure that will allow groups of shippers to act together to take advantage of final offer arbitration in a more flexible way than before. They can have a reasonable expectation there is going to be a settlement when a conflict has occurred.

The bill also allows for the suspension of any final offer arbitration process if both parties consent to pursue mediation. Again, it provides a flexibility, which we think is important.

It also permits the Canadian Transportation Agency, upon receiving a complaint by a shipper, to investigate charges and conditions for incidental services and those related to the movement of traffic contained in a tariff that are of general application, and to establish new charges or terms and conditions if it finds those in the tariff unreasonable.

I am certainly not an expert in this area. The New Democratic Party's agricultural and transport critics are both very well versed in this. Our general opinion is that these provisions will provide a greater sense of certainty and an ability to resolve problems when they arise by ensuring that where there are complaints made they will be investigated. The CTA would have the ability to establish new charges or terms if it finds the current situation is unreasonable.

The bill will also increase the notice period for augmentations in rates for the movement of traffic from 20 to 30 days to ensure that shippers receive adequate notice of rate increases. This is obviously very important. It will require railways to publish a list of rail sidings available for grain producer car loading and give 60 days' notice before removing such sidings from operation.

Again, we believe this is very important. It has been a longstanding problem for the shippers. They do not get adequate notice. One operates a business and understands a certain set of conditions, but then suddenly things change. The list of rail sidings may change and may not be available to the shipper any more. Obviously that would have a very dramatic and unnecessary impact on a local shipper.

This bill also ensures the abandonment and transfer provisions apply to lines that are transferred to provincial short lines and subsequently revert to a federal railway, including the obligation to honour contracts with public passenger service providers.

We do know that at this point the bill has been supported by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. It is important that we note their support.

When this issue was before the agriculture committee just about a month ago in April, Mr. Martin VanderLoo, the president of Huron Commodities Inc., spoke before the committee. His testimony reflected and highlighted very well the current problems for these shippers and producers in dealing with the present environment under the Canadian Transportation Agency.

I will quote for members some of his testimony before the committee:

Huron Commodities moves oats from western Canada to Ontario for processing and further export to the United States. We ship oats from Ontario and Quebec to the U.S. via rail. We ship rye from Ontario and western Canada to major distillers and flour millers in the United States via rail. We ship food-grade soybeans to Japan and Southeast Asia via rail to the west coast and ocean freight further on.

Over the years, we've seen increasing rail transportation costs with severely declining rail service. All the while, Canadian railroads are posting consistent record profits. Although we're not opposed to supporting a profitable railroad, we don't agree that it should be done at the expense of the farmer. For example, as mentioned earlier, we ship oats from western Canada to Ontario for further export to the United States. Unless we are a mainline shipper in western Canada, willing to ship 100-car-unit trains to the west coast, we are just denied service. The same situation is the case with our rye shipments out of western Canada. Unless we can provide 100-car shipments to the railroads for export to the U.S., they are simply not interested.

The railroads have consistently refused to spot cars for any of our shipments, jeopardizing our reliability as a shipper to our customers.

Mr. VanderLoo said to the committee:

We ask you to push for immediate regulatory reform to the Canada Transportation Act before we lose further markets we currently hold.

I wanted to read that into the record because to me it is a very good example of what is at stake here. Here we have companies that are doing their best to operate within the existing system, but they are held captive by these two rail companies. They do not get adequate notice. Provisions can change. They do not get notice of the rail sidings that are changing. It makes their business operations insecure and it makes their operations difficult, with these rail companies racking up huge profits all the while.

Earlier in the debate the member from the Liberal Party was asked a question about whether this bill would deal with rail safety. I do not believe it does. I think it is a bill that deals more with the mechanism of the movement of goods and with ensuring that there is better accessibility for producers and shippers, which is a good thing.

However, I do want to say that certainly from our point of view the issue of rail safety is absolutely huge. We have had horrendous situations just in my province of British Columbia alone. I do not have the list in front of me. I know that our NDP transportation critic in British Columbia, David Chudnovsky, who appeared before the transport committee about six weeks ago, gave a whole list of the derailments and talked about the lack of safety and the increasingly poor environment in operation in our railway system. We are talking about dangerous situations. We are talking about workers whose lives are in jeopardy.

Let us not forget that it was this House, by a majority, that legislated the workers of CN back to work. The NDP was in opposition to that and I believe the Bloc was as well. In case people have forgotten, the issue has not gone away, and the reason why CN workers were out on a legal strike in the first place was their very serious and ongoing concerns about the safety of our railways.

We think of our railways as part of the Canadian dream and Canadian history. Of course they are, but I do not think people understand how seriously diminished these operations have become and how these monopolies have taken over now. There are issues around access, certainty and reliability for the shippers and producers. These things are now at risk.

There is the issue of health and safety conditions for the people who work on the railways and who are very much in jeopardy and at risk. We have seen a recent labour conflict with the CPR workers that involves the same issue. I wanted to bring this forward because it came up in debate. Although this bill does not deal specifically with railway safety, it is a very important matter that should be addressed.

In fact, earlier today we debated another bill that dealt with railways, Bill C-11, which has been approved. We were dealing with a Senate amendment that dealt with the impact of railway noise from the point of view of local residents. It is very interesting that these issues are coming up. It tells us as members of Parliament that these issues have not been addressed adequately in the past. While the previous bill that was brought in by the prior government in 2005 fell far short of what needed to be done, today we are hopeful that this bill, Bill C-58, will do the job.

The NDP will support this bill in principle and we will examine it thoroughly when it goes to committee. We will ensure that witnesses are heard so that we can make sure we really are addressing the legitimate concerns of producers and shippers. I hope there also will be an opportunity to address the equally important issue of safety on the railways. Again, it is not going to disappear. In fact, things are going to get worse.

We will be supporting this bill at second reading and then working in committee to look at what amendments are necessary before it comes back to the House.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-58 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

I will summarize this briefly for the benefit of our constituents who are listening. The main purpose of this bill is to clarify the Transportation Act and strengthen the existing provisions that protect shippers against any abuse of the commercial power of the railways. It relates mainly to western Canada and has to do with grain producers and grain transport. Although this has less to do with what goes on in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois stays informed about various situations across Canada. We are always interested in participating in the debate so that we can stand up for anyone who is oppressed by the commercial power of the railways, as an example.

Today, we have two fine examples of this. Earlier, the representative of the government who gave a speech about Bill C-58 said that the bill was one of three pieces of legislation to modernize the Transportation Act. Today, we discussed Bill C-11. The idea was to modernize the Transportation Act in relation to the noise pollution and vibration produced by the railway companies. The Conservative government has caved in to the power of the railway lobby. The lobby had its standard bearer, the Senate, which decided to carry the torch for the interests of the poor little railway companies.

And the end result is that the government supported an amendment to the bill that had been passed unanimously, Bill C-11. In committee, the noise pollution provisions and the bill had been supported unanimously, clause by clause, by all parties.

Today, the Conservatives have caved in to the Liberal position adopted in the Senate. I hope that we will not see the same thing happen with Bill C-58, that we will not see the Conservatives caving in to the Liberal majority in the Senate if the Senate decides to amend the bill.

Bill C-58 is an attempt to strike a better balance between the power of the railway companies and the people who produce and ship products, including grain producers, who do not own the rails and who have to get their hopper cars to destinations all over Canada. They feel oppressed by the railway companies.

The purpose of this bill is to strike a balance. The proposed amendments respond to the concerns of shippers, and particularly western Canadian grain producers, about prices and railway service, while also providing the railways with regulatory stability. The amendments to Bill C-58 will deal with arbitration, charges for incidental services, notices of changes of tariff, sidings for producers' railway cars, leased railway lines and obligations in respect of the level of service. It is time we had some balance, in the interests of those who use the railway system, including grain producers, to get the railway cars that belong to them to their destinations.

The Conservative government and the Liberals have this strong tendency to let the free market do as it wishes. In such conditions producers are over-exploited. That is what this bill seeks to correct. When we refer to the various amendments, we refer, among others, to arbitration. The objectives of the Transportation Act, prior to these amendments, require that the Agency take into account the matter of substantial commercial harm. Bill C-58 proposes that the reference to substantial commercial harm be removed because whenever we hear from the railway companies there is always some substantial commercial harm. In the end, those who do not own the rails lose every time. The railway companies always succeed in proving substantial commercial harm where there is none. That will now be subject to arbitration, which will be a means of settling disputes between a shipper and the railways involving the rates and conditions of transportation service.

If merchandise is shipped by railway under a confidential contract, the matters subject to confidentiality cannot be submitted to arbitration without the consent of all parties. Still, there are some safeguards. It will be possible to make a joint submission for arbitration to settle a dispute concerning the rates and conditions for movement of goods, where the matter submitted to arbitration is common to all the shippers.

Finally, all those who are experiencing the same problem will have recourse to arbitration. They can join in a class action and the Transportation Agency can hear the case and render a decision.

The bill also provides for suspension of any arbitration proceedings if the two parties agree to accept mediation. In fact, this will also encourage use of mediation. That is one reason the Bloc Québécois is in favour of these amendments.

The rates charged for incidental services will be discussed. The railways earn most of their income from the rates charged for transporting goods, such as the carloads of grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, but charges also have to be paid for services that are incidental to the conveyance of goods or that are not directly related. These are known as incidental or associated charges; the cost of parking, additional charges to a shipper who requires more than the scheduled time, the cost of cleaning and or stocking cars and weighing the goods are examples of incidental costs.

In recent years, the rates charged by the railways have become a burden to shippers. However, the means of dealing with this problem are limited, since arbitration does not apply as a distinct remedy for incidental charges or associated conditions. The act will be amended to permit the agency to investigate a complaint from any shipper who is subject to a general application tariff that provides for rates and conditions. Finally, incidental charges invoiced by the railways could be subject to arbitration.

There is also the notice of change of tariff. The act defines the tariff as being a schedule of rates, charges, terms and conditions. At present it requires that the railway publish any changes to this tariff at least 20 days before raising rates. Such notice is not required for rates pertaining to incidental services or related conditions in the section on tariffs. This will be amended. The act will be amended so as to extend the period of notice from 20 to 30 days so that shippers can receive sufficient notice of any increase in the rates for transportation. Notice is therefore extended and incidental charges will be included.

There are also the sidings for producer cars. During the consultations, some parties asked for tighter regulation on abandonment of sidings used for loading grain or loading producer cars on the Prairies. Sidings are not subject to the provisions of the act on discontinuing a line. Complaints about the closing of sidings used for loading cars arise in part from the fact that shippers do not know which sidings are in service, since at present the railways are not required to inform those concerned.

The act will be amended so as to require the railways to publish the list of sidings available for loading grain producer cars and to give 60 days’ notice before putting a siding out of service.

All this means that, on their own lines, the railway companies used to operate as though they were the only ones using them. That was the problem. As far as I am concerned, the federal government failed in its original mission. Over the past 20 years, it has got rid of all the railway tracks that belonged to it and transferred them to private companies: to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. Today we realize that that has created a problem. The people to whom they were transferred, often for paltry sums, are today making incredible profits. In the end they regard this asset as their own. When the time comes to make the rails available to other users, they know that tracks cannot be laid just anywhere. There needs to be a corridor across Canada and such a thing cannot be created on a whim. The government, as far as I am concerned, made a mistake in this regard. It should have kept them.

There is also the example of the bridge at Quebec City that we are having so much difficulty getting painted. The Quebec bridge belongs to Canadian National and it says it does not have the money to get it painted. That does not matter very much. The Liberals tried legal proceedings to force CN to paint the Quebec bridge, especially in view of the 400th anniversary. It will be great to show visitors Quebec, the oldest city in America, with a rusty bridge. But that is how it is.

When the Liberals were in power, they fell flat on their faces. They could not get anything done and instituted legal proceedings. The Conservatives, thinking themselves more intelligent, said that they would set the legal proceedings aside and change the legislation. But no, the minister had to do the same thing six months ago. He too launched legal proceedings to try to force CN to paint the Quebec bridge. I predict that it still will not be painted in 2008. They will not get it done, unless they pay what CN has been asking since the very beginning. If they want it painted, they should get out their money and pay for it. That is the hard truth.

Today, once again, the federal government has given up. The free flow of goods and services between the provinces is a federal responsibility. This always makes me laugh because we have been trying for decades to get a new bridge built right here between the Quebec Ontario banks of the river. I have always wondered what use a Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is if we cannot get goods, services and people moving freely between provinces. No new bridge or new infrastructure is being built to join the two banks.

The federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities cannot serve as an referee or as anything at all. He dare not get involved because he is powerless. The problem today is that they are trying to give some powers by means of the Canada Transportation Act. It is good that we are here because one day they got rid of the railways and now they are forced to regulate a bit or else the railway owners are going to decide to operate their way and, often, raise rates without warning. That is what we are telling the House now.

In all these regards, it is evident that the Bloc Québécois is very sensitive to the problems of farmers, including western grain growers on the prairies.

We have always been very sensitive to the problems of Quebec farmers. That is why we always defend supply management so staunchly. If the Conservative government defended the supply management interests of Quebec farmers as fiercely as it defends the transportation of grain in hopper cars, they would probably be doing pretty well. The problem is that there is always a double standard in this country. There is one standard now for western farmers and another for eastern farmers, especially those in Quebec.

We in the Bloc Québécois do not make such distinctions and when we feel that our constituents are being exploited by private enterprise, we do not hesitate to take action. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-58 in order to help the western grain producers and shippers.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the debate on Bill C-58, amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

This is really one of a trilogy of bills. This is the third of the three bills which address various issues within transportation. The first bill, Bill C-3, actually addressed the whole issue of bridges and tunnels, making sure government was able to protect the interests of Canadians in ensuring that our bridges and tunnels on our international borders are protected and maintained properly. The second one, Bill C-11, addressed the whole issue of railway noise, making sure that we had grain caps in place, making sure that communities had a say in what happens when there are disputes with railways. This bill, Bill C-58, addresses the issue of freight across our country.

The railways are what Canada was built around. The railways were a driving force in making sure that Canada became the country it is today. Railway freight is really the object of Bill C-58.

Canadians rely on our railways for their livelihood. Our economy depends on the timely delivery of freight across our country. Not only is freight delivered to the various areas and communities of our country by rail, but our railways are also used to deliver freight to the gateways of our country, the Pacific gateway, the Atlantic gateway, even our border with the United States, a critical gateway to make sure that we protect the ongoing prosperity of our country.

This bill addresses a number of concerns that have been raised over the last five to ten years. The existing Canada Transportation Act is some 10 years old. Shippers in particular have been raising a number of issues with how our railways are administered. They have had beefs with some of the pricing of the services that are delivered. They have had beefs about how railway siding abandonment has been addressed. They have been worried about advance notice for a number of the issues that are dealt with under the Canada Transportation Act. They are also concerned about how disputes with the railway companies are addressed.

This bill is addressing the concern that shippers have with respect to the relatively tightly concentrated ownership of railways in Canada. We know from experience that in industries that have relatively few players, such as the railway industry in Canada, there is always a risk that the players within that industry will engage in predatory behaviour. I am not for a moment suggesting that is what is happening in Canada, but it is one of the concerns the shippers in Canada have raised.

The shippers want to make sure they are treated fairly. Shippers have concerns. They want to make sure they can get their products from point A to point B in a cost effective and timely manner. When there are disputes about the level of service, or a dispute over the prices charged for transporting freight from point A to point B, they want to know that there is an effective and efficient mechanism in place to achieve that.

Bill C-58 actually provides a solution. It is called final offer arbitration. Final offer arbitration already exists under the Canada Transportation Act, but it applies in limited circumstances. Unfortunately, it is an expensive process. It is one that many of the shippers, especially the small shippers, cannot afford.

Typically we would want to make sure that our shippers and railways resolve their disputes in a commercial manner, for example, by negotiating with each other. That is the ideal. If there is a beef about the pricing for getting the freight from one point to another, the shipper wants to be able to sit down with the railway and negotiate something that is fair. Sometimes negotiating does not work and the parties move on to something called mediation where a third party is brought in to review the issues, to review the pricing and perhaps the level of service.

Sometimes a mediator can come up with a solution that the other two parties are not able to arrive at on their own. If that does not work, shippers are left with a problem. They are left with arbitration. As a result of arbitration being expensive, sometimes it can cost up to half a million dollars to arbitrate a dispute. Many of the shippers cannot afford the current arbitration process.

This bill implements final offer arbitration within a broader context. Let me explain to the House how final offer arbitration works.

In those provisions, the shipper and the carrier each make their best offer. They have a dispute, they come to the table, and each comes forward with their best offer and presents that offer to the arbitrator. The shipper is not going to bring in an offer that is totally out to lunch because he or she knows that the arbitrator is not going to take that offer. The arbitrator is probably going to take the railway proposal. The railway is going to be in the same boat. It is going to bring forward an offer that is as close to where it probably should be to make sure that the other party's offer is not taken. This effectively drives the parties closer in their negotiations and closer in terms of the offers that they present.

The arbitrator can only make one choice. He chooses one offer or the other. He cannot amend the one offer or the other offer. He cannot combine them. He cannot come up with a compromise. He picks one or the other. The purpose is to make sure the parties, when they make their offers, are as close as possible. It certainly drives the parties to negotiate these disputes if there is any way of resolving them outside of the arbitration process. There is an incentive for the parties to put forward reasonable offers.

Final offer arbitration is one of the more popular remedies under the Canada Transportation Act, certainly with shippers. One of the reasons is because shippers have considerable control over the process and are not dependent on other parties. In essence, the shippers determine the rates and conditions that are contained in the final offer, so they have some control over that process. This forces the railway to respond in kind.

The decisions that the arbitrator makes are, of course, confidential. On the whole, shippers are satisfied with final offer arbitration under the Canada Transportation Act. However, they complained again because of the costs. Individual shippers really cannot avail themselves of this process because it is just too expensive. Our amendments to Bill C-58 address that problem.

Bill C-58 proposes two main amendments. First and foremost, Bill C-58 extends the final offer arbitration to a group of shippers who are disputing a railway's proposed freight rates or conditions for the movement of traffic across Canada. This allows a group of shippers to come together and share the costs of final offer arbitration. It will generally give shippers more leverage during their negotiations with the railways because now the railways know the costs of this final offer arbitration are going to be spread over a large number of shippers rather than one or two.

To be eligible for this, the shippers have to have issues in common. This ensures that they are not dealing with a scattergun approach and that the arbitrator has a specific issue to address. It would be unfair to expect an arbitrator to consider a group application that lacks sufficient commonality. This legislation clearly addresses that.

The second part of this amendment requires that the arbitrator and the agency must be satisfied that the members of this group of shippers have attempted to mediate the matter. In the ideal world, we want to make sure that the parties try to negotiate first, keep it out of a formal system, and subsequently maybe use a mediator to try to come to a common resolution. Once the Canadian Transportation Agency is satisfied that mediation has been attempted, it will then move to allow an arbitration process to take place. Shippers have strongly endorsed this concept of group final offer arbitration.

Bill C-58 also provides a provision that permits parties to a final offer arbitration to suspend the arbitration halfway through the process to try to engage in negotiation or further mediation.

Again, that makes sense because the parties know the arbitration process is going to end up with one offer or the other being chosen and it is binding on both parties. There is still an incentive for them to consider going back to negotiation and mediation to try to resolve the dispute without having the final decision made by the arbitrator.

It gives an opportunity for the shippers and the railways to take a time out and a deep breath. They can say they are getting close and resolve it among themselves rather than going to the arbitrator. All those options are available under our amendments.

These changes to the arbitration process are going to assist the shippers in getting their problems resolved with the railways. It is also a faster way of bringing resolution to these problems.

The government has heard the shippers. It believes it has addressed these concerns. I have addressed one of the concerns in Bill C-58. My colleagues are going to address a number of other amendments within Bill C-58.

I would encourage all members in the House to support this legislation because it is good for our communities. It is certainly good for the city of Abbotsford which relies heavily on the railways to get grain to the feed mills that provide feed to our poultry growers. We also have a strong manufacturing sector in Abbotsford that needs the railways to provide cost-effective pricing and timely service.

This bill will achieve all of those ends. It is a huge step forward in bringing Canada into the 21st century when it comes to transportation. I encourage members in the House to support Bill C-58.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague from Windsor West thinks like me, but at present we can see that the Conservatives and the Liberals are in cahoots with one another to try and please the rail industry and the large railway companies. We can feel it and see it.

The Liberal Senate is proposing suitable amendments. We need only read about the appearances by the big railway companies before the Senate committee to understand that the committee was against the definition judiciously negotiated by all parties. It was also especially opposed to anything to do with neighbouring communities being taken into consideration so as to avoid causing them any harm. There is some kind of connivance going on.

I wonder whether they are not trying to correct an error. At least that is what the Liberals and Conservatives must be saying to each other. Indeed a major error was made under former Parliaments with respect to VIA Fast. If VIA Fast had come into being, this would have created a high-speed Quebec-Montreal—Montreal-Windsor rail system, and that would have made it possible to have a dedicated passenger train track and thus relieve traffic in the freight train corridor.

It was the Liberals themselves, who could not agree among themselves, who killed VIA Fast. Nor did the Conservatives want VIA Fast to see the light of day. It looks as though today they realize that they cost the industry an opportunity. No longer having passenger trains on its tracks would have been a major advantage for the freight train industry. It looks as though today the Liberals and the Conservatives want to make up for this by trying to put as little pressure as possible on the industry regarding the harm it will be causing citizens.

In the end everyone is a loser. The whole population loses in relation to the Conservative and Liberal MPs and to the Liberal and Conservative Senate. Citizens and users of rail transportation who do not have a dedicated line in the Quebec-Montreal—Montreal-Windsor corridor are also losers.

And then the citizens who live along these railway lines will have to battle it out with the railway companies and they will not have the means they would have had under Bill C-11. Once again everyone loses out and once again Liberal-Conservative connivance is trying to make up for a mistake. To my mind, the fact that the VIA Fast project never materialized was a mistake. Today they are trying to compensate for that mistake by putting less pressure on the railway companies regarding noise pollution.

I ask my colleague what he thinks of what I have just said.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak about an important bill, Bill C-11, and the amendments that have been put forth to it.

Two amendments from the Senate are causing considerable problems, and I hope to contribute to derailing those amendments because they go against consumer interest groups.

One Senate amendment relates to airline industry accountability and information that would be provided on an airline ticket purchased by a consumer.

The other Senate amendment waters down the rights of residents who live adjacent to railroad properties and the ability of them to interact with some fairness with the rail operators and have them provide some accountability when it comes to their operations, particularly with respect to noise and vibrations. These problems are persistent across the country.

I want to speak about the railroad operations first. I will provide a couple of examples as to why it is so important that the amendments be defeated and how they are counter to the needs and wishes of people.

I cannot understand the Senate doing this, unless it does feel it is accountable to ordinary Canadians and their ability to enjoy of their residences next to railroads. There has to be a balance in this type of an equation. The balance is often against them by governments and the railway operations. Bill C-11 would have at least rectify some of those injustices they have faced over the years. We have heard in the debate today that there are many examples of this across the country.

I first became involved in one of the original railroad disputes in my political career back in 1997 when I was on city council. The federal government had a program at the time to eliminate rail operations that blocked roads. The government was to build bridges and overpasses.

That program was killed by the previous minister of finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard. It was a good infrastructure project, which has not been brought back. There would have been contributions by the federal government to create this separation of rail and traffic. It was very expensive, but very beneficial for the economy, productivity and also the environment. The program would eliminate idling and would have expedited rail and trucking operations.

Wellington Street in Windsor went down into what some people would call a ditch and a rail operation went over the top of the road. The road underpass was not tall enough to allow transport trucks to pass. Oftentimes many U.S. truckers drove down this roadway and would end up having the top of their truck ripped off. It became known as the Wellington can opener.

When the project finally received some funding of about $22 million, construction was to be undertaken to build around the site. First a bridge would be built to get the rails over top of a new span and then create the actual infrastructure underneath for the future. Adjacent to this area was a derelict rail yard. There had been a station there at one point. It had become a dumping ground of which the railway company never took care. It allowed the weeds and grass grow out of control. It had also become a dumping ground for tires and so forth. The area was never cleaned up and the city was constantly fighting over it. It is important to note that the railway was complicit with the city at that time.

While I was on council, I lost a vote ten to one to allow concrete recycling for the construction to take place on that site. The site was the size of a football field and filled with material and concrete that was ripped up and dumped in the field. The waste was about four stories tall.

Adjacent to that was one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Windsor West. It had modest homes and working class families. The neighbourhood had pools and parks. A number of houses were adjacent to this site. Originally the city had agreed to set up a temporary four storey tall concrete recycling operation across the street and down wind. As a community group, we had to fight to reverse council's decision and get the railroad to agree to stop the dumping at this site. It was a big battle.

It was unfair to the constituents of that area because for years they had fought about that. This is another issue not only in terms of pollution, with diesel engines sitting on the tracks for hours and not moving, but also in terms of the vibrations that affect their homes.

I want to point out another example, a more recent one that happened while I was in the House of Commons. It proves the arrogance and unbelievable neglect in terms of community consultation.

In 2003 the VACIS, a gamma X-ray technology, was introduced in the city of Windsor along the rail corridors. At that time, the Liberal government was in power. It did not even consult with the municipality. In consultation with CP Rail and the Department of Homeland Security, it was unilaterally decided to put this X-ray technology system right next to the football field of a local high school.

Further compounding that, as the trains went through the gamma X-ray technology, they had to slow down from 25 to 7 kilometres an hour. Also, about 200 yards before that was a rail crossing with no separation of grade. Trucks, cars, buses and people going to and from the school and the shopping malls were having to wait longer and longer. It was amazing. The city of Windsor had to file a lawsuit against CP Rail to stop it.

At that time, I asked the Liberal minister, Minister McLellan, about this and it was denied altogether. I had my constituency assistant take photographs of the actual equipment on site as it poured cement and graded the original infrastructure for this project. We had to fight the system. It was amazing that there was no consultation whatsoever, and the consequences are significant.

That is why these amendments fly in the face of the type of things that need to happen to make rail operations more accountable to people. We only have to talk to different people in different ridings to understand that conflicts routinely happen. It is the citizens who generally feel, even though the circumstances are different, powerless and helpless. Finally, when Bill C-11 came forward, we had an opportunity to inject a bit of justice.

It is important to note that the recent history of some of the rail operations has been rather disturbing and troubling. This accountability is very much a significant step forward. It could have had a net benefit across the country.

It is fine that we had a debate in the House of Commons about back to work legislation. We have had a debate in the House about safety regulations. Now that we finally get an improvement, it is being taken away from us by the unelected senate. I find that unacceptable.

In my riding, and in many ridings, people probably do not even realize the amount of hazardous materials involved in rail operations and the different types of substance involved. They can affect the residents nearby.

Other countries have different practices for bringing greater accountability, and a good example is the United States. Railways were shipping chlorine gas through Dade county, Florida, which goes through our corridors as well. The country fought this and successfully had the chlorine gas rerouted to a non-urban area. Then later on, because of that whole debate, it eliminated the chlorine from the destination, which was a pollution control plant that did water treatment, for a more environmentally friendly product.

There are cases where some laws have been changed. Some of the cities across the United States have succeeded in having certain chemicals rerouted because of their concerns with the ecosystem and also the environment.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has declared some of these rail containers of chlorine to be weapons of mass destruction because they can literally, within a 15 mile radius, poison everybody in that area if there were an accident or a terrorist attack. That is why there has been this progression in the United States to move it away from urban areas or to look for other types of materials that would not have the type of danger associated with them.

My constituency has had to fight to get access to rail yards for first responders training and so forth. When we talk about very significant issues like that, which are still causing concern for people, and compare it to the minor step forward for which we are looking, a reasonable one, to establish a process so there will be greater accountability for noise and vibration and empowerment for citizens through mediation, why would we take that away? It is unbelievable and unacceptable.

This is something residents across the country really need to get their heads around. I cannot understand why we would allow an unelected body, which does not have to respond to the concerns of individuals, to decide to usurp a change that would have effectively provided residents a voice. I cannot understand why the government is going on along with that.

This is very much an issue that relates to people's personal property and their values. That is supposed to be the party that claims it has the high ground, understands personal wealth and that people should have protection. At the same time, it is taking away a very modest tool for people to fight back to ensure they can protect themselves, their property value and their communities.

On the issue of rail, it is really important that the amendment is put in the proper context. It is coming from an unelected body that will take away the rights we have fought for over a number of years. More important, I believe it will take away greater accountability on the rail system that would lead to less conflict between neighbourhoods and rail operations. There would be a mandate to try to solve those problems before they became larger issues. That would seem a more progressive approach, in my opinion, in dealing with this.

Rail operations have been in communities for many years without changing. They do not go away. The shunting, the noise and their operations continue. Residents and businesses also continue.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of the commercial airline tickets amendment. When we look at the Competition Bureau, the record of the previous administration and now this one with regard to updating the Competition Act, is based upon a 1969 philosophy.

The minister's briefing book, which I was able to obtain through the Freedom of Information Act, identified specifically that 40 years ago things were quite different and it needed to be updated. That was at the time of the Woodstock festival. The Competition Bureau and the Competition Act need a mandate that is more modernized.

Consumers should have more opportunity to see the real information about the price of a ticket. What they will receive should not be hidden by other charges, fees and expectations of service that are never delivered when they purchase their tickets.

I do not understand why there cannot be a set of rules around that which allow consumers to know this, especially given what has happened now with the Internet and other types of technology specific to the tourism industry. People are shopping more and more on the Internet for airline and vacation destinations. They do that with the openness and hope that there will be comparable factors. Why the Senate would buckle under the lobbying efforts and allow the industry to continue to hide charges, fees and so forth is beyond me.

What we want to do is create some openness so people can shop around for the best air carrier, knowing what they will get and selecting the price based upon that. If they want greater or reduced service, or if they want to know if there are any extra fees or charges, they should be available so they can make their selections based upon that.

Why would we want to take that away from consumers, especially in an industry where there have been a lot of complaints in the past about competition? We want the consumer to have the opportunity to make some decisions and have some authority and power.

These two amendments are very interesting in the sense that I believe they come about through lobby efforts. They come at the expense of civil liberties, which allow individuals to have more consumer protection, information and awareness. This is at a time when personal information is being harvested by many companies and organizations to be used against people in marketing and so forth. However, we cannot allow consumers to have the same openness that companies, which allows them to target individuals in their marketing. We are not going to allow that provision.

The second part is with regard to the railway system and that is extremely offensive. Bill C-11 is very important in that we do want to have some improvements but, at the same time, when we take away those two elements from the bill, it becomes much weaker. For that reason I believe we need to defeat the Senate amendments because it is important that consumers and neighbourhoods and communities are protected and, unfortunately, that is being reversed by the Senate amendments.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his very relevant speech and question. Indeed, this bill has already required some compromises. It is more lenient than our citizens had hoped. I am referring not only to Quebeckers, but also to Canadians who have marshalling yards in their municipalities. We are using Quebec as an example, because that is where we are from and because we know our constituents and their needs. The same needs are felt everywhere, however.

How is it that compromises have already been made regarding the original text of the bill and that the few things that were added are now being removed, the few things that people agreed to add? Everything is now going to be wiped out, until the bill is of no use to anyone and will do nothing to achieve the intended goal, after years of hard work on Bill C-26, which then became Bill C-11. We worked on that bill for months, nearly a year, only to take the easier route in the end, the route that was imposed on us by the lobbyists and the large companies.

How can any member who truly cares about their constituents vote against this? Can one vote against this bill at the outset and then accept the amendments? I find that unbelievable and I cannot help but wonder, how are the members across the floor going to explain this to our citizens?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at present we have before us an amended bill that flies in the face of current trends and that truly does not make sense. Throughout the world, there are now more and more trains, travelling faster and faster and governed by more and more regulations imposed by governments with regard to noise, safety and quality of railway traffic.

In this House, we are moving in the opposite direction. We are trying to pass a bill—a modest one at that—and we are being blocked by a lobby of large railway companies. I emphasize that point because, in my riding, a small railway line known as Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, seemed prepared to make changes and to cooperate when I met with it about two weeks ago to discuss this matter. The large companies, not the small ones, wanted these changes.

It is unacceptable for the big companies to demand that they be subject to absolutely no instructions or constraints, although they are subject to those things when they arrive in the United States, and they accept them and deal with it. As you know, in the United States, noise and pollution regulations are much stricter than in Canada. In fact, the Canadian companies have to have locomotives that are completely adapted to meet the requirements of the American standards in order to cross the border. On the other hand, we have old, noisy and polluting locomotives travelling Canada's east-west corridor. It is hard to understand why this lobby is looking at history in its rearview mirror.

Myself, I was very proud to see this bill moving forward. In the riding where I live, the Farnham switching yard, located in the town of Farnham, is getting bigger and bigger. The fact is that this yard has been causing problems, not for two or three years, but for decades. It is an old switching yard, and the people who live right nearby are the ones enduring the growing noise. At one time, rail transportation was very seldom used, and people found it acceptable. Now, however, with business booming and plans for passenger trains to pass through Farnham—and we are working on this—people have to expect that the noise and vibration will be reduced.

And so when I saw that the bill was moving ahead and was going to pass, following the normal procedure, I could not have imagined that an unelected body like the Senate would tell us that we had to do what the train lobby said and backtrack. Frankly, this could not have been expected.

I therefore went out to meet with the public, and there were only two topics raised, one of which was trains. The residents of Farnham and the mayor and city councillors were invited, and I explained the bill to them. I read them sections 95.1 and 95.2, and they were overjoyed. At first, people in the room were saying that the government would never pass a law to limit noise, because there had never been one. As well, in the last Parliament, the Liberal member who was elected in my riding had told them that his government was not really in favour of proposing measures to reduce noise, and he ignored them and did not want to help them.

I, on the contrary, thought that it was entirely reasonable for rules to be made by the government about how the companies must behave, like good citizens, toward the public which they serve. This is not simply a matter of them saying we will make our profits and then leave.

I met with the public and I read them the sections and they were very happy. They were persuaded that at last there would be changes. Imagine, now, how it will be when they learn that the bill has been amended by the Senate, under pressure from lobbyists.

Who is going to explain to them that the bill was not passed as it was proposed by the committee and as it was passed in this House? Will it be the Conservative members, who would in fact love to take my place? Will they be the ones who will come and explain it to the residents of the town of Farnham? I would suggest that they come in a well armoured car, because they might get a bad reception. Will it be the senators? No, because we know that senators never leave home. They are not accountable, in any riding. So they will not be coming to explain it.

I will personally have to explain the situation to them. Imagine the situation I will be in when I go to tell people: “The Liberals did not want it and the Liberal senators proposed some amendments”. To cap it all, I will have to tell them that Bill C-11 was a government bill but the government members voted to destroy it. Frankly, it is the height of ridiculousness. They say that in politics, six months is a long time but they can count on me to remind them of these events in the next election and they will remember it. The people of Farnham will be very happy to vote for a candidate who wants to reduce vibrations.

Earlier, I raised a point about vibrations and, as it happens, in Farnham, that is a very important factor because of the clay soil. If there are vibrations, the sound of the vibration can be heard very far away, as is the case at Farnham.

So, the matter of vibrations was vital. It was not just a matter of noise but also of vibrations. This means that a company must ensure that the trains reduce speed when they are in the marshalling yard, that shock dampers are installed on the rails and that there is a layer under the rails to absorb vibration. This is the case all over the world, except here. We do not understand why.

We know about the technology, but we do not apply it. Thus, at some point, faced with a modest bill, someone came forward and said, “No, that is going to upset my routine and cost me money. Let us leave things as they are”. That is a complete anachronism.

As I have said, the railway industry is now moving towards faster and safer trains, and much longer trains. Moreover, the Americans who send trainloads of merchandise to Canada, and who receive trainloads as well, are becoming more demanding about how those shipments are handled in Canada because they do not want any accidents and they do not want any complaints either.

It is only the lobby here in Canada that is holding us back. If we had American-style lobbying with American standards, everything would be satisfactory for our fellow citizens. We are here to act for our constituents.

I do not understand how we are supposed to say to the municipalities that it was in the bill but it was taken out. I read as follows: “The Agency must consult with interested parties, including municipal governments, before issuing any guidelines.”

That is what I did in my riding. I consulted the various municipalities and they totally agreed and were happy finally to have some rules imposed. The rules were not very hard to comply with, but at least there would be some. Now there will not be any at all and we will be back to square one. What is reasonable and what is unreasonable is not very specific. When this bill arrived, I suggested that there should be a standard for decibels, which represent the loudness of the sound at a certain distance. If we had done that, things would be very clear. But we did not. All we said was that the noise would be reduced, as appeared in the wording. We said as well that the noise adjacent to the railway could be harmful to people.

Now they are going further and withdrawing this proposal. It defies understanding. Why? To please a few railway companies, but not even all of them. It is important to know that not even all the companies wanted this, just a couple. They must have managed to lobby the current government very quickly to get it to change its mind. It used to be in agreement. It changed its mind at the last minute and is dropping the amendments, which would have been really destructive for the future of trains.

I want to tell the House about Farnham in my riding. Other hon. members have spoken about various marshalling yards, but in my riding there will be trains to other places as well: to Bromont, to Magog and maybe to Sherbrooke. We will be able to have trains to these places because the tracks are there, but they are hardly ever used. Some companies are interested in using them for passenger trains, and they will be, if people accept them. People will only accept them, though, if they make less noise. If is perfectly obvious that if there is noise pollution, if there are vibrations and other kinds of incessant pollution, people will not be interested. They are willing to travel by train, but they do not want the trains to upset their lives. There are already people living close to the tracks.

When people go to Japan, France, Italy or the Scandinavian countries, they see how quiet trains can be, even freight trains. They are made up in marshalling yards at low speeds, with much more flexible, less noisy couplings.

We are not asking for something that does not exist. We are just asking for something that exists everywhere but in Canada. Why take a step backward? This is not 1890, when people had to put up with steam trains. Now, we have technology, so why not use it? This was a long-term solution, not something that would last two or three months. It was a tailor-made solution that would have produced an acceptable sound level. Once it became part of rail culture, it would have lasted a very long time. But no, we are going back to the way things were before and changing absolutely nothing about the archaic, accepted technique that dates from a time when train use was dropping dramatically. Today, rail transportation is enjoying a resurgence.

We should have responded to this recovery of the rail sector by embracing new techniques. The government will have Bill C-11 on its conscience for a very long time, especially since Bill C-26 was never adopted.

This time, it could have been adopted, but they will have it on their conscience and bear the responsibility for it.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on his excellent work and excellent presentation.

The last question from the Liberal member is typical of the Conservatives and Liberals when it comes to this bill. In the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we heard from witnesses, both from railway companies and community groups who were experiencing problems. We arrived at a balanced position. The wording proposed by the citizens groups was much more draconian than what we came up with, which is “as little noise as possible”. That was the wording in a bill previously tabled by the Liberals.

Today, a Liberal member is wondering about this change in wording. Yes, it is important. And it is also important to add “neighbouring communities” among the things that should be taken into account by the Canadian Transportation Agency. By eliminating this, we are taking power away from the neighbouring communities. And for that I am upset with the Conservatives: they are caving in to the Liberal majority in the Senate, especially the members from Quebec.

This brings me to my question. What does my colleague think of the behaviour of the members from the Quebec City area? Both Quebec City and Lévis were represented in committee. All the Conservative members represent Quebec City and the Chaudière-Appalaches area, the two sectors where are located the cities who had witnesses before the committee. These witnesses came to tell us that we were not going far enough. Lévis proposed the same definition as the one in Bill C-11. As far as Quebec City is concerned, its definition was much stricter than what we came up with: the balance achieved in Bill C-11.

I take issue with the Liberals today. The hon. member just said that she did not think the wording was so bad, but the entire issue of the problems in the neighbouring communities was dropped.

What does my colleague think of the behaviour of these Conservative and Liberal members?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I will not begin my presentation by saying that I am pleased to rise and speak today because today I do not feel any pleasure, but rather shame, before the amendments that have come to us from the Senate. These amendments defeat the significant amendments that were made to Bill C-11 and passed unanimously in committee.

I am ashamed because the Senate did not do its job properly. It only met with railway companies, which told it all about their dissatisfaction with the bill. The Senate report even quotes their arguments. We read there that the Canadian railway companies claimed that a new standard could have considerable economic consequences in the absence of a standard based on the reasonableness of noise.

So the companies played the economic argument, but we must not lose sight of the purpose of the bill, which was not to try and make railway companies as profitable as possible. That would have been studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Rather the bill was designed to deal with numerous complaints from our citizens who live close to railways. These citizens are penalized by the operations of these companies, which as a rule do not listen to the citizens’ complaints. If you are an MP, you represent all your fellow citizens. MPs contribute by developing bills in our fine parliamentary system in order to improve the living conditions of their fellow citizens.

The members of the Senate said themselves they held five meetings to study this bill, which is so important to us. I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We held 15 sessions just to meet with witnesses. Of these 15, some 10 were an opportunity to meet with citizens, groups of citizens and representatives of cities who told us about the problems they have been experiencing for a very long time. Representatives of the department and railway companies also shared their comments with us on the bill, and answered our questions.

In addition to the 15 sessions we had with witnesses, we held six sessions specifically to do a clause-by-clause study. After meeting with all the witnesses, each of the parties studied the problem and proposed amendments with a view to improving the bill. The committee was unanimous in passing the amendments adopted at third reading.

I am relatively new as an MP and I was pleased to see that we could draft a useful bill that would improve life for my constituents. I have talked about this bill in my riding to illustrate my work as an MP. I do not know how I am going to explain to my constituents the situation we are in right now, but depending on the result of the vote on this bill, I will have to say a few words about those who are undoing the democratic work that we undertook.

It is important to point out, as my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said earlier, that members of the Senate are saying that if their amendments are not accepted by the House, they could nonetheless pass the bill quickly.

The fact that the government party seems to want to give in so easily and destroy everything that was done in committee and in drafting the bill, adds to the frustration and shame I feel about the way the Senate operates. The Conservatives seem to be saying that this will all work out.

This eliminates any possibility of making these improvements. The official opposition party seems to want to do the same thing, since it has the majority in the Senate and was lobbied by the railway companies.

We are in an incredible situation where organized pressure groups, companies that have lobbyists, can interfere with a major bill to improve living conditions, by approaching members of the Senate to influence them during specific meetings and make them change their minds.

I find this hard to swallow, especially since, as the Bloc knows, the very existence of the Senate has been criticized. These are people who were not elected and we do not know to whom they are accountable. The way in which we are currently receiving the report shows they are not improving matters or the impression we have of them. In my opinion, they did not conduct a defined study that allows us to achieve the objectives of the bill.

I find this surprising, especially as the purpose of the amendments we proposed to the provision on noise was to respond to all the testimony we had heard. These amendments were not made out of the blue. We conducted a long review, provision by provision, because we had received various proposals from different parties. We reached a consensus, even though we had been asked to show even greater determination on the noise issue. We said, therefore, that the companies have to cause as little noise and vibration as possible. We opted for this formulation rather than prohibiting any unreasonable noise. Who can say what is reasonable or not and on what basis would it be judged? We wanted every possible solution attempted, therefore, in an effort to resolve this problem.

We know that there can be various different ways of resolving the noise problem, especially in marshalling yards. There are the hours of operation, but also the machinery, the engines, and better locomotives that make less noise when they operate.

We also required the railway companies to take into consideration the possible impact on people residing close to the railway. Initially, the bill did not mention these people. It just said that the operational and construction needs of railways had to be met. When we received a number of representations on the impact of the noise on local people, we decided to add something in order to achieve this objective and make the companies ultimately responsible for the impact on the local population and not just for the physical operation of their equipment.

The involvement of the Conservative members from Quebec could be seen most clearly in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse where there is also a very large marshalling yard. The Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse was very pleased to meet with the sector president in his region who came to voice his complaints.

Since the Senate members did not even make the effort to meet with these people, I would like to quote an excerpt from the testimony of Mr. Jean-Pierre Bazinet, president of the Chute-de-la-Chaudière sector in Lévis. If people take the time to re-read the discussions, they will see what the concerns of the City of Lévis were.

As part of its activities, Canadian National operates a switching yard within the boundaries of Charny and Saint-Jean-Chrysostome. Given the elevated noise levels generated by switching operations conducted by Canadian National, numerous complaints have been laid by residents of the three former neighbourhoods that existed prior to the merger in 2000, as well as by residents of the other neighbourhoods that I mentioned earlier.

These residents believe that the noise pollution caused by CN's operations, particularly in the evening and at night, is affecting their health and impedes their peaceful enjoyment of their property. This situation came about in 1998—and that date is important. Previously, the switching yard and the residents lived in harmony. The new situation coincided with the privatization of the company, which streamlined its operations not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.

In that respect, the problems experienced by the residents of Charny are similar to those encountered in other cities in Canada. The preceding testimonies are compelling.

When CN failed to take action, a large number of affected residents signed a petition that was presented to the council of the former City of Charny in 2000. The municipality also received letters from home owners describing the situation as unacceptable and intolerable.

In 2001, the Public Health Department of the Chaudière-Appalaches Health and Social Services Board conducted an analysis of the situation and produced a report entitled “Assessment of the public health risk associated with environmental noise produced by operations at CN's Joffre switching yard in Charny”. The study concludes, and I quote:

“Based on the available noise measurements, the literature review and the specific context, we find that the environmental noise to which many of the people living in the residential area adjacent to CN's Joffre switching yard are exposed adversely affects their quality of life and potentially their health. Such noise levels are therefore a nuisance to the peace, comfort and well-being of the residents near the Joffre switching yard in Charny.

From a public health standpoint, these noise levels are likely to have an adverse affect on health by disturbing sleep, which in turn has a number of side effects.

These noise levels are in our view incompatible with residential zoning unless special measures are taken to reduce the noise”.

This is part of what Mr. Bazinet, from Lévis, said in his testimony. It was very important and was much appreciated by the Conservative member in that riding. However, he has not been seen at all during the current debate period. I think that he is not happy with his party's position, or he is not proud of what the parliamentary secretary said, about how the proposed amendments were satisfactory and it would still be a good bill.

I call on all the Conservative members, especially those from Quebec, to take a stand for once and vote in favour of this bill, which offers a solution to the noise problem. We heard from at least five or six citizens' groups from Lévis, whom I mentioned, and also from Quebec City. Quebec City and Lévis are major areas and the noise problem is causing many problems for people. There are certainly Liberal members who are also concerned about this problem in their ridings. I think it is important to show that a realistic bill, unanimously agreed upon by the parties in parliamentary committee, can move forward, and to not show the public that despite what we have been discussing for weeks and months in the House, and despite our best efforts, a few senators can decide what is best for the public. Senators do not have to answer to the people afterwards.

I invite everyone who is even remotely aware of the importance of democracy to vote against these amendments. The Senate must recognize that the House of Commons stands firm, that it has examined the bill, and especially, that it has taken into account the public's arguments in order to improve the situation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments from my colleague from the Bloc. To respond to his question I can only say that I am very disappointed. There was good progress made on Bill C-11. The concerns of residents were heard. People appeared before the committee.

The bill has gone through its full democratic process in the House of three readings and was passed. The bill was a collection of the best that we had to offer from all parties. It was bundled off to the Senate and then it started to fall apart. I think that is why we are here today and that is why we are hearing some very strong pleas from members in the House who are saying this is not right.

Members say that the Senate in examining this bill has taken, and I was going to use the word “partisan”, but it is not partisan in a political sense. It is partisan in a sense that as the member points out, the Senate has chosen to listen to the concerns of the rail companies and not respond to the concerns of local residents to find the appropriate balance.

The Senate has now sent us back a bill that I and other members believe is flawed. We have an opportunity here to accept or reject the amendment. That is still part of our work and part of our duty.

I am extremely disappointed that it appears that today the Conservative members and the Liberal members are going to vote for this Senate amendment. The NDP members and the Bloc members will vote against the amendment. However, there will not be enough votes and the bill will now be approved with the Senate amendment which does set us back.

I can predict with all certainty that we will continue to receive complaints, not only in my community but in other communities across Canada. In a few years the pressure will build and maybe we will see some other kind of legislative process. I don't know what it will be. We had an opportunity here under Bill C-11 and that is what the government told us. We had an opportunity to actually correct a very longstanding problem that needed attention.

We were so close to getting it done. The bill was passed in the House. Now we are dealing with something different that will undermine the bill and undermine the ability of the federal government within its mandate to deal with these concerns because it wanted to appease the concerns of the rail companies.

Perhaps other members have other opinions on that. I really feel that is a huge letdown. If local residents feel sold out, then I would agree with them.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. It is important for the citizens who are listening to understand that the problem exists outside of Quebec. Vancouver is experiencing the same difficulties.

The fact that the industry is presently experiencing significant economic growth also results in other nuisances. We are no longer dealing with noise alone, but also with vibration and the length of trains. That is the message that members from all parties wanted to deliver in committee. I repeat that, at clause by clause consideration of the bill, everyone was on the same page and wanted to find a balanced solution. The message delivered to the Senate by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, when he appeared, was that Bill C-11 was a good bill. We found a balance between railway operations and the disturbance to those living nearby. The Senate merely wished to favour one group over another. The Senate only heard from industry representatives. It did not hear testimony from citizens or citizen groups. I am certain that citizen groups are just as organized in Vancouver as they are in Quebec. These problems have dragged on for decades in Quebec.

I would ask my colleague what she makes of the conduct of Liberal and Conservative members who, in committee, supported Bill C-11, a balanced bill, and who now are yielding to the Senate and the railway industry lobby? They are attempting to backtrack on this bill, to the detriment of the peace and quiet of citizens.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Senate amendment concerning Bill C-11. I do not think I can drum up as much steam as the member for Hamilton Centre did. That was quite the performance. I agree with everything he said. I certainly agree with the concerns my colleague from the Bloc outlined about this amendment.

For me, my riding and the communities that I represent in east Vancouver, this issue goes back to the day that I was elected. In fact, as I am sure the Speaker will remember, even a former member of Parliament for Vancouver East, Margaret Mitchell, a great member of Parliament who represented east Vancouver in the House, she herself dealt with the issue of excessive train noise, vibration and disruption for residents in the Burrardview and Wall Street areas of east Vancouver. This is an issue that goes way back.

Over the 10 years that I have been here I have met with local residents on numerous occasions to respond to their very legitimate concerns. I have attended community meetings. I have met with railway officials in Ottawa and Vancouver to put forward those concerns and demand that there be a response not only from the railway company but also from the government.

I actually rode the tracks. I forget the name of that little vehicle that goes up and down the tracks, but I rode on that to see firsthand what was going on in the marshalling yards that was causing so many problems. We have approached it from a health point of view and have laid complaints with the medical health officer in Vancouver. We have pursued legal options. I have worked with local residents and the saga goes on and on.

As recently as April of 2007 I wrote to the Railway Safety Act Review Advisory Panel pointing out that I regularly receive letters, e-mails, faxes, phone calls and visits from local residents, all of whom vociferously protest against prolonged and excessive train noise. They feel they are under constant siege from the noise by trains and they have not been able to find any recourse. All the complaints are remarkably similar and focus on noise in the early hours of the morning from whistles and horns, idling, shunting, et cetera. That was just in April.

Before that, in July 2006 I wrote to the then minister of transport with the same issues, concerns and complaints. I actually received a reply from the minister at that time. Lo and behold, the minister of transport said, “You may be interested to note that Bill C-11, which will enable the Canadian Transportation Agency to address issues such as noise levels, received first reading in Parliament in May 2006”. We finally have a bill that is going to address these long-standing systemic concerns from local residents.

Prior to that, in June 2005, I wrote to the Canadian Pacific Railway articulating the concerns that I had heard. In 2003 I wrote to the then minister of transport, who basically took no action. In 2002 I wrote to the minister of transport, as I had in 2000. This is just a sampling of letters that I have written.

It is very illuminating to hear the debate on this bill after the various readings it has gone through and hear members, even at this stage of the bill, coming forward with a sense of frustration that this bill still does not adequately respond to the legitimate concerns of local residents. That is coming from across the political spectrum. We have heard members from the Bloc today articulate very well the ongoing nature of these concerns.

In my own community, it has been the outstanding vigilance, neighbourhood spirit and activism at the local level that has kept this issue on the political agenda. It has been the work of local residents such as the member for Vancouver--Hastings in the B.C. legislative assembly, Shane Simpson. When he was a resident activist before he was elected, he was very active with the Burrardview residents association in pressing this issue. There are people like Barbara Fousek, who is now with the Burrardview residents association, who have never given up and have always addressed the concerns of local residents.

To be frank, people have tried to work within the system. They have tried to use processes and avenues they believed were available to them. Whether it has been the City of Vancouver with the whistleblowing, whether it has been the railway company itself, whether it has ben the federal government, people have used all of these avenues to the absolute fullest.

I would like to quote from a few of the e-mails and letters that I have received, for example, from Robert who has focused on a particular engine. People actually identify the number of the engine that is causing the problem while it might be idling in the marshalling yards at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. disrupting people's sleep when they have to go to work the next day.

Bonnie wrote at great length to the transportation committee. She pointed out that this issue in east Vancouver goes back to 1991 with the closure of the rail yard in Vancouver's Coal Harbour. There were operational changes that increased the length and the weight of trains. This has had a significant local impact. She points out that the CPR began the marshalling of trains below Wall Street in the Burrardview neighbourhood. The operational change was made without any public consultation or consideration of the impact that the change would have on local residents. This change has had a drastic effect on neighbourhoods and has increased noise and vibration to industrial levels.

In fact, the residents went so far as to ensure that a study was done of the noise levels. Our party's transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, in his speech quoted briefly from that study dated December 2005, entitled, “East Vancouver Portlands Community Noise Study”. As he pointed out, what was found was excessive noise levels that were far beyond anything that could be considered reasonable or standard for people living in a high density residential area.

I have other letters, for example, one from the Pacific Terraces strata council, which states:

Also, the drone of trains idling have often kept me from falling asleep. On occasion, I have incurred ear damage, with severe symptoms lasting for days. Again, I see no reason why trains need to idle for hours in areas where one can only surmise that many people are being denied their natural right to respect, peace and tranquility.

This should not be seen as just an issue of inconvenience, but one of health and mental well being. It is my opinion that the disrespect railway yards seem to show neighbourhoods crosses the line of abuse. I hope this situation can be resolved soon.

In an email, Finn points out:

The Alberta wheat pool is close to our house and we are subjected to, among other things, shunting of trains which occurs at all hours of the night causing extreme noise levels, Freight trains travelling from West to East working so hard and travelling so fast that the vibrations shake our whole house and wake anyone who may be sleeping.

I do not want to use the word “complaints” when referring to these issues, because that would imply that people are just complaining. These are very severe impacts on people's quality of life. The documentation that I have on these issues is endless.

I want to get back to the bill. Before us today is a Senate amendment and I want to retrace the steps of where this amendment came from.

I want to thank the NDP transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his very strong work in bringing local residents to the committee so that they could be heard and for receiving the issues that people have pressed.

The NDP member brought forward amendments to this bill. We supported the bill in principle. We said that maybe there finally could be some resolution. The member brought forward amendments at the committee that would have, for example, prohibited trains from performing certain activities such as shunting in high density residential areas between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Those amendments were shot down in committee, regrettably, because they did not have the support of other members. In fact, we ended up with a compromise proposal from the government side which said that at least there could be as little noise and vibration as possible.

We went along with that. We wanted to get through as much as we could in order to respond to people's concerns. We agreed finally to that amendment. The NDP amendment, which I think was far superior, was lost.

Where are we now? The bill was approved by the House. It went to the Senate. Now there is a Senate amendment that is watering down the government amendment which watered down the NDP amendment. The 10th report of Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications states:

Finally, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communications amended clause 29 of Bill C-11 to require railway companies to cause “as little noise and vibration as possible”....Canadian railway companies believed that the new standard could present a significant threat to their economic viability as there is no jurisprudence on its interpretation. As such, the railway companies recommended that the standard of “reasonableness” be restored to the provision.

That is exactly what the other place did. It went ahead, put forward its own amendment in the unelected Senate, which is what we are now debating in the House.

That is why we in the NDP feel we have to take a stand, that we have to say that this is unacceptable on two grounds. One is the amendment from the Senate is not reasonable and is actually watering down a provision so much that it will have very little effect which to us is really undermining the value and the intent of what the bill was intended to do in the first place. The bill was to provide real relief to local residents who have been suffering for years. On those grounds alone we feel we cannot support the Senate amendment.

In addition, as has been pointed out by the member for Hamilton Centre and other members of the House, it seems to us completely unacceptable that we are now debating an amendment from the Senate that is based on accommodating what the railway companies consider to be reasonable from a place that has no accountability to those local residents. Here we are with this amendment that is not really going to respond in any fashion to the very legitimate concerns that I have documented exist in my own community and we know exist right across the country. I find it very offensive that we are now having to respond to this amendment.

On those two grounds we are saying today that we want to reject that amendment. We believe that this should go back and that the government should be very clear that this is an unacceptable practice. We have seen it on other occasions when the government has taken issue with the Senate and has said that what the Senate has done is not legitimate and so on, but on this issue the government seems to be quite willing to go along with it.

I wanted to speak in the debate today just to lay out what this has meant for the thousands of people in my community who are still suffering from the impacts of excessive train noise. I want to make one thing clear. They are local residents who are well aware that they live adjacent to a working port. The history of east Vancouver is built on port activity and train activity. We understand that. It is part of our history. It is part of the history of our community. There are many people who work at the port and in the rail yards who live in east Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. We understand the importance of the economic activity of our rail operations and the port generally.

However, there is a significant issue about the interface and the conflict that can arise. What I find problematic is that often those issues are presented as somehow being mutually exclusive, that we have to say that everything the port or the railway company wants for their economic viability we have to go for or somehow we are on the side of the residents.

I believe, and I think many members in this House believe, that our job is to ensure that there is a balance between those things, that they are not mutually exclusive, that we can protect the economic viability of the port of Vancouver and the rail operations. Our job is also to ensure that we address the concerns that residents have in a meaningful way.

Some residents have lived in that neighbourhood for three, four, five decades and some have moved in more recently. Some of the letters I get are from recent residents. I always ask them if they were aware that they were moving into an area next to the port, and they always tell me they were. In principle, that is not the issue.

People are very respectful of those who work in the port and those who work on the rail operations. There is a legitimate case here about the excessive noise. People were not consulted when operational changes were made 15 years ago. I find that railway officials listen to us, but they really feel that they have no mandate and do not have to respond to these concerns. I have had that experience myself, which points out why this legislation is so needed.

Overall, we support Bill C-11. We want to see it go through. The bill has gone through the House, but I am very disappointed and frustrated that it has now come back to us with this Senate amendment that will undo the very premise on which it was advanced by the government. I am sure the House is going to hear the same thing from other members today.

I hope that we can convince enough members of this House to send a strong message back to the Senate saying that this is not acceptable. We have to tell the Senate that we have to do a better job and that we are not prepared to water the bill down and weaken the already weak provisions to protect those local quality of life concerns. That is what we in the NDP hope will happen today. We believe that we have one last shot at this.

I thank the members of the transport committee who worked very diligently on this bill. I especially thank our transportation critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has pressed this issue very well and has worked hard to get the best possible arrangement.

Now we have to respond to the other place that has no accountability to those local residents. Let us do the right thing and stand up for their quality of life. Let us make sure that the bill is not undermined and weakened.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his concern for citizens and his dedication to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Today I am very disappointed. I have been anxiously awaiting Bill C-11. In Trois-Rivières, just like in Farnham, Quebec, based on what I have been told, this is a major problem for our citizens. What we have here is a balanced and reasonable bill. Respecting the environment is important. We are well aware that we are going to be seeing more and more rail transportation, but it should certainly not ignore what our fellow citizens want.

When we talk about making as little noise as possible, and adding the element of vibrations, it seems to me that this is crucial. Every day in Trois-Rivières there are citizens living with this problem, with trains zipping by their yards. This brings down their property values and is truly unbearable.

Who are we as members of Parliament? We must work for our fellow citizens, for our electors. I am calling on the Conservatives to change their minds and to move forward so that we can resolve this problem, especially since we have heard that their minister would agree with this. I really do not understand their position.

I would like my colleague to talk a little bit about public reactions if we do not resolve this problem with Bill C-11. What can we expect from these citizens back home who will tell us over and over all summer long that we have failed, that we were not able to resolve this problem? Yet, the solution is right here in front of us.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would once again urge my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to do as I did and read the blues of the record of the Senate meeting on May 30. If he does, he will see that if he votes against this amendment today, the senators will still pass the bill the way the House wants it right away. There is already an agreement. I have trouble understanding him because when his minister gave his presentation to the Senate, he had this to say about Bill C-11 as tabled by the House and supported unanimously in committee:

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.

Back then, the minister found that it struck a good balance, and now the member is trying to convince me that it did not, in fact, strike a good balance, and that the Senate's amended version strikes a good balance now.

He mentioned the Quebec bridge, which gives me an opportunity to note that this is just like what happened with the Quebec bridge. That is the Canadian federation for you. That shows how much influence a governing federal party has over a railway company. None. The Quebec bridge will not be painted by 2008. It will never be painted. What was it that the Conservatives said when they were elected? They said that they would get the Quebec bridge painted. They did the same thing the Liberals did. They set aside the Liberals' case against Canadian National to make the railway paint the bridge, then they had to start a new case against Canadian National. In the end, all they did was waste a year.

That's Canada for you. Nobody is in control. You no longer control the railways, and once again, you have shown that the railways control you, the rail lobbyists control you. They control the Conservatives, just like they controlled the Liberals. People in Quebec are really fed up with this.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Speaking of noise, I can hardly hear myself talk because of my colleagues opposite.

That was the benefit of this bill. We discussed it in committee and weighed the pros and cons. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities—which you support, Mr. Speaker, as the head of this House—heard both sides, the railways and the citizens' groups.

In Quebec, these are not minor problems. We could talk about marshalling yards such as the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, Joffre in Charny—now in the city of Lévis, in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse—, Farnham in Brome—Missisquoi, and Pointe-Saint-Charles in Jeanne-Le Ber. We are familiar with all the problems and the legal proceedings in Outremont and the rail transportation problems in Quebec City and Montmagny. All these people affected by the noise came to tell us about their failed discussions with the railway companies, which were not interested in talking to them. They knew very well that no legislation could force them to deal with the noise pollution.

That is why, after discussions among all the parties, the committee was able to table a unanimous report on Bill C-11. Amendments were proposed unanimously and no one opposed the bill as tabled and discussed in committee.

I will read section 95.1 of the bill adopted unanimously by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities when it was studied clause by clause. It is worthwhile reading so that those listening will fully understand.

Section 95.1 reads as follows:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible, taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

(b) its operational require2ments;

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place; and

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

We all thought it struck a good balance to take into account both the operational requirements of the company and the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway, and we did so by adding, “as little noise and vibration as possible”. All parties were unanimous on this.

Imagine that Bill C-11 goes back to the Senate. It decides to give in to pressure from the industry. That is clear because I have the list of witnesses who were heard in the Senate committee. Not a single citizens' group was heard during this discussion. The Senate heard from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Transport Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, the Railway Association of Canada, and the Canadian National Railway Company. Not a single group of citizens experiencing problems with noise was heard from.

We did not come up with the words, “as little noise as possible”. These terms were used in Bill C-26 tabled by the Liberals in the last Parliament. We used the terms, “must cause as little noise as possible” and we added the word “vibration” because it has come to that. As I was saying, because of the length of the trains, we have to deal with the noise and vibration caused by railway transportation. But we opted for “as little noise as possible”, which was proposed by the Liberals in the last Parliament.

Today, in the Senate, the Liberal majority decided to change that. It decided to hear from witnesses, but not from citizens groups. It gave in to pressure from lobbyists and decided to table the amendments we are discussing today in this House and which the Bloc Québécois will vote against.

Worse yet, and this is where I have a problem understanding the Conservatives, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said, when he appeared before the Senate committee:

Today, however, I would like to discuss the many benefits of Bill C-11. The Standing Committee on Transport, 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.

He went on:

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.

In addition, Senator Dawson, one of the people who orchestrated the amendments for the Liberal majority in the Senate, said himself in the Senate:

—the Department of Transport tells us that it can live with the text as it stands. The department is your partner. The minister could have decided to pay us a visit here in the Senate to tell us that he found the amendment tabled in the House of Commons to be unreasonable—let’s not mince words—and to ask us to change it. Instead, he came here and told us that he could live with the bill in its present form.

That is why I cannot understand the Conservatives' position today. The minister could live with the bill. The definition came from the old Bill C-26 introduced by the Liberals. The Conservatives did not see what the Liberal majority in the Senate was doing or what all the Liberals in both houses were doing, unbeknownst to the entire House of Commons.

That is the big problem for me. Today the Conservative Party is supporting the amendments that were submitted by the Liberal majority in the Senate. I am going to read the text that I read a while ago to my NDP colleague. It is worth it because, after all, there are Conservative senators in the Senate, too. It is interesting to see how their own Conservative senators operate.

I am going to return to the statement by Senator Hugh Segal, who said, “I point out with great respect that Senator Munson and Senator Dawson [these are two Liberal senators], who played such a constructive role, have undertaken that when this chamber, in due consideration, ships this bill, should it decide to do so, back to the other place, they will consult broadly with their colleagues in that other place [here he is speaking of the Liberal MPs in the House of Commons] so that the bill comes back quickly”.

So I understand the Conservative senator, when he says that the Liberals, are proposing amendments, and asks whether they think that will work. The Liberals then confirm to Conservative Senator Segal that, indeed, when it happens, they will turn around and be in favour of the amendments. However, the Conservative senator never says that he consulted the Conservative members and the minister. He does not say it. He does his work nicely.

Of course Senator Segal adds, “They have further undertaken on the record that should the other place dither and not approve it--“that is, if we in the House of Commons decided not to approve it”--they will move quickly to act with this engaged, non-partisan administration--“speaking of the Senate”--to pass the bill quickly through this chamber”.

Throughout the text, Senator Segal says that the Conservatives want to advance the bill, that they are non-partisan and have only heard the railway companies. They are in favour of what is proposed by the Liberals, who say they have reached an agreement with their colleagues in the House of Commons. Thus the bill will come back to this House and everything will be settled. Still, Senator Segal had a moment of lucidity. At least he took the time to ask himself what the Liberals would do if ever the bill were not passed by the House of Commons? This is not a problem: they will pass it as amended by the House of Commons. This is what the text of the Debates of the Senate, Issue 101, of May 30, 2007, tells us.

I do not understand the Conservatives who are voting today in favour of the amendment by the Senate, knowing very well that if they held the line and that if they insisted at any rate on what had been adopted in committee, we would vote against the Senate amendments and the Senate would adopt it because there is already an agreement between the Conservative senators and the Liberals. If we blow hot and cold and are not in favour they will quickly adopt it.

Why not do it as early as possible today? Let us send it back to them and tomorrow they will return it to us. In that way we would have respected the wishes of the public and not just the interests of business.

I will not stop there. The representatives of the City of Quebec and the City of Lévis appeared before the committee. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse, in the Quebec City area, even had his picture taken with all those people and the photo was published in the local weekly newspapers. He was very pleased. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse was not present because he was no longer a member of the committee but when the witnesses appeared before the committee he was in favour. The definition that was contained in Bill C-11 is the definition advocated by the City of Lévis. Yet, this evening or at some other time, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse will vote in favour of the Senate amendments, which are contrary to the position put forward by the City of Lévis.

Conservative colleagues, the public have had enough of this and they want it settled. The balance that we achieved and that was defended by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, is a good balance, and he said it well, because the demands of the public were much greater and a great deal more critical about the railways than what ended up in this bill.

That balance is found in the definition “as little noise and vibration as possible” and the condition relating to the potential impact on persons residing adjacent to the railway. It is simple; it is to balance the power of the railway companies, which for business reasons have no interest in the problems of noise pollution and do not care.

As I said from the start, we can no longer ignore this noise pollution. The pubic are entitled to have their problems dealt with in an intelligent way and to come back to the definition of the word “reasonable,” a definition that was in the previous legislation and about which there was much less than unanimous agreement.

Speaking of the witnesses, the residents of Charny, which is now part of the City of Lévis, formed committees and they studied the court decisions, including the Oakville decision.

They are very much on top of this issue. They have organized fundraisers and were ready to go to court over the noise problem. There really is a problem with noise pollution. They are not doing this for the fun of it and do not spend their time in court because they have nothing else to do. When they decide to institute legal proceedings, it is because all the discussions with the railways have gone no where. Marshalling yards are hell.

There is a company now that converts old locomotives using truck engines that can be turned off at night. The managers of this company have been trying to meet with CN management, but CN does not want to see them. It does not want to meet with them. It would rather keep its old locomotives in the marshalling yards. Railway cars obviously have to be moved around for maintenance and repairs. Engines are left running night and day. That is how it is done in the winter because if a diesel engine is turned off, it cannot be restarted. That is the reality. They do not want to modernize, do not want to listen, and do not want to know anything about new technologies. What interests them are the profits they pay to their shareholders every three months. They do not give a damn about anything else.

For once we would have a bill that would help citizens achieve a balance because that is what the Transportation Agency is supposed to do. If the company and the people filing complaints cannot agree, the Transportation Agency has the power to impose directives. What directives? They would provide some oversight and say that the railways have to cause as little noise and vibration as possible and consider the possible impact on people residing close to the railway, while at the same time continuing to operate and construct railways in the places where they are. There already were some guidelines that enabled them to say that certain things had to be done, while at the same time they had to take into account the fact that they were located near particular neighbourhoods. The legislation already gave them the ability to say that their facilities were in certain locations and they had certain operational needs. The only balancing required was that they had to take into account the impact on people living in adjacent locations and cause as little noise and vibration as possible.

As the Minister said when he appeared before the Senate, it was a good balance. I agree with that. My problem is that the Conservative members—particularly those from Quebec—are still kowtowing to the railway lobby. Probably the members from the West are pressuring the Quebec members. We will not hear from them today: they are not making speeches. They will listen obediently to what the parliamentary secretary tells them when he tries to make them understand that nothing can be done. If it goes back to the Senate, it will take time, because if the Senators do not agree, the Senate can decide to send the bill back here, and we want it to pass quickly.

I will read what Senator Segal said again, since the parliamentary secretary has just arrived. I quote again what he said about his colleagues, Senators Dawson and Munson.

They have further undertaken on the record that should the other place [that is us] dither and not approve it, they will move quickly to act with this engaged, non-partisan administration [the Senate] to pass the bill quickly through this chamber.

I reiterate to my Conservative colleagues that they should not be afraid to stand up for their constituents' interests, once and for all. I say to the members from Quebec—the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, the members for the Quebec City region, and their minister—not to be afraid to stand up for their constituents. Just once, let them rise in this House to stand up for the only defensible tool, the one that was even defended by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities before the Senate committee. He said that it was a good balance. Let them stand up and defend the interests of their constituents. Let them stop being doormats for the members from the West. Let them stand up and stand tall. Let them defend the interests of their fellow citizens by saying no to the Senate and to the amendments before us today. And let the Senate make its decision again. That is what it says in the Senate report, in the statement by Senator Hugh Segal, that they already have an agreement: if we send the bill back and do not accept the amendments, they will pass Bill C-11 as it stood when it was unanimously agreed to in committee.

What I am asking the Conservative members from Quebec to do is to stand up, to defend the interests of their constituents and to do what the Bloc members, who were elected solely to defend the interests of the public and not for their personal careers, are doing. That is what we will see at the end of the day.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the amendments to Bill C-11, which the Senate has sent back to us. The Senate did not choose to make just any amendment to the bill. I would like all my colleagues—particularly the Conservatives and Liberals—to understand how they are destroying the delicate balance between rail operations and the peace and quiet of people living near marshalling yards or rail lines.

Our country is experiencing major economic development. Rail is growing by leaps and bounds, something some companies but especially the government had not predicted. The government is investing a great deal of money in moving freight, which arrives in every port in Canada and is transported across the country. Rail transportation has therefore grown. This is good news for the railways, and we take pride in it.

But when trains get longer and come more frequently, problems are inevitable. Today, because of environmental concerns, noise pollution must be considered. Countries all over the world have adopted health standards related to noise pollution, and it is time the railways complied with these internationally recognized standards.

This bill was introduced in order to bring the industry in line. Why? Because it did not discipline itself. It turned a deaf ear when people formed associations and filed complaints. It even won in court against Transport Canada. For example, the Canadian Transportation Commission lost its case when the court ruled that it could not intervene in these matters.

This bill had two objectives: to give power to the Canadian Transportation Commission and to set out how the Commission could use that power in dealing with pollution, specifically noise pollution.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague travels by train, so he knows that we must respect the nearby residents when travelling by train. Can he explain why the Senate removed the part that dealt with the possible effect on people living near train tracks? I think that when travelling by train, we should have respect for the nearby residents. I am sure he is respectful.

I would like him to explain why the Senate removed such a provision from Bill C-11.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I thank my colleague for encouraging me. I would certainly take more time if I were to have the unanimous consent of the House. I could speak all day on this issue.

As members will recall, last night we were talking about the fact that with the Conservatives and transportation policy it seems to be consistently one step forward and two steps back. Essentially what we have had in this Parliament is the government putting forward pieces of legislation that either make very modest improvements to the transportation system and access to it, or actually gut the principles of safety and access to our transportation system.

I cited Bill C-6, where essentially we have the government turning over safety management to the airline companies themselves, some of which will handle that very responsibly and others that clearly will not.

When we come back to the issue of Bill C-11, we are seeing the same type of very lukewarm progress. It is fair to say that Bill C-11 purported to bring forward improvements to access transportation for shippers, to provide some improvements around clarity of airfares, and as well to make some significant progress on the issue of railway noise, which is something that afflicts many communities, mine included.

I spoke about the testimony we heard at the transport committee, particularly from two individuals, Mayor Wayne Wright of the city of New Westminster, and Brian Allen from the Westminster Quay, who is involved in the residents association there, who very clearly said that what we need to do is make substantial improvements so that communities have tools to deal with the issue of railway noise.

The Senate amendments before us water down the progress that was made in committee through NDP amendments and amendments from other parties to actually bolster Bill C-11. Bill C-11 was weak and insipid to begin with. Through the transport committee process, we were able to make some notable improvements. I am very sad to see now that the Senate, the other chamber, is watering down the progress that was made. It is very clear to me that the NDP members in this corner of the House cannot support that watering down of progress that, although laudable, one might say was insufficient.

I would like to deal with these two issues of railway noise and clarity around airline advertising affairs, because those are the two key amendments that the Senate has watered down. In clause 27 there is an obligation of the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations requiring that the airlines include in the price all costs of providing the service. That is what the NDP and other parties working together were able to improve in Bill C-11. That was the bill that went to the Senate.

This is no small issue. This is an issue that Canadians who travel are intensely concerned with. I travel very frequently, twice a week, from Burnaby—New Westminster to Ottawa and back. I most often travel in economy class and talk with people about how they view the airlines and air travel in Canada.

Many Canadian consumers are concerned about the fact that when they see an advertised fare there are a lot of hidden charges. Most notably, Air Canada has attached a whole range of charges. Now we have to pay for meals and pillows. When we boarded the plane the other day, one person jokingly said that soon we are going to have to bring our own chairs to sit on in the plane.

What we have seen is a progression of user fees that Air Canada and other airlines have brought in to increase the price of the ticket. Because of all the hidden fees, what we are seeing is a huge discrepancy between what the advertised fare is and what consumers are actually paying. That is why consumer groups have been standing up for clarity on the advertising of airline fees.

Members of the Travellers' Protection Initiative appeared before the transport committee. They were very clear. The initiative, as far as the lead organizations are concerned, is composed of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

There is also Option consommateurs, a very well-respected organization in Quebec.

This protection initiative was supported by members of the Canadian Association of Airline Passengers, the Consumers' Association of Canada from Saskatchewan, Transport 2000, the Consumers Council of Canada, the Air Passengers Safety Group, the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Ontario Society (Coalition) of Senior Citizens' Organizations, and Rural Dignity of Canada.

These are all very reputable groups. They were calling for clarity in airline advertising. That is what the transport committee endeavoured to do, even though I would not say the provisions made it all the way to that complete clarity that we are all seeking. What we had at the Senate level was the airlines then wading in and trying to water down the legislation by saying that it would be difficult for them to be honest, open and above board with the fees they are charging for airline tickets.

We in this corner of the House simply disagree, in the same way that we disagree with the price gouging we are seeing in the oil and gas sector and in the same way that we disagree with the whole range of consumer items where consumers are not protected by the Canadian federal government. We simply disagree that it is impossible to have clarity in advertising for airline fees, that the cost of the entire ticket somehow cannot be put forward. We simply disagree with that, which is why we are disappointed by the Senate bringing back these amendments that waters it down.

What essentially the Senate is saying is this: let us put it off to some uncertain date in the future and maybe some day in Canada consumers will actually know what the complete and total cost of their ticket is going to be when they purchase their airline ticket.

That is very clearly one area from the Senate that we simply cannot support. We want to see consumers protected. We want to see clarity and honesty in the whole issue of airline ticket costs. The Senate amendment is simply unacceptable and the House should reject it.

Another area that the Senate has amended is taking what was a higher bar around the issue of railway noise. We finally have a process, when Bill C-11 is adopted, for local communities such as the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster that are beset by excessive railway noise. We finally have a way by which those communities can fight back against the railways. They have tried dealing with the railways. Some of them have been good and some of them have been pretty rotten.

As a result of that, it continues to be a problem, with excessive railway noise in the early morning hours, excessive shunting and running of diesel engines all in an area where there is a wide variety of condominium and apartments within a few metres of the railway tracks.

Here is what the Senate did in regard to the requirement that the transport committee put into Bill C-11 to require railway companies to cause as little noise and vibration as possible and to set that bar fairly significantly high as far as what the requirements were of railway companies. The Senate simply imposed a standard of reasonableness.

Reasonableness is not a high standard. If the railway companies believe it is reasonable to shunt in the early morning hours because it is simply more profitable for them to do that, it is a defendable concept, but the concept that the transport committee put into the legislation was the concept of as little noise and vibration as possible. There is where there is a very clear disagreement between the two houses.

As little noise and vibration as possible would mean that railway companies would have to justify their shunting in the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster rather than shunting out in the Port Mann area where there are very few homes and where there is not that urban disruption of the environment. The running of diesel engines might be justified for a variety of reasons as being reasonable from the railway's point of view, but it does not mean that the railways are causing as little noise and vibration as possible.

What we have had is a step back. Even though I think it is fair to say that people in communities who are afflicted with this excessive level of railway noise are happy to see any movement forward, the Senate amendments water down an important bar that was set. That is why we will be rejecting this amendment as well. We hope that the Senate will simply agree that higher standards are the most important way to go as far as Canadians are concerned. This is not a small issue.

I am going to cite a community noise study that was done in the area of the member for Vancouver East. Daily average noise exposures at three monitoring sites near the railways in east Vancouver found that the 24 hour equivalent sound level was beyond the acceptable level of 55 decibels by an average of 10 to 15 decibels. In other words, the noise level was beyond the acceptable level in an urban environment. There is no doubt that in the port lands in east Vancouver the railway noise went far beyond those levels, by ten to 15 decibels, which is roughly twice as loud as the actual limit of 55 decibels that has been established by Health Canada and the CMHC.

It is important to note that the noise monitoring found that railway noise continued, to quote from the report, “largely unabated through the nighttime hours, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.”. That is a problem in east Vancouver and I can tell members that it is a problem in New Westminster as well. We are seeing the shunting and the running of diesel engines right through the night.

At the transport committee, NDP members called for very strict limits as one of a whole series of amendments that we brought forward to improve the legislation. During the evening hours and overnight hours, we suggested that railways be restricted to the type of activities they could do in urban areas. Their shunting would have to take place in more rural or removed areas, away from urban areas, and they would be restricted in the type of high noise level that we are hearing now.

Those are our reasons, what I think are two powerful reasons. There is the issue of making sure that we have clarity, openness and accountability around airline fees and that this is brought in as quickly as possible, not set off for some future agenda. We want to make sure that there is a high level of requirement for the railway companies to make as little noise as possible, that they have to meet that requirement rather than what we have now, which is essentially no process at all. To say that we are subjecting it, as the Senate would have us do, to what is reasonable from a railway point of view, is simply not on.

While I have a few more minutes, I would like to talk a bit more about some of the other amendments to Bill C-11 that were brought forward by the NDP at the transport committee. It is important to raise those issues with respect to what could have been in the bill and what is not.

One of the things in Bill C-11 that both the governing party and the Liberal Party brought forward was that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency must come from the national capital region. In fact, there now is a requirement in the legislation that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency, who have an important role to play as mediators in many aspects of this legislation, have to come from the national capital region. What the NDP submitted as an amendment was that each of the regions of Canada, for example, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia, be represented because of the difference in geography and the difference in transportation requirements from coast to coast to coast.

We think it is extremely important that the regions be represented. People from Ottawa should not be making decisions about transportation policy or mediation in British Columbia. Simply put, British Columbia has different and often very rigorous transportation requirements. It does not make sense, then, to have these members sit in Ottawa. It is important to note that the amendment was refused and that all of the members of the Canadian Transportation Agency have to live in Ottawa. That is unfortunate.

I spelled out why we are rejecting the Senate amendments and we certainly hope that members from all four corners of the House will join with us, so that we can have essentially a better Bill C-11 that goes back to the Senate once we have rejected their amendments.

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, even though my presentation will be split in half, with the time approaching 9 o'clock, I will try to get some NDP points across before we terminate this evening. I will come back tomorrow to talk more about Bill C-11. I am not sure that will interest the Conservatives in the room because I have to be critical about this one step forward and two steps back. This is the nature of the way Conservatives tackle transportation policy.

Bill C-11 makes some modest improvements in some areas, and I will come back in a moment to what the Senate has done to diminish those improvements.

At the same time as we are moving forward with C-11 and the Senate amendments, the government is now pushing Bill C-6, which will diminish airline safety in Canada, by handing over responsibility to the companies themselves. Some of these companies will handle it well, while other companies, as testimony very clearly showed, will not handle it in a responsible way. The government, unfortunately, is proceeding along the same path as the Liberals did by diminishing the type of air safety that Canadians want to see. I will have a chance to talk about that issue later.

I will come back to Bill C-11. The bill is disappointing because even though it does make some modest progress in a number of areas, it could have gone much further. The NDP offered up dozens of amendments to strengthen the bill, some of which we were able to get through and some of which were rejected by the Conservatives and Liberals on committee.

The bill provides more honesty around airfares, something for which Canadians have been calling. Canadians are sick and tired of the manipulation they see around airfares and incomplete airfares being advertised. Bill C-11 does provide some modest framework around how airfares can be advertised.

This is one of the elements that was attacked by the other House. It is deplorable to the NDP that even though the provisions were modest, they could have been improved, but we see a step backward as the Senate amendments come back to the House.

There are some provisions in the legislation for shippers. Hopefully, other provisions for shippers will be contained in Bill C-58, which will be coming forward in the House. It is, by no means, as far as the government could have gone, and it is disappointing. We have taken one step forward, yet we see steps back in other areas.

There is finally a process in place for railway noise, and this is very welcome. As we saw under 13 years of Liberal government, nothing was done to address important issues for Canadians. Railways make excessive noise in urban communities.

We heard testimony from Mayor Wayne Wright of my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. Brian Allen, who is a resident of Westminster Key, is a very strong activist for diminishing railway noise. The citizens of Westminster Key are constantly subjected to excessive railway noise. They provided some valuable input to the committee.

The NDP put forward amendments that would have provided a strict framework for railway companies so they could not make excessive noise in the evening and overnight, particularly when there are shunting yards in the area of the Lower Mainland, away from urban areas, in Port Mann. We offered those amendments after that valuable input from some of the citizens of New Westminster. We were able to incorporate some but not all of those improvements.

We have a step back with the Senate amendments. The Senate wants to take us backward to a time when railway companies could essentially prove reasonableness in their level of noise in urban communities, as opposed to what the transport committee actually came up with, which required railway companies to cause as little noise and vibration as possible.

We had modest improvements. We at least had a process finally in place after many years of the Liberals ignoring the issue. The committee put forward modest improvements, and the NDP wanted to go much further. The modest improvements have been thrown away and now the bill is back in the House.

As parliamentarians, we have to take a stand against those Senate amendments. They water down what were modest improvements in Bill C-11 in necessary areas, areas that we had to attack, areas that Canadians looked for redress for some time, yet they were dealt with only partially.

I believe my time is up for this evening, but I look forward to coming back to this issue tomorrow.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it might have been better if the hon. member for Victoria asked me a question, like the one she asked the Liberals, because her question surely would have been technical on the substance of the matter. After criticizing the insignificance of the Liberals and the debate, and the inability of this party, or at least the representative who spoke to us about the substance of the bill, I find it somewhat sad that the member from the NDP is doing the same thing and changing the subject, when he rose on a point of order a few minutes ago just to say that the hon. member was changing the subject and talking about something unrelated. That is what he is doing right now: by asking his question, he is displaying partisanship and talking about other things. He knows full well that I can talk to him about the budget and the billions of dollars Quebec got because of our hard work on the fiscal imbalance. And we will continue to work hard because this issue is not resolved.

He knows full well that I can talk to him about the softwood lumber agreement. We did nothing but listen to Quebec unions, Quebec companies and Quebec employees who told us that even though the Conservatives negotiated a bad sellout agreement, we had to support it as a matter of survival. We only listened to our people. He knows full well that I can account for that. What I find too bad is that he knows that I am capable of responding to all these questions on Bill C-11. In my opinion, he could have found something intelligent to ask me on the subject at hand, instead of giving in to the same pathetic game that his Liberal and Conservative colleagues were playing a few minutes ago.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was beside the hon. member when he was speaking of the manner in which the Senate has distorted Bill C-11. I can only agree with him on this point. However, I do not quite share his viewpoint when he states that the Bloc Québécois is the only party that represents Quebeckers. I can provide two examples.

First, thousands of jobs have been lost in Quebec because of the softwood lumber agreement. Yet the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this agreement, thus going against the interests of its citizens who depend on softwood lumber in their communities. The Bloc knew very well that they were effectively handing over its sovereignty in the forestry sector to Washington and the Bush administration. Nevertheless, the Bloc voted for this agreement which resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs in the forestry sector even though we had already won in the International Court of Trade.

Then, in yesterday's vote on the budget, the Bloc Québécois supported the Conservative government and voted in favour of a budget that does nothing for middle-class Quebeckers. I understand its views on Bill C-11. However, I do not agree with how it voted on the softwood lumber agreement and the budget.

My question is straightforward. If the Bloc was right about Bill C-11, why did it let down Quebeckers by voting for the Conservative budget and the softwood lumber agreement?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak for 10 minutes and he mentioned at the outset that he was speechless. Some of us perhaps wish that he had been speechless.

Aside from talking about shaking people down to pay his leadership debt, I did not hear one substantive comment about such an important issue relating to the Railway Safety Act or the Canada Transportation Act. If he has not read the act and understand the content of it, then he might have been interested in talking about the need for a rail transportation act in Canada.

Perhaps everything that he could say in answering this question could be covered in 15 seconds. I wonder if he would enlighten the House by talking substantively about Bill C-11.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to answer this question.

Yes indeed, this legislation clearly states the obligation of railways with respect to noise and vibration. The agency certainly has jurisdiction there. I would suggest the member contact it.

I would like to deal with my colleague's first comment about the Liberals putting legislation forward similar to this bill, which they did, but it took seven years and they did not get it passed.

I am proud to stand in the House today. Bill C-6, Bill C-11 and Bill C-3 were all on the order paper for seven years under the previous Liberal government and none of them passed. All three have now passed. Bill C-6 was passed by committee a couple of days ago. We are very proud of this government's initiative. In less than 18 months, three bills have been put forward that were never passed by the Liberals.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to support the amendments to Bill C-11 that the Senate passed and to explain why as well.

Bill C-11 primarily amends the Canada Transportation Act. The Senate amendments affect two provisions of C-11: one regulating railway noise and vibrations and one regulating airfare advertising. I will deal first with the so-called “noise” provisions.

The noise provisions give the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to resolve disputes related to railway noise and vibrations. This is a great thing for Canadians. It has been hailed from Quebec through to the Atlantic provinces and all the way to British Columbia. A lot of people are looking forward to these amendments and that is why this government is moving forward with this agenda.

The agency used to adjudicate disputes related to noise vibrations and other nuisances. However, in December 2000 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the agency did not, that is correct, did not have the jurisdiction in such matters. As a result of that, it takes this government to bring clarification to the issue and Bill C-11 reinstates the agency's authority in this regard.

The amendments passed in the Senate deal with two elements that are at the heart of the noise provision. The first is the obligation that railways must live up to it and, indeed, the factors that are taken into consideration with respect to this obligation. There is also a coordinating amendment to the section that gives the agency the authority to hear a complaint and order corrective action, if warranted.

Bill C-11, as originally tabled in the House of Commons, proposed to add section 95.1 to the CTA. This section required that when constructing or operating a railway, a railway company “must not cause unreasonable noise”. It also specified three factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether or not this standard had been met. These factors include: the railways' level of service obligations under sections 113 and 114 of the act; the railway's operational requirements; and the area where the operation or construction takes place.

Members should take note of the third factor, the area where the operation or construction takes place, because I will be dealing with that.

Section 95.1 was amended based on recommendations from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the amendment consisted of three main elements. First, it extended the agency's authority to vibrations as well as noise. This is very important. As we are aware, people who live next to railways must deal with the constant vibrations of idling engines.

Second, it changed the railway's obligations from “not causing unreasonable noise” to “cause as little noise and vibration as possible”.

Third, it added a new factor, the potential impact on persons residing on properties adjacent to the railway. Coordinating amendments were also made to section 95.3 to reflect these changes.

Section 95.3 authorizes the agency to hear complaints and order the railway to take corrective measures. As I noted earlier, the Senate amendments change the obligation that is imposed on the railways. Under the Senate amendments, a railway “shall cause only such noise and vibration as is reasonable”.

In addition, the Senate dropped the factor that was added by the transport committee, the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway. I do not want anyone to get upset at that because we feel we have covered that in other amendments and with the original text. Coordinating amendments were made to section 95.3.

The government supports the Senate amendments for various reasons. It establishes an obligation based on “reasonableness” and, as all members of the House know, reasonableness is found in many sections of the law and many acts throughout this country. In fact, this is the same concept that was reflected in the original Bill C-11.

The concept of reasonableness, as I said, is found in hundreds and hundreds of acts and has been judicially interpreted on countless occasions, so there is no question as to what judges will do once they find the issue of reasonableness as coming into consideration. These interpretations make an obligation based on “reasonableness” a lot easier to understand and circumscribe than one based on “as little as possible”, which has very limited use in federal legislation.

The expression “least possible noise” was used in Bill C-26 in 2003, a predecessor of Bill C-11. It was changed in the next version of the bill in 2005 to reflect the notion of reasonableness because this is a concept that is used consistently in Canadian legislation.

Furthermore, it is a concept that the agency must apply on a daily basis. That is correct, on a daily basis. There are over 30 references to the word “reasonable” or “unreasonable” in the existing Canada Transportation Act.

A review of the agency's previous decisions on noise complaints clearly indicates that the agency applied the concept of reasonableness in rendering its decision. It is a concept with which the agency is very familiar and of course judges are familiar with it. In conclusion with respect to this, an obligation based on “reasonableness” is preferred to one based on “as little as possible”. That obviously makes sense.

The government also supports the Senate's amendment that drops “the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway” when determining if a railway is fulfilling its obligations. This is very important but it is already included in the act.

The “area where the operation or construction takes place” will remain as one of the three factors. I will repeat that because it is very important: the area where the operation or construction takes place. The government believes that this factor is broad enough to include the impact on persons living in homes or apartments adjacent to the railway. It is inconceivable that the agency would not take this into consideration.

Finally, the government supports the coordinating amendment to section 95.3 which brings the section into line with the amended language in section 95.1.

The amendments to the Canada Transportation Act passed by the Senate also affect air transportation.

This is such an important bill. That is why we are so happy to have some of our friends from the opposition support us on this endeavour.

Bill C-11 will improve protection for air travellers by requiring the agency to prescribe regulations on airfare advertising. The guidelines and objectives of the government regarding airfare advertising are clearly set out in legislation and will assist the agency to develop adequate regulations.

In the version of this bill tabled by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in May 2006, the provision on airfare advertising indicated that regulations may be developed by the agency “on recommendation of the minister”. The bill was subsequently amended following testimony before the standing committee last fall removing this particular stipulation and was adopted by the House on February 28.

Earlier in May the Senate committee on transport and communications heard from a number of witnesses from the air and rail industries. The committee supported the amendments regarding airfare advertising that were adopted by this House. That was good.

However, the committee also felt strongly that this particular provision should come into force at a later date, one determined by the governor in council. This is reflected in the amendment to the bill, a new clause 64, relating to the coming into force of the airfare advertising provisions.

The Senate committee was of the view that further consultation should take place between government, the airline industry and other interested parties, such as consumer advocacy groups in Canada, before advertising regulations are developed by the agency.

Very clearly we consult stakeholders on a continuous basis. We make sure that we listen to them and act on their suggestions.

The government agrees that additional consultations across Canada will help to ensure on a consistent and timely basis that all information and views are received and the development of the regulations would take into account the views of all stakeholders, as we usually do on this side of the House.

This government wishes to ensure that consumers are offered clear choices, so that they know what they are buying before they buy it, as it relates to advertising of air travel by airlines. The government is very aware of consumers' concerns that airfare advertising be clear, transparent and not at all misleading to consumers. Consumers have told us on a consistent basis that they want to be able to compare different airlines' advertised prices and to know up front how much they will pay for any air service that they wish to buy.

The additional time for consultation and review will be well used. We believe that these new amendments are excellent.

In closing, I urge all members to support Bill C-11 as amended by the Senate. Stakeholders were first consulted on amendments to the CTA in the year 2000 and after seven years they are very anxious for this bill to be passed, preferably before the summer recess.

I have one more point that is very important. This bill provides for a one time adjustment to the grain revenue caps. That is expected to save western farmers $2 per tonne, or more than $50 million per year. This government is standing up for farmers. Any delay to the passage of this bill will preclude the farmers from getting this money. We support this bill and we would hope that all other members come forward and support it as well.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government, in proposing this motion today, has chosen once again to maintain its habitual lack of consultation and reluctance to attempt a collaborative approach to organizing the business of the House.

On more than one occasion, as I think the Chair will remember, I asked directly whether the government intended to make use of Standing Order 27. As other House leaders can confirm, the reply was, “probably not”. I do not think we would be off base in the opposition in expecting that if that were no longer the case, if the government had in fact changed its mind, that it would have decently given us a heads-up that it was going to propose this motion today, at least given us that notice some time earlier than around one o'clock this afternoon.

Frankly, as we saw the government House leader making his travels across the floor of the House, I will not say where he went, the heckling and yelling as he departed the chamber obviously indicates the kind of demeanour of which we have to deal.

I do not see what there is on the order paper at present that this motion will get through the House any more quickly than would have otherwise been the case. I presume, judging by the government House leader's remarks, that the government is principally concerned with Bill C-52, the budget bill.

It has represented to the House and to the public that the government is now extremely concerned the bill will not receive royal assent in time for certain expenditures to be booked in the appropriate fiscal year. Let us be clear. The fiscal year the Conservatives are talking about is 2006-07, and that is the point.

The issue is retroactive fiscal bookings for the last fiscal year, not the future fiscal year, as members would have gathered from the remarks of the government House leader. If there is concern about the lateness of the date, the government really has only itself to blame.

Usually federal budgets are delivered in or about the third week of February, which then permits the introduction of a budget implementation bill by the end of that month. If things are properly managed, this would permit the bill to be in committee before the end of March and to be passed at all stages by the end of May or, at the very latest, the beginning of June.

This year the government chose, for its own partisan reasons, to delay the budget until the third week of March. We did not even see it until then. Then it unilaterally interrupted the budget debate. Then having finished that, belatedly, it interrupted, again, the second reading debate on the budget implementation Bill C-52. That interruption lasted for three full weeks, getting the bill to committee only in the middle of May.

As a consequence, the government then bulldozed the bill through the committee, breaking procedural agreements, denying many interested and informed citizens and groups the right to testify on the bill. Let it be clearly understood that any procedural issue on Bill C-52 is a direct result of government breaking the agreement on the process, which had been fully settled by members of the committee.

Nevertheless, the bill is now only in its third day of debate at third reading and there is every indication that the third reading and final stage would come to an end in debate in the House by the end of business tomorrow at the latest.

It is important to underscore what these dates are with respect to the budget. Remember that the House resumed in the final week of January. The budget was not presented to the House until March 19, fully eight weeks into the parliamentary sitting. That was followed by a ways and means motion and the introduction of the budget bill, but that was delayed because the government interrupted its own budget debate on the financial principles of the government.

Its budget was late, the budget debate was unilaterally delayed by itself and then it finally got around to introducing the budget bill on March 29, which was debated at second reading for the first time on March 30. It was then debated in a haphazard, sporadic fashion, brought forward to the floor by the government, until April 23, and then it was hoisted altogether. The House did not see it again until May 14, full three weeks later.

Finally, it went to the committee, not as a result of any filibuster by the opposition or any party in the opposition. The delay was entirely the procedural mismanagement of the government. It was there for less than two weeks and one of those weeks was a break week when Parliament was not even sitting.

It finally passed through the committee, rather expeditiously, thanks to the cooperation of the opposition, and it was brought back to be debated at report stage on June 4. For how long? One day, that is all the report stage took. Now it is at third reading where there have been three days of debate, and probably a conclusion could have been arrived at very easily by the end of the day tomorrow.

This is why I made the point at the beginning of my remarks that there really is nothing on this order paper that could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of business without the measure the government House leader has introduced. Obviously it is a tactic to blame the opposition for the delays that lie entirely within the control of the government.

What is it then? If it is not Bill C-52, what is it that causes the government to move the motion today? Despite frequent requests for the government to outline its realistic legislative priorities before the summer, all we have heard repeatedly from the government House leader and from others on the government's side is a flow of partisan rhetoric. Legislation has in fact been moving along through the House and through committees, despite the government's erratic management of its agenda.

In fact, the most controversial bill on the order paper, and this is what gives me perhaps a little hope here, is probably Bill C-30, the clean air act, as it has been revised by members of Parliament. Significantly, only the government has been stalling it up to now. However, now we will have some extra time, some extra hours of sitting every day beginning on Wednesday.

Can we then conclude that the extra time the government is seeking is to facilitate the work of the House in consideration of Bill C-30? I certainly hope so. It is in this fervent hope that I indicate to the House that my party, the official Liberal opposition, will support the minister's motion for the extension of hours.

In the time available, in addition to Bill C-52, which will probably be done tomorrow, and in addition to Bill C-30, which I hope the government has the courage to recall and put before the House once again, the official opposition also looks forward to making progress on Bill C-11, lowering freight rates for farmers, on Bill C-14, dealing with foreign adoptions, on Bill C-23, dealing with criminal procedure, on Bill C-29, dealing with Air Canada and the use of official languages, on Bill C-35, dealing with bail reform, on Bill C-47, dealing with the Olympic, on Bill S-6 and Bill C-51, dealing with land claims and on Bill C-40, the private member's legislation that would provide free postage for mail from Canada to our troops in Afghanistan.

Then there is an item that was referred to in question period today. This is the bill we are anxiously awaiting to see, the one dealing with wage earner protection. I hope the government will follow through on the commitment given in question period, that it will table the bill in amended form so it can be passed at all stages and brought into law before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.

Let me mention one other matter, which is outstanding and which should be dealt with by the House, or at least dealt with by the government when the House is sitting. This is the examination undertaken a few weeks ago by Mr. Brown in connection with the matters that have been of great concern to Canadians in respect of the RCMP pension fund.

As we understand it, there is a report due from Mr. Brown on June 15. That was the original undertaking given by the Minister of Public Safety. It would be very important for us to know that the examination is on time, that we will hear from Mr. Brown on time, and that the Minister of Public Safety will take the step that he promised to take and make that report public immediately.

Perhaps the government might also consider, in whatever time that remains before the summer recess, reforming its approach to the mood in the House. The mood could be improved if the government would refrain from certain of its more hostile practices. For example: no more gratuitous attack ads, no more broken agreements on how witnesses will be heard, no more manuals about dirty tricks for disrupting parliamentary business, and no more devious games to misuse Standing Orders of the House. A little good old fashioned good faith could change the mood for the better.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Wednesday June 13, 2007, and concluding on June 21, 2007, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that can be made one day a year, not on Christmas Day or Ground Hog Day, but this day, the 10th sitting day before June 23. It is a motion that can be made to allow the House to sit late into the evening.

I know that many members, when they look at that portion of the calendar and they see possible extension of sitting hours, they think that means we get to leave early for summer vacation, but that is not what it means. What it means is that under the Standing Orders of the House we can potentially sit and work late to get as much of the people's business done as possible because there are very important priorities for Canadians.

I will bear my soul here and say that it was not always my intention to move this motion. It was my hope that it would not be necessary. I was hoping that we would be making good progress.

For example, Bill C-52 in particular, the budget implementation bill was a bill which we believed we had an understanding with the other parties; in fact it had been shaken on by the member for St. Catharines, the member of the Liberal Party for Scarborough and others that it would be over to the Senate by June 6. Somewhere along the way the Liberal Party sought to treat it a little bit differently and as a result we are still debating it here almost a week later than the date we thought it would be over at the Senate. As a result of course we have lost considerable time to deal with other priorities for Canadians.

I want to talk about what those other priorities for Canadians might be, but first I want to focus on that number one priority which is Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill. As we have heard from many people in the House today, if that bill does not pass by the time the House rises for the summer, if that bill has not been dealt with, there are a number of financial priorities on issues that are very important to Canadians that will be lost, because it is a bill that reaches back to the previous fiscal year to spend funds. Those funds have to be allocated. The bill has to be passed and receive royal assent in order for those funds to be available in that fashion. If not, they are lost.

Some of those examples are ones which we have heard about today. The one that is at the top of my personal list is the $620 million in the budget for the patient wait times guarantee trust. This is money that is allocated to assist provinces in addressing what is one of our number one priorities—actually one of our top five priorities; I should put it that way—from the last election. That priority is to achieve a patient wait times guarantee, to help people get the kind of health care they need on a basis that is reasonable, that is practical, that is clinically sound.

For too long we saw patient wait times under the previous government actually double in length. We have this much vaunted Canadian health care system that we all purport to believe in, but if we really believe in it, we have to see that it works. An important part of it working is that Canadians should receive the health care that they need on a timely basis. That is what the $612 million is specifically aimed at.

The provinces are very anxious to receive these funds. It means a great deal for a lot of provinces. In my own province of Ontario that means $200 million plus of real money that Ontario needs for its health care system. The same thing, together with other elements, will mean for the province of Nova Scotia for health care $639 million including the transfer there. There is similar money throughout the country.

We are talking of significant funds. There are other elements in the budget. Much of that transfer will not be lost, as I said, because it is in the main budget funds, but the patient wait times guarantee money, that $612 million, is money that will be lost if we do not deal with that on a timely basis.

Another one that is very important is the $1.5 billion for the clean air and climate change trust. That is to help the provinces implement their plans to reduce greenhouse gases. It is very important.

On January 4 of this year, the Prime Minister addressed Canadians and identified what our priorities would be in government this year. One of those major priorities was to take real action on the environment. We have just seen that at the G-8 summit. In the summit declaration Canada's approach is an approach that is drastically different than it was for 13 years under the previous government when greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically regardless of the commitments it took on. Now we have a national plan that results in real reductions, an actual plan that does that in both the short and medium term but also very importantly in the long term.

It is that approach by the Canadian government that was hailed as an example not just by world leaders, by other G-8 leaders, but by journalists from around the world, by special interest groups. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, issued a statement heralding Canada's approach as a model. The reason it is held out as a model and an example is it is an approach that can be used regardless of how lousy one's track record may be. This is important for a lot of the major emitters that had not been part of the arrangements up until now or did not have obligations under Kyoto to implement, major emitters like China, India, Brazil and the United States, to get them to the table and realize that if we are going to take on the challenges of addressing greenhouse gas emissions and turning around the risk of climate change and what it can potentially do to our world, we are going to have to take action in the long term. That is the approach of Canada that is being held as a model.

An important critical component of that approach is to engage and involve the provinces and ensure that they have in their hands the resources they need to be able to deliver. A big part of that is that $1.5 billion of ecotrust money, the clean air and climate change trust money. I underline that if we do not get Bill C-52 passed in time, that money will be lost.

This is where the delay and obstruction that the Liberal Party in particular has been conducting has been very harmful to the interests of Canadians who care about the environment, and in fact even those who do not care about the environment, because even if people do not care about it, it does affect them. It is important for all Canadians that they have that healthy environment.

Another example of the money that could be lost if Bill C-52 is not approved, if the Liberal obstruction is successful, is the $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway project. This is state of the art technology so that people can have better health care, taking advantage of technology to improve our health care system. This is something that is very important for the provinces to be able to deliver on the health care for Canadians, for their residents. Again if the Liberals are successful in their delay and obstruction plan this is something that will be lost if the bill is not dealt with and does not receive royal assent in the near future.

There is another one that is of particular of interest to me because it does affect residents in my part of Ontario. In fact the announcement was made in York region where I live and where my constituency is. That is the $225 million to protect endangered spaces, working in conjunction with groups like the Nature Conservancy of Canada to acquire sensitive lands that otherwise might be lost to development, or if not to acquire them, to put in place the kinds of conservation easements to ensure that they will be protected in their natural state for the foreseeable future, for as long as our legal regime remains in place, which is basically for as long as life continues as we know it. That money is very important but that money and the potential to protect those endangered lands will be lost if we cannot get the budget implementation bill passed in the appropriate time.

I also want to talk about the $30 million going to the Rick Hansen Foundation. Rick Hansen is the man in motion, a great Canadian who rolled his wheelchair around the world. He is a very strong personality and a great activist for his cause of spinal cord research. He suffered an injury but he showed that it did not hold him back and he did his around the world tour. I think it was in 1984 when he started his tour, which was an inspiration to all of us. The ongoing work of the foundation from the money he raised then is important. There is $30 million that we would like to see dedicated to that foundation. That $30 million would be lost if the Liberals have their way and they delay and obstruct this bill past the deadline we are dealing with.

For all of those reasons, the budget implementation bill is very important, not just because we want to see it passed, and that is a good reason, but there are actual, real consequences with a ticking clock, because of the fact that a significant amount of the funds are anchored in the previous fiscal year before March 31. That means we have to pass it before the books are closed. Basically we have to get royal assent. We have to get it all the way through before the folks here on Parliament Hill go home to their ridings for the summer. In order to do that, we want to see the potential to deal with this bill for as long as we need to.

I might add that we had hoped to be debating many other bills but the Liberals have chosen to delay this budget implementation bill in every way possible and for as long as they can, as we have seen in the House today and as we saw last Friday and so on. We have tried other measures to speed things along but they have stepped in to block them every time.

The other important bill that we need to deal with is Bill C-23, a Criminal Code amendment. Our justice agenda is very important, and Bill C-23 is a bill to update the Criminal Code provisions. It has come back to the House from committee and it is now at report stage. We would like to deal with that quickly but we will need some time in the House.

Similarly, we are expecting to see Bill C-11 on transport come back from the Senate with amendments. We will need to see whether this House agrees with those amendments or not. Bill C-11 is an important bill that has been around a long time, as members can see by the number, and we have been waiting for about a year to deal with it.

We also have Bill C-31, the election integrity bill. It is in the Senate and the Senate has indicated a desire to make some amendments to the bill. We and, I think, all parties would like to see that bill in this place, or at least three of the parties in the House would. The bill was amended at committee and we, as the government, accepted the amendments proposed by the Liberals and the Bloc.

Unfortunately, the Liberals in the Senate had a very different view of how the bill should work from the Liberals in the House of Commons. The Liberals in the Senate are actually getting rid of the House of Commons Liberal amendment on how to deal with the lists and the disclosure of information to political parties. They actually changed it to a position that was identical to what the Conservatives had originally proposed at committee.

As a result of the Liberals in the Senate deciding that they do not agree with the Liberals in the House of Commons, it means that we as the House of Commons need to deal with that bill one more time once the Senate has dealt with it.

We are waiting for that little ping-pong game between the Liberals in the Senate and the Liberals in the House of Commons to come to an end. When it does end, hopefully we can achieve a resolution on which we can all agree to ensure that future elections will proceed with a greater degree of integrity and probity, something that is very important to all parties and all members of this House.

Another bill that has come back after a long stay at committee is Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act, a very important bill on health matters and something we would like to deal with.

I know of one bill that the opposition House leader, the member for Wascana, has been very generous in showing a willingness to fast track and deal with very quickly and we are hoping to have it at report stage in the House very soon. I think we are in a position where we can do that very soon. I know other parties want some level of scrutiny so the very generous offer of the opposition House leader was one that we took up, but not everybody did. We can seek to get it passed through as many stages as possible in the House as quickly as possible. The bill I am talking about is the one dealing with Olympic symbols. I would like to see it dealt with on the House of Commons side and then go to the Senate.

That is an important bill for the folks who are putting together the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver. It is important because it deals with copyright, trademarks and the like. We all know how challenging it is to put on these kind of games in this day and age and the ability to protect copyrights, to deal with merchandise and to generate that revenue to support the athletes, the games and the legacy venues that will be constructed as a result of that is important to the people who are involved, whether it be the athletes, the organizers or the people in those communities who will benefit from the legacies.

We are also waiting on other bills, such as Bill C-51, the Nunavik Inuit land claims, and Bill C-59 on video piracy. Bill C-59 was just introduced but the newspapers are saying that it is an important bill because it would create some meaningful consequences for people who engage in the illegal video taping of major films with the ultimate objective of putting them on the black market to sell them illegally without the copyright rights to it. That is something that has been hurting the film industry.

In places like Vancouver and Toronto, in fact all across the country, the film industry has become very important, but those places in particular. It is important that Canada maintains its credibility within that industry and that we support our artists and the people who give value to that intellectual property and that we show leadership as a country in protecting it.

In the future, as we move away from manufactured goods and products to the kinds of services that have more to do with intellectual property, we need to be seen as real leaders in that regard. As I said, media reports are suggesting that all parties actually support Bill C-59, which is why we would like to move it quickly.

Another bill that we recently introduced would support the Red Cross/Red Crescent in the adoption of a new symbol. We need to do that here in Canada through legislation because of a charter that exists. The bill would create an additional non-denominational symbol, which is the Red Crystal, that can be used through ratification of a treaty. If the Red Crescent symbol or the Red Cross symbol creates some discomfort with the local population, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society would be able to use the Red Crystal symbol as an alternate symbol, which is why as a country we need to recognize and ratify that it would have all the protections under the Geneva convention so that anyone would respect it. However, there would be consequences if people misused the symbol in trying to conduct an offensive military operation. The symbol would need to be used for the purpose intended, which is to protect and save lives in difficult scenes around the world.

All of the bills I have spoken about are on the House calendar. Some are in front of us and we would like to deal with them but others are still at committee.

I did not even speak to the first nations land management, which is a bill that was launched in the Senate.

We would like to see the passage of some bills that are still in committee and which we would like to see back from committee. We thought some would come back a little bit sooner, such as Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act. The committee has been doing clause by clause on Bill C-6 for almost a month now. I am glad to see that the committee is being that attentive but it is a bill that is important and we would like to see it.

The bill that I hope the committee deals with soon is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. I have spoken about the importance of justice and making our streets and communities safer. It was one of the five cornerstone priorities of the Conservatives when we ran in the last election. It was restated on January 4 by the Prime Minister as another priority.

I should acknowledge that we have had some good progress on getting some of those justice bills through the House but it was not easy. Some of them, like Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory penalties for gun crimes, stayed at committee. If one were to listen to politicians speak, one would think there is a consensus on the importance of mandatory penalties for gun crimes. Even the Liberal Party in the last election had that as one of its key elements in its platform.

However, when it came to committee, things were a little bit different. The Liberal Party actually gutted the meaningful parts of the legislation and it held up the legislation at committee for 252 days. Fortunately, that time is past and, thanks to the support of the New Democratic Party, we were able to put some teeth back into that legislation and make it meaningful. The legislation now contains some meaningful mandatory penalties for those gang members and crooks who want to terrorize our communities with guns and commit violent acts. They will face real consequences. When they commit an offence like that they will go to jail. There will be no more “get out of jail free” card and no more house arrest as a solution. They will actually serve real jail time for some of those offences. Where there already were mandatory penalties, they will be tougher and stronger mandatory penalities so that we can take real action.

I know these are important justice issues for Canadians, and that the gun legislation is a part of it, but the other bill that we are waiting for from committee is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. It is very easy to deal with impaired driving on alcohol right now because we have breathalyzers and standards. However, a much more difficult element is driving impaired through the use of other illegal substances, such as controlled or narcotic substances, or, in simple terms, drugs. People who use and abuse drugs and then proceed to drive a vehicle are just as impaired, if not more impaired, as someone who has consumed excessive alcohol. The consequences in terms of the risk to other drivers on the road are just as great. It can change the lives of a family if someone were to die or become injured. The lives of a family could be absolutely shattered when an accident occurs because of that kind of behaviour.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

Bill C-280—An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform on May 3, 2007 in relation to Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), standing in the name of the hon. member for Laval.

In his submission, the parliamentary secretary explained that Bill C-280 proposed to change the manner in which provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would come into effect. That act was amended in 2001 by Bill C-11, which contained a clause, clause 275, providing that:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

This sort of clause is frequently found in bills and is commonly known as the “coming into force clause”.

Some provisions of Bill C-11 have yet to be proclaimed by the governor in council. Bill C-280 proposes to have three such provisions, namely sections 110, 111 and 171 of the act, brought into effect immediately upon royal assent of Bill C-280, and not by way of proclamation to be determined by the governor in council.

The parliamentary secretary noted that the substantive effect of implementing sections 110, 111 and 171 of the act would be to establish the refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board and that this would entail significant new expenditures of an administrative nature. He then went on to explain that through its coming into force clause, Bill C-11 gave the governor in council the power to determine at what time the division would be created and the associated expenditures would be incurred.

The parliamentary secretary contends that by changing the coming into force of these sections of the act, the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation accompanying Bill C-11 are being altered. He read from citation 596 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which explains that the royal recommendation not only fixes the amount of an expenditure but also the way that it would be incurred.

He went on to cite two precedents from 1985 and 1986 to support his arguments that Bill C-280 should therefore be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

The Chair has examined the two precedents cited by the parliamentary secretary in support of his basic argument that an alteration in the coming-into-force provisions of a bill infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The first precedent, in 1985, concerns a report stage motion to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. The bill sought, among other things, to restrict to 90% the amount of loss sustained by the minister for loans made to small business enterprises after March 31, 1985. The report stage motion sought to maintain the existing law and make the minister liable for the full amount of the loss. On March 26, 1985, Mr. Speaker Bosley ruled the amendment inadmissible because it relaxed a condition of the royal recommendation.

The second precedent, in 1986, concerns an amendment put forward during consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The bill sought to allow the prepayment of a child tax credit in the following taxation year. The amendment would have permitted the prepayment during the greater part of the current taxation year. In ruling the amendment inadmissible on October 17, 1986, the chairman of the committee of the whole simply explained that the proposed amendment infringed on the royal recommendation.

While these precedents may be useful in understanding how programs may be limited or extended in their application, they do not assist us in better understanding the issue at hand.

The fundamental issue in the present case is whether the coming-into-force provision of an act which was originally accompanied by a royal recommendation can be altered without a new royal recommendation.

After considerable reflection on the matter, the Chair would present the situation as follows.

In 2001 Bill C-11 sought an authorization from Parliament to establish the refugee appeal division. As I see it, the action of setting up the statutory framework for the new division required that a royal recommendation accompany Bill C-11 because a new and distinct authority for spending was being requested.

As it happened, Bill C-11 also contained a coming into force provision which would allow the governor in council to decide when the refugee appeal division would be formally established. In the view of the Chair, it is very important to remember that even after the governor in council proclaims the establishment of the division, Parliament would still have to approve spending plans for its operations through the estimates and the subsequent appropriation act.

In this light, therefore, it appears to the Chair that the chief financial components which require a royal recommendation are: first, authorization for setting up the statutory framework for the refugee appeal division, duly provided by Bill C-11 with its original royal recommendation; and the operational funding to be sought in a future appropriation act where financial authority can be duly provided in the usual estimates process.

Although the proclamation of the coming-into-force provision will set into motion the establishment of the refugee appeal division, it should be seen as independent of the royal recommendation and not part of its terms and conditions.

Our rules and practices hold that coming into force clauses of bills have always been open to amendment and a vote. If we were to accept the argument that an alteration in the coming into force provision would somehow infringe upon the royal recommendation, then it should not be admissible for a committee or the House to negative or amend such a clause unilaterally. Such is clearly not the case.

Essentially, it is a question of timing. The royal recommendation originally attached to the bill applies, unaltered, to its provisions irrespective of the point in time at which such provisions come into force and, from a procedural standpoint, the alterations to the coming into force provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as expressed in Bill C-280, cannot be seen as infringing on the financial imitative of the Crown.

Consequently, Bill C-280 may proceed for debate and a vote at third reading.

I think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a question of privilege.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We're being non-partisan, so I just want to acknowledge that Mr. Jean and the minister recognize the fact that all that was old is new and good, because Bill C-6 and Bill C-11 passed thanks to the Liberal members around the table.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much for coming today, Minister. It's good to see you again.

I want to acknowledge the leadership that you and your department have taken on some of the safety issues. You addressed hopper cars early on, which is very important to our western farmers. Of course, Bill C-11 and railway noise are some things you have taken an active role on and that this committee has worked on. And I look forward to seeing your continued lead on shippers' issues, which will inevitably be coming up soon. I wanted to get my plug for that one in.

I know we've talked about the open skies policy and the lead you have taken on that, but I'd like to get your impression of the positive aspects I'm hearing from the airport authorities I deal with, particularly on issues like Edmonton. There is an enthusiasm for this agreement that they've not seen in years.

I'd like your comment on that, to start.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. Good afternoon, gentlemen.

I would like to put a brief question regarding the Canadian Transportation Agency. We made a long and careful study of Bill C-11 that will give extra powers to the Transportation Agency, powers that were asked for by many people. The extra powers have to do with noise in marshalling yards and various other nuisances, and the railway tracks that could be handed over to suburban transit authorities. I do not think that the bill has received royal assent yet, but it should come soon.

Therefore, I am expecting that the extra powers given to the Transportation Agency will be accompanied by extra funds so that it can act as promptly as possible once the legislation has been adopted.

Now, how do we explain this slight decrease in the budget of the Transportation Agency? Will there be more work for the same number of persons?

Canada Transportation Act

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at third reading stage of Bill C-11, the purpose of which is to amend the legislation governing transportation in the Canada Transportation Act.

When the bill was debated at second reading in September 2006, I said that the Bloc Québécois supported the principle of the bill, but that we would try to improve it when it was examined in committee. Well, that is what we did. The standing committee heard 37 witnesses and then did a scrupulous examination of the bill, clause by clause.

Of the 11 amendments moved by the Bloc Québécois, plus the amendments from the other parties, the result was that 21 amendments were adopted in the House at the report stage.

First, and in reply to my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, I would like to point out that, for the first time, the bill sets out the objective of protecting the environment in its declaration of principle. That is still a principle. I think that we are going to have to watch the present government closely when it comes to the actual application of that principle. In any event, it is in the declaration of principle.

With respect to the environment, I would like to refer to the issue of replacing old locomotives. Only about 30% of locomotives in current use meet environmental standards. I think that if the government is really serious about its bill, it will have to set up a program for replacing locomotives. That is only one example. My colleague was talking about the environment in areas around railway lines where there is contaminated land. Now that we have this declaration of principle, we will be able to force railway companies to decontaminate all of the rail lines that crisscross the country, from sea to sea, as you know.

My primary concern with this bill, as a member who represents a riding, was the whole section supporting the development of commuter trains.

Railed mass transit does offer a number of benefits. It is fast, reliable and comfortable and has little impact on the environment. It can be used to reduce our dependence on highway infrastructures that, in my opinion, disproportionately encourage the use of private vehicles, an ineffective solution for our transportation problems in major urban centres, in addition to having a negative impact on the environment. In that respect, the bill is consistent with its declaration of principle.

Under Bill C-11, big railway companies would be obligated to offer urban transit authorities unused railway lines that could be used for public transit. This is a first in the country—that urban transit authorities will be recognized, and recognized in an order of priority. The federal government will be offered those rail lines first, and the offer will then be made to provincial governments, and then to urban transit authorities, even before municipalities. That will all be done precisely to encourage the expansion of public transit in our large urban centres.

The bill will correct the existing situation, in which urban transit authorities are not on a level playing field in negotiations with the big railway companies. The plans they wanted to implement were either delayed, because of tough negotiations, or implemented at inflated operating costs because of the power imbalance.

In one of those amendments, we added that this obligation extends to the entire territory served by an urban transit authority, in addition to the metropolitan region that it already serves.

I want to mention the example of the Agence métropolitaine de transport de Montréal; the territory it serves now extends to Saint-Jérôme, which is outside the Montreal urban area but which is part of a large metropolitan area to be served by public transit.

This line was inaugurated just last month and has been a great success, reducing traffic on our beautiful highways, which are constantly blocked during rush hour.

I firmly believe that Bill C-11 will lead to more commuter trains, which many of our constituents badly need. I am thinking specifically of the people in my riding in the eastern part of Laval, who still do not have access to this efficient mode of transportation.

I hope that this bill will make it easier for the municipality to decide to introduce a commuter rail line in the eastern part of Laval, joining the municipalities of Terrebonne and Mascouche directly to the Concorde intermodal station of the Laval metro, which will be inaugurated soon. The Canadian Pacific rail line is available. This is an innovative solution, because the commuter rail line would stop at an intermodal station instead of going right downtown, making the decision to invest even easier. The commuter rail line will be the crowning touch to the city transportation authority's project to expand the Laval metro system.

The disturbances caused by current railway operations are another major concern for the Bloc Québécois and were debated passionately and at length during our discussions in committee and with witnesses.

Our constituents who live near marshalling yards are seeing their quality of life deteriorate unacceptably. Their pleas to the railway companies to solve the problem have fallen on deaf ears.

Several citizen groups came to tell us how distressed they were that there was no mechanism for negotiating with the railway companies.

Clause 95.1 of the bill, which seeks to correct this situation, originally read as follows:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise—

The witnesses, as well as the opposition members on the committee, including the Bloc Québécois members, felt that “unreasonable noise” was vague and open to interpretation, which could prevent disputes between operators and the public from being resolved. We felt that the Conservative government was giving the railways too much latitude, at the public's expense.

The Bloc Québécois decided instead to talk about “disturbances” resulting from the operation of a railway. Disturbances include noise, vibrations, emissions and anything else that can affect populations and individuals.

Further to our recommendations and with the support of the other parties, the amendment passed now reads:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible,—

This wording is more explicit and closes the door on any interpretation to which a company, having better lawyers than the citizens, might resort, since “as little noise and or vibration as possible” is an appeal to all the latest technologies that can be used to reduce such noise. This problem exists mainly in the marshalling yards. There are different engines on the market now that can lessen the noise of the coupling of rail cars with the engines. The agency can now propose all these solutions and impose them on companies to ensure there is as little noise and vibration as possible.

It is all very nice to have requirements in a bill, but they have to be enforced. To ensure this, a section provides that the Transportation Agency can issue and publish guidelines. To ensure the issuance of such guidelines, the Bloc Québécois proposed amending the section as follows:

The Agency shall issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines—

This amendment was then passed in committee.

Now, instead of the section saying that the Transportation Agency “can issue”, it says that the agency has an obligation to do so. All this is in response to the various representations made to us by citizens’ groups who asked us to establish specific guidelines or specific criteria respecting noise in particular. As you know, some municipalities have decibel criteria for the proximity of residences. The Transportation Agency now has to issue guidelines that can be imposed on the railway companies.

This bill also amends the Transportation Act in order to make air transportation advertising more transparent. This is another subject dealt with in the bill and it is important as well. The agency can now, on the minister’s recommendation, make regulations respecting advertising in all media, including on the Internet, of prices for air services. These measures will regulate the marketing of airplane tickets by giving the agency jurisdiction to make regulations respecting advertising surrounding such sales.

This is to deal with the exaggerations found in the media: they give a price but fail to say clearly that it is just one way and does not include all the airport and security taxes over and above the transportation costs themselves.

These changes reflect the demand of consumer groups that travellers should be adequately protected. These groups came to see us in committee and told us their concerns.

Bill C-11 replaces the old position of air travel complaints commissioner with increased powers for the Transportation Agency, which will deal now with air travellers' complaints.

We felt, though, that the complaint-resolution role that the bill conferred on the agency was not very clear. Bill C-11 states that if a person has made a complaint under any provision of this part, the agency, or a person authorized to act on the agency’s behalf, may review and attempt to resolve the complaint and may, if appropriate, mediate or arrange for mediation of the complaint.

In order to reassure us in this regard, the words “may review” were eliminated and replaced by “shall review”, in an amendment introduced at the report stage that has now passed.

In addition, consumers felt reassured by the complaints commissioner’s report because of the complete list it provided of the complaints filed. Although these complaints had not necessarily all been resolved, consumers felt reassured to know that at least the complaints had been publicly disclosed. We therefore added an amendment to the bill to ensure that the agency’s annual report will include the number and nature of the complaints filed, the name of the airline involved, how the complaints were dealt with, and the general trends that emerge. In response to consumer requests, the role previously played by the complaints commissioner was therefore transferred to the Transportation Agency.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the various political parties, both in the opposition and in the government, worked very well together on studying the bill and especially during our work in committee. We thought it obvious that the bill was providing solutions to problems that everyone in Canada has noticed.

The Bloc Québécois is therefore very much in favour of this bill and hopes that it passes as quickly as possible, especially as I can recall two previous versions introduced since February 2003 that never managed to be officially passed. We hope that this time, with everyone’s help including the Senate and the entire government, the bill will finally pass.

Both the constituents we consulted and the various commuter authorities urgently need this bill in order to fix the glaring problems that have gone on for far too long.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the Transportation Act amendments. I especially want to acknowledge the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for the tireless work he has done on this file.

The New Democrats will be supporting the bill but we continue to have some concerns. I know the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had proposed a number of amendments, not all of which were accepted at the committee level.

I have a couple of things that I want to speak to today, one which I know other members have spoken to, which is the issues around noise. Although the legislation before the House does provide some mechanisms to deal with noise complaints from individuals and communities, we will look to the process that has been put in place to see if it works. However, we continue to have some concerns that there should be stronger language. I might add that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had proposed some amendments but they were not supported.

Many of us in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, do have railway lines in our communities and the level of disruption that happens in our lives as a result depends on the size of the community.

I stayed in downtown Vancouver in a place that was right on the railway lines where there were a lot of sidings and a lot of noise from the various cars. I just do not know how people manage to maintain a life in that kind of chaos. However, we will look to see if what is in the legislation does actually improve the lives of people who live near railway lines. We are ever hopeful that will actually be the case.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster also proposed an amendment to another part of the legislation but it also was not supported by the Liberals or the Conservatives. Currently, the Canadian Transportation Agency has a requirement that its members live in Ottawa.

I come from British Columbia and we often hear people refer to the Rocky Mountains as “the granite wall”. We often feel that the voices from British Columbia are not adequately represented. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster had made some proposals that talked about balanced regional representation. Surely, in this day and age, there are mechanisms to ensure that regional representation is present. We know about teleconferencing. There are all kinds of ways that people can be adequately heard. It is very disappointing that the amendments around the regional representation were not supported. Perhaps at some point more work will be done in that particular area.

When rail lines are no longer being used for rail purposes it is important to have alternatives for the public good. On Vancouver Island, we have been working hard to ensure unused rail lines are kept in the public domain and used for bicycling paths and whatnot. This is an important public interest that needs to be protected.

The legislation did amend the ability to have urban transit authorities being included in the sequence of mandatory offers of railway lines to public authorities, and that is an important step. I would argue that we need to do much more in that respect. In many cases, it would be very difficult for that land to be made available to the public for the public good and if we do not protect that public good, it will be lost forever.

One of the things that was in this legislation was the grain revenue cap adjustment. It is timely to be talking about that given the importance of rail to western farmers. It also talks about how consultation happens in the context of important pieces of legislation that come forward. We are seeing a lack of appropriate consultation right now with the Wheat Board.

When we talk about things like the grain revenue cap adjustment, we would hope as always that the needs of the farmers and community members are adequately recognized.

With respect to the Wheat Board, single desk management has been such an important part of how farmers on the Prairies have functioned for many years. We would hope that their voices are heard so that they can continue to function in that way. A number of farmers were in Ottawa today to make sure that their case was heard and that the facts around what is happening with the plebiscite were understood by everybody. I hope that a more appropriate consultation process is put in place around the Wheat Board and other things that impact on our farmers.

One of the other issues is railway safety. It certainly has been a topic over the last few weeks. There was late-breaking news today about another derailment about two kilometres from Golden in Kicking Horse Canyon. Five cars went off the rails and spilled hydrochloric acid. My understanding is that one of the other cars contained sodium hydroxide. The school in that area has been closed as a precautionary measure.

That is the latest in a long line of problems in railway safety in Canada. Part of the problem is that the railway system has been self-managed. We have seen a cutback in the very important role the public sector plays in watching over that transportation sector to make sure it is as safe as possible.

In a speech given by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, he said:

In 2005 we saw the highest number of railway accidents in nearly a decade, much higher than the 10 year rolling average that existed before. We have seen an increase in railway accidents. We have seen, tragically, deaths in the Fraser Canyon this summer. We have seen environmental damage such as the Cheakamus Lake in the Squamish Estuary and Lake Wabamun in Alberta. We have seen consistently a greater number of railway accidents over the last few years. This is a matter of great concern.

The New Democratic Party has been pushing for the results of the CN safety audit and to date we have had no luck in getting those released to the public. We often hear lots of talk about accountability, transparency and openness. Surely this would be a good time to make that audit available to the public, especially in light of the number of derailments that have occurred recently.

Canadians value their railway system. They want it to be safe. They want their communities to be safe. Many of the railcars that go through communities contain chemicals that impact on the safety of community members. This was the case in today's incident. There have been spills that have killed the fish in rivers in British Columbia. From coast to coast to coast we value the health of our rivers. I would urge the government to release that audit so the public can know what the issues are facing CN Rail around safety.

One of the other issues is that there is no national transportation policy. One of the great things talked about in Confederation was our national railway. In a country as big as Canada it would seem important to have a national policy that shapes what we expect out of rail and air.

Overall this speaks to the lack of a number of national strategies. In the past I have called for a national forestry strategy. Members from Windsor have called for a national auto strategy. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has called for a shipbuilding strategy. It would seem that a national transportation strategy would only make sense. Yet in this day age, here we are in the 21st century and we still do not have those kinds of strategies.

Given that people are clothing themselves in green cloaks these days, it would make sense if we had a national transportation strategy that looked at the benefits of things like rail transportation. I have some stats here that talk about the benefits of rail transportation and how it positively impacts on our greenhouse gas emissions.

Regarding environmental benefits, the GO Transit website indicates that the average Toronto car carries only 1.16 people. One 10-car GO train carries the same number of people as 1,400 air polluting cars, and one bus can replace more than 50 cars. GO trip projects will provide additional capacity equivalent to 10 expressway lanes and will lead to the reduction of 1.1 million vehicle kilometres of car travel every day. That is significant.

Those of us who have driven in some of the major cities know about the congestion on the roads. When there are rail projects that would benefit us not only in terms of congestion but in terms of our air quality, surely that would be an area in which we could invest.

The Railway Association of Canada website talks about the fact that commuter trains generate about one-quarter as much greenhouse gas emissions as urban autos per passenger kilometre travel. There are others.The document “Rail Transit in America” has a substantial amount of information about the benefits of rail transit and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

It is even broader than just greenhouse gas emissions. A national transportation strategy potentially could have an impact on how we develop our cities. When we build these clusters that are serviced by rail, especially in large cities, we could substantially alter the way development happens and it could be much more environmentally friendly.

A national transportation strategy would provide us with the opportunity not only to look at what our transportation needs are but also to look at the benefits which would help us around development and the environmental impact.

Canadians have a great love affair with their railways and realize the importance around the heritage of railways, railway stations and bridges. The Kinsol trestle, one of the oldest wooden railway bridges in Canada, is located in my riding. Unfortunately, it was damaged by a fire a few years ago. We have discovered that although something has been designated as being a heritage, we have this wonderful railway bridge that is in desperate need of repair and there is no money to do it. Many Canadians are very proud of that rail heritage and yet we just do not have a mechanism to preserve it.

When we talk about a transportation strategy, this legislation deals with the fact that there is a mechanism to make sure that urban and other public authorities have access. We have a very good example of that on Vancouver Island. This is from the Island Corridor Foundation's website. The headline reads, “E&N line donated to Islanders”. It states:

The Age of Rail is being preserved on Vancouver Island with a donation valued at $236 million, say a group of municipal politicians and First Nations leaders.

In what the non-profit Island Corridor Foundation is calling a historic agreement, the Canadian Pacific Railway has agreed to hand over its Island rail assets to the foundation, a partnership of First Nations and local governments along the E&N line.

CPR is donating its portion of the 234-kilometre E&N, which averages 30 metres in width between Victoria and Courtenay, to the foundation. That encompasses 651 hectares of land, six historic railway stations and a number of trestles. The company is also supplying $2.3 million in “seed money” to help the foundation continue its work.

Later on in the release by the Island Corridor Foundation, it states:

VIA Rail continues to operate a passenger service on the E&N line, but has tried to shut it down several times, saying it's not a profitable venture.

[The] deal will help preserve rail service on Vancouver Island and keep E&N corridor available for such things as power lines, pipelines and hiking trails, foundation officials said. The ownership change will also allow more flexibility to deal with local concerns.

Priorities include:

Signing a deal to continue passenger rail service.

Upgrading the line.

Developing other proposals for the corridor, including a commuter rail service in the south.

The first section of the E&N line, between Esquimalt and Nanaimo, was built between 1884 and 1886. CPR bought it in 1905, and continued to operate on the Island until the late 1990s, when it decided there wasn't enough business to continue. RailAmerica later took over part of the line for a freight service.

Later on it says:

Also being discussed is the scope of rail service along the corridor and the establishment of a leasing arrangement with a company to run the service, said Lake Cowichan Mayor Jack Peake, the foundation's co-chair. A viable commuter rail service is one topic of discussion, he said.

He said the foundation wants to show what can be done with a grassroots rail service, and with the unique partnership that has been created among the five regional governments and 13 First Nations within the corridor area.

“I think one of the things [where] Canada is still lagging behind the rest of the world is recognizing the value that the railway corridors bring to this country that we live in,” Peake said.

This was also published in the Times Colonist in 2006. This is an example of community partners coming together. I am pleased that this piece of legislation gives some recognition to urban transit authorities and other pubic authorities. This is an example of how municipalities and first nations came together to preserve that railway corridor.

The east side of Vancouver Island is developing very rapidly. If that land had been lost, the opportunities to do some of the other proactive initiatives that the foundation is proposing would have been lost.

It is also an example of the national transportation strategy which the New Democrats have called for. It would make so much sense to have some incentives to encourage the use of existing rail lines for commuter traffic.

We have a passenger line right now. In the morning people in Victoria go north to Courtenay and in the evening they go south to Victoria. Anybody who lives on Vancouver Island understands that the commuter traffic actually goes south in the morning and north in the afternoon. If there were incentives to take some of those cars off the road and people had access to a commuter train from Chemainus and Duncan, and even from Nanaimo, as there are some people who drive from Nanaimo to Victoria for work, it would make sense. We need that kind of access and some incentives to encourage that kind of commuter transit.

That partnership is a really good example. Many in the House often talk about partnerships in a variety of areas. The Island Corridor Foundation is a non-profit organization that has built on these partnerships. One of the things the foundation talked about is that in part the partnership was driven by necessity. Its website talks a little about how it was founded:

When Norske announced that they would move their freight business to truck in 2002 there was considerable concern about the future of rail service on Vancouver Island. Without some significant intervention, it is likely that rail service would be abandoned and the property sold off in parcels to private interests, forfeiting the benefits of a continuous corridor forever.

Cowichan Tribes had the foresight to see the potential of what preserving the corridor and rail service could mean to First Nations. At the same time, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) saw the potential for Island communities. In an extraordinary collaboration between local government and First Nations, the two groups invited all interested parties to participate in two Roundtables on the Future of Rail on Vancouver Island to discuss the situation.

It indicates that this ended up in the formation of the Vancouver Island rail initiative. It mentions the ongoing collaboration that ended up in the formation of that charitable foundation. It has preserved this right of way for all Vancouver Island residents and I am pleased about that, but I also know that the organization needs funds in order to help it pursue its vision.

We will be supporting this piece of legislation. I would argue that we need to use it as a springboard to move toward developing a national transportation strategy and looking at incentives for things like rail travel because of, among other things, the environmental benefits.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11. I hope that this bill will be passed.

Earlier, I asked my Liberal colleague some questions. Things are not easy in this Parliament, particularly because of the very different approaches to development or to problems the public may be having. Too often, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have great plans, but neither of them solves people's real problems. Bill C-11 will try to offer a little salve for the wounds of people who are suffering all sorts of upsets because of railway company operations.

The railway industry is expanding rapidly and has undergone major technological changes. Although it provides a useful and increasingly profitable service, it imposes constraints on the neighbouring communities. This has gone on for years, as I said earlier.

The problems associated with the noise, vibration and odours generated by railway operations as a whole have existed for a long time and are becoming more serious with the development of new technologies.

The people listening to us—Quebeckers and Canadians—will understand that for reasons having to do with economies of scale, the way things are done in the railway industry has changed. For one thing, in the mid-1990s, coupling of locomotives and cars was done by human beings. Starting in the mid-1990s or early years of this century, human beings were replaced by remote coupling, which is done electronically or electrically.

Once this way of doing things was changed, once they wanted to achieve economies of scale by reducing the number of employees in switching yards, the problems associated with noise, vibration and odours became worse. This is done following Transport Canada's standards. As yet, there is no technology that would allow this to be done while making the least noise possible. Since the mid-1990s, many groups of people who live alongside switching yards have got together and formed associations to try to control the noise and odour pollution generated by the railway industry.

Wanting to limit problems for neighbouring communities does not mean being opposed to rail transportation. On the contrary, we want the rail industry to expand. Railway companies, like Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, make profits. While they had some problems during the 1980s and 1990s, I think that since that time they have paid their shareholders a very handsome return. In fact, it rises every quarter.

Phenomenal profits are being made. Profits like these had never before been made in the railway industry.

Pressure is being taken off the roads, and that can help combat greenhouse gases. We are aware of this. Rail transportation can limit greenhouse gases, because it reduces the number of trucks on the roads. It also imposes constraints, however.

Since 2000, that is, since the 37th Parliament, this House has been trying to solve the noise problem. The Liberals introduced Bill C-26. It was virtually an omnibus bill which addressed a number of problems in the railway, airline and other industries, and which made VIA Rail an independent corporation, a corporation with share capital. This could have helped it to expand. From the outset, the Conservatives were against expansion by VIA Rail, which could have engineered its own expansion and could have created VIAFast. Members will recall that debate. The Liberals were divided: there was the Chrétien clan and the clan led by the member for LaSalle—Émard. The result was division on Bills C-26 and C-44. Bill C-26, which was introduced in the 37th Parliament, never saw the light of day because of that division. In the 38th Parliament, Bill C-44 also failed to get passed.

Once again, the people who live near marshalling yards and suffer from the noise pollution and other by-products of the railway industry have not seen any improvement. This problem was buried in omnibus bills. One of the methods used by the Conservative Party in this 39th Parliament was to divide the previous Bill C-44, which was debated in the 38th Parliament, into three.

The Conservatives say now that they broke it up in order to speed things along, but they are concealing the real reason, which is that they wanted to remove everything that had to do with VIA Rail from Bill C-44.

The Conservatives have never wanted the railways to really develop. They did not want the railway companies to compete with airlines for passengers. That was their choice. They wanted to protect WestJet rather than help rail develop sufficiently, the kind of development that the Bloc Québécois has always supported.

It is very important for the transportation sector to become more competitive. Rail is healthy competition for the airlines. There is talk of a fast train, although not a high speed train, between Quebec and Montreal and Montreal and Windsor. The Bloc Québécois has always supported this vision. The Conservatives, though, divided up Bill C-44 because they did not want VIA Rail to become an independent corporation ensuring its own development or the famous VIAFast project to see the light of day, that is to say, a fast Quebec City-Montreal, Montreal-Windsor train. That is the real reason.

All the same, we would have supported an omnibus bill that included all of Bill C-44. We supported Bills C-44 and C-26 at the time, and now we support Bill C-11, which will deal once and for all with the noise pollution problem.

It is never simple. I use this example because, at the same time, the people listening to us will understand how Parliament works. It is never simple. Insofar as the noise issue is concerned, the Conservatives took it upon themselves to bring a bill forward that touches on this problem. However, there is not just noise pollution but also vibration pollution and fumes. There are all kinds of sources of environmental pollution.

During our discussions with the government about Bill C-44, we touched on these issues but were not successful because of the entire VIA Rail question, even though we were working on fixing the pollution problems. If we are going to fix them, let us really do it. But with government things are never as straightforward as that. We have to understand. The Conservatives have never had any vision of the future; it is always short-term. So they decided today to include noise pollution in Bill C-11. Like us, all my colleagues and all the citizens out there say that if they are going to fix the railway pollution problem, why not take advantage of this opportunity to include fumes in the bill and the issue of locomotives turning night and day and producing fumes and environmental problems.

Sometimes you walk along the rails and you see pollution. Because the rails have been changed, stacks of wood are piled up along the tracks, and so on. The Bloc Québécois wanted to solve all the environmental problems related to railways, but the government decided that the noise was the problem. The Bloc Québécois tried in committee to put forward its own proposals. We wanted to solve the problems of noise, vibrations and fumes. We had clearly understood that, by including only noise, Conservatives did not want to solve all the environmental problems. So we went with vibrations and we asked ourselves whether we could perhaps solve at the same time the problems of vibrations and fumes from locomotives.

This is where we attack the law clerk of the House. The government knows quite well that, when it introduces a bill, we cannot move the amendments that we want, even though we have a lot of goodwill, even though all my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are experiencing major problems, since, for example, some of their fellow citizens live close to the Moreau railroad yard, in Hochelaga, or the Joffre railroad yard, in Lévis. Even though this committee is now represented by a Conservative, we will ensure that all this will change in the next election. However, the fact remains that the people of Lévis complained to us and we never stopped defending their interests. There is the same problem close to the Farnham railroad yard, in Brome—Missisquoi, and to the Pointe-Saint-Charles railroad yard, in Jeanne-Le Ber, east of Montreal. All these people wanted us to solve all these problems, including fumes. Thus, we introduced an amendment, but the whole part concerning fumes was taken out. The law clerk of the House told us that it was out of order.

So, it is not like we did not try. We wanted to show our goodwill and our good faith in this issue. We tabled everything that we could think of. We even wanted to include public health, because there are now international standards on noise pollution. We really wanted to comply with public health standards. One of our amendments asked that public health not be unreasonably affected, given these essential operational needs. We wanted to include the issue of public health in the bill.

However, because the bill introduced by the Conservative Party was totally silent on public health, the law clerk of the House told us that this amendment, even though quite interesting, was out of order, because it would change the meaning of the legislation.

Those citizens who are listening to us must understand that a government is something that is complex. And when it is a Conservative government, it is twice as complex. That is how things work. That is the reality. The government uses every possible trick to prevent us from succeeding and achieving our objectives. In this case, we were able to reach an agreement on noise.

So, as we are speaking, clause 95.1 of the bill reads as follows:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible,...

This is what we have before us now. The original bill introduced by the Conservative Party talked about not making unreasonable noise.

We managed to get an amendment in that goes further. That was done with the support of the Conservatives, who finally realized that we wanted at least to settle once and for all the issue of noise and vibration, so that we would no longer talk about it, and so that citizens would be able to win their cases.

So, we managed to agree to include the expression “as little noise and or vibration as possible”.

One day, this bill will come into force, but not today. It is at third reading stage, then it has to go to the Senate and come back here. Canadian federalism is complicated. There is another chamber, the upper chamber, called the Senate. It has to study the same bills. The Bloc Québécois has been wanting to get rid of the Senate for a long time. The Conservatives have decided that senators will be elected by universal suffrage. We are far from getting rid of it. The federation will become even more complicated. However, one day, we will no longer be here—we hope. One day, Quebeckers will decide to have their own country and they will not have a Senate. That will be best. There will just be a parliament and it will be far less complicated.

However, in the current situation, the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois, among others, reads as follows at clause 95.1:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible, taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

This has to do with operations.

(b) its operational requirements;

[...]

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

We managed to get that included. The following clause—and this is the crux of the bill—gives powers to the Transportation Agency, which is new. During its operations, it will have to take into account the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway. From now on, it will have to take into account those who live close by when there are problems with noise and vibration. That is how it will be for their operations.

Clause 95.2 states:

The Agency shall issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to:

This requires the Transportation Agency to establish and publish guidelines that the railway companies will have to follow. Just to get this part into the bill required many hours of discussion. Finally, the agency can be forced to establish and publish guidelines. It is all well and good to say there will be as little noise and vibration as possible, but there still need to be guidelines. This bill will force the agency to establish and publish guidelines.

Once the guidelines have been established and the railways are operational, we proceed to clause 95.3.

On receipt of a complaint made by any person that a railway company is not complying with section 95.1, the Agency may order the railway company to undertake any changes in its railway construction or operation that the Agency considers reasonable to cause as little noise or vibration as possible, taking into account factors referred to in that section.

Before this bill, the Canadian Transportation Agency had no power. Its only role was that of intermediary. Judicial power was tested in that respect in an Ontario court.

One might have thought that after getting involved in a file and participating in negotiations, Transport Canada could have made recommendations and ordered the company to take certain measures if no agreement could be reached in the end. In a decision concerning an Ontario community, the Ontario court ruled that the Canadian Transportation Agency had no power, that it was simply a mediator, not even an arbitrator. It could participate in discussions, but it had no power.

The real purpose of this bill is to give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to order measures to be taken. That is, once it receives a complaint, it will analyze it and order the railway company to take measures.

Recently, I met with the Railway Association of Canada, which turned up practically in tears to tell us that it made no sense to force railway companies to produce as little noise and vibration as possible.

I might ask all railway employees, who work very hard, why we have this bill before us today. I might also ask the shareholders and the companies that are making healthy profits and doing good business why we are debating this bill. We are debating it because they have been so remiss in past years that we have no choice.

Personally, I took part in a meeting with citizens who live around the Moreau marshalling yard in Hochelaga; the railway company was also present. I will not say its name because they are all the same, regardless of which one it is, and I do not want to discriminate. So I participated in the discussions. It was easy to see that the employees taking part were there under duress. The member for Hochelaga was present to listen to the citizens. I was there as the transportation critic for the Bloc Québécois. My colleague from Hochelaga and the community, who had been following the Ontario decision, were very well informed and proposed some mitigation solutions to the representatives of the railway company. These people seemed interested but in the end nothing ever came about. That is how it is.

It was the same thing when I met with citizens’ groups in the Joffre marshalling yard in Charny. I had a chance to meet the Mayor of Charny, who is now a councillor for the City of Lévis and who really took an interest in this file. It was and still is the same thing. The companies listen, but in the end, when they have to spend some money, it does not go anywhere, not to the next level up anymore than to the board of directors.

Since I am being told I have two minutes left, I am going to use them wisely.

This is how we have ended up where we are today. The Bloc Québécois does not want to be one of those who would prevent the railway from developing. On the contrary, we know that it is developing just fine, that business is good and that it is probably time to put things in order and do something about the pollution that railways can cause. There is noise pollution and other kinds of nuisances.

We will not fix all that today, as I said. And it is not because the colleagues of the Bloc Québécois would not have liked this bill to solve all the nuisances caused by railways. Given that the industry is doing well, maybe it is time for it to make some investments.

At least today the noise and vibration problems should be solved. For any citizens who live along railways or near railway yards this bill should solve any noise and vibration problems they experience. From now on complaints can be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency, which can intervene and, in accordance with the provision contained in paragraph 93(3), order the railways to take action. The Agency will be able to order railway companies to take remedial action.

Obviously this does not solve the other problems. In committee, communities came to tell us that the trains are increasingly long. In some places, they are even afraid that emergency services cannot get through. That obviously includes ambulances, firefighters, and all sorts of services. Actually the trains are so long that they block entry into entire neighbourhoods. This problem is not dealt with in the bill. I hope that the government one day will listen and table new bills that will deal with all these issues.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on Bill C-11, which had to do with the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

He wandered into a related subject on the recent strike of UTU workers at CN. If I understood him correctly, he was really chastising the government for not imposing back to work legislation more quickly.

I am a bit surprised to hear the member say that. I think he is well aware that we have a responsibility as members of Parliament to respect a legal strike when it occurs and to respect the negotiating process that takes place. I think he is aware that it very often is much easier to impose an agreement and to end the strike than to take some responsibility for what happens after that. Very often if that happens, then there is bitterness, rancour and unresolved issues and the strike simply drags on.

My question is twofold. First, is it his view that the government should have imposed the back to work legislation even more quickly than it did? Second, what does that say about the member and for that matter the view of his colleague on anti-scab legislation?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this House is a great place. It generates and engenders virtues, among which of course is patience. I thank you for drawing that to the attention of other members because I know that they are anxious to understand how to get to a question. Thank you.

The member of the Bloc looks puzzled. He did not ask me his question because he already knows the answer. I gave it to him a few days ago, in another debate on Bill C-11. I asked him what they understood by the amendment they had included in the bill. We could put an end to noise and vibrations tomorrow by eliminating trains and railway transportation. There would be no more noise. However, the point here was to be reasonable and to allow reasonable activity.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my colleague, and I even listened to what the Minister of Labour had to say. It is true that what is happening at CN is serious. Railway safety is a serious issue. The only problem, and this makes me smile, is that Bill C-11 has nothing to do with that, but does address an equally important problem: noise and vibration.

This is important to the people living near marshalling yards such as the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, Joffre in Lévis, Farnham in Brome-Missisquoi and Pointe-Saint-Charles in east Montreal. Three Parliaments have debated legislation on this issue, yet these people still have not seen a solution to their problems. Bill C-26 was introduced during the 37th Parliament, Bill C-44 during the 38th Parliament, and now we have Bill C-11. In his speech earlier, my colleague never mentioned what we are trying to deal with today: the problem of noise and vibration.

My question is this: are we finally going to be able to solve this problem today, and will the Liberal Party support us in solving the problem of noise and vibration, so that we can move on to other problems? That is my question.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am flattered that you were actually listening so attentively to what I was saying.

I was trying to address what I think is a perfect set of circumstances. We have an opposition party that had presented legislation and given an indication of how to actually get things done, and an opposition party, now government party, that is looking for that kind of cooperation. We have a perfect opportunity to apply that cooperative spirit. But what happens? Nothing happens.

Our trade is going down. Lumber mills are closing. Remote communities in Canada find themselves even more isolated. Jobs are being lost. We are losing market share. All of these things are happening. Why? It is because, as I pointed out, of what is represented in the press about a situation within their own party that is preventing the Conservatives from being productive here in the House. They are saying it is a drive-by smear. I imagine members would like me to read all of this, but I will just refer them to the articles. They can be found in CanWest News Service and the Windsor Star on February 22 and February 3 respectively.

Those members will have an opportunity to be able to see the impediment. The public watching this is probably wondering what is so significant that is preventing the government from doing what it needs to do. Why would the government not take advantage of an opportunity to demonstrate that it is actually a proactive government and become involved in one of the most critical situations facing the nation today?

The government waited until the workers themselves started to go back. They went back for their own internal union reasons, not because the Government of Canada was interested in what was happening to communities everywhere.

The forest product sector pleaded with every member of Parliament on the Hill. It looked for members who were willing to listen to its pleas and get involved in this litigation so that products could move. Nobody could be found to listen except for the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Transport . The sector could not get a response.

It is up to us to raise these issues. The Minister of Transport is the same individual who, on a W5 production some one month ago, turned a deaf ear to the issues of safety that are being represented right here in Bill C-11.

We wanted to give the Minister of Transport the authority to be involved in safety and security issues as they relate to all transportation modes, most especially in the railway industry, and especially because the railway industry wanted the government involved. What did we get? We received a shrug of the shoulders from the Minister of Transport.

The former government had launched an inquiry into the safety procedures of railways. The report came down. Everybody waited with bated breath to tell us what was wrong and what measures were being taken to resolve them. We had already put in place Bill C-44 to address some of those issues.

The Conservative government has been in place for 13 months with the benefit of all of the initiatives of the previous government. What did it do? It did nothing. The minister shrugged his shoulders on national television and said he could not even release the report. Everybody must have been asking why not? Does he not have an interest in transportation issues in the country? Is he not interested in the safety of passengers and the value of the commercial product that is being moved from one end of the country to the other? He said he could not because it mentioned a third party. Imagine a minister of the Crown saying he could not.

The minister is asking for enabling legislation right here. We are giving him all the authority he needs. Why can he not tell us what was wrong with those trains? There is a public inquiry. Does the public not have the right to know? He said he could not. I think he did not want to. Why not? That is a good question.

I met with people from CN. I met with people from the railway industry. I met people from the other transportation modes, but I especially met with the people from CN and asked whether they had an objection to that report being published.

Does anyone know what the answer was? It was, “No, we only wanted to be consulted on the first draft of the report and your former colleague in cabinet, Mr. Member of Parliament from Eglinton—Lawrence, the minister of transport, asked us for input. We gave him the input and out came the final report. You are no longer in government, so where is the report? Why is it not public? Why can't we know as Canadians, whether we are commercial users or personal users of our transportation system, and why can't we know what that public report tells us about how we can move our products and persons safely around this country from point A to point B?”

When the government members applaud themselves, I do not know how they do not get cricks in their shoulders. It must be tough to do this and smile at the same time, instead of giving credit where credit is due to the people who worked diligently to put forward legislation and initiatives that were designed for the benefit of Canadians everywhere, especially in the remote communities of this country, to keep it whole, to keep it solid and to keep it united.

The government should have taken at least one moment to recognize that it has an obligation to the Canadian public and that it should discharge that obligation rather than do nothing. That is the shame in all of this. The government is squandering our cooperative attitudes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment before putting my question.

The parliamentary secretary is well aware of the reason why the previous bill, under the Liberal Party, was not passed. In his reply, he said he split former Bill C-44 into three parts. However, he should have split it into four parts, because there is a whole part that the Conservative Party decided not to include, and which provided for the establishment of a new corporation. It would have allowed VIA Rail to become a corporation to ensure its own development. Among other things, it would have allowed VIAFast, a rapid rail service between Quebec City, Montreal and Windsor, to become reality. Everyone knows that the Conservative Party is squarely opposed to VIA Rail's development. That is the reality.

However, this is not about what should have happened, or what we would have liked to see, but about passing Bill C-11.

We talked about noise and complaints. As soon as the bill is passed, many complaints will likely be lodged, because citizens, communities and citizens' groups have been waiting for a long time to see the Canadian Transportation Agency have these powers.

Can the parliamentary secretary guarantee that the transportation agency will have all the necessary staff to deal with the complaints filed by citizens or citizens' groups against noise and vibrations?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there was a blinding light on the road to Damascus. It was more like a blinding light of Conservative government because the people spoke and they got what they wanted. They got a Conservative government that was going to take action.

Let us talk about Bill C-44, the predecessor to this bill, and I think there was another bill before that, but not another one before that one, yet it would not surprise me if there was another one before that. That bill was far too cumbersome, something that just could not work because we could not find consistency.

This is the situation. This Conservative government wanted results, so we split the existing Liberal bill into three bills. So far in eight months we have gotten two of those bills to this point. One bill passed, Bill C-3, another bill is before us today, Bill C-11, and another bill is coming forward in two weeks with some cooperation from members on the other side, as long as they can see and are not be blinded by the Conservative light. It will move forward and we will get results for Canadians.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to comment on improvements to Bill C-11 that have been made by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Before I do so, I would like to remind members that Bill C-11 is actually the second of three bills on amendments to the Canada Transportation Act that are legislative priorities for this government. Indeed, it is great news for the country and great news for the people who use the transportation systems, which is all Canadians.

With respect to the first bill, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, clause by clause study was completed by the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on December 12, 2006.

The third bill will address the rail shipper protection provisions of the act. I can assure the House and all Canadians that the government has this particular bill foremost on its mind. We are taking action on it and we expect to see it before the House in the coming weeks.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard testimony from a wide range of witnesses and received a number of briefs in relation to Bill C-11. In addition to the Minister of Transport and the officials from Transport Canada, witnesses included representatives from the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Travellers' Protection Initiative, many citizens groups concerned especially about railway noise, commuter railway operators, the Railway Association of Canada, Canadian National Railway, Transport 2000, Teamsters Canada, and the Farmer Rail Car Coalition.

Yes, this government listens to stakeholders and we listened to many of them. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members for taking the time to hear from those witnesses and for conducting a thorough review of the bill.

The vast majority of witnesses were very positive and supportive of the bill and all were seeking quick passage. This is not surprising, since the sorts of changes being proposed had been debated since the year 2000 by the previous government and quite frankly, nothing was done. A reasonable consensus had been reached on most of those items since that time and it took the current Prime Minister to push the agenda through.

Although there was broad support for passage of the bill, many witnesses requested that some improvements be made and we made many of them. A number of the changes that will benefit the users of the transportation system, urban transit providers, communities and carriers were made. I want to summarize those for the House to clarify any misconceptions that may currently exist.

The act contains a statement on the national transportation policy that is being updated and simplified by Bill C-11. This policy provides general direction in the development of programs, regulations, investments and specific policies. It also provides general direction to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the courts in interpreting the act, which is so important.

These recommendations from the committee will improve the references to safety, security and sustainable environment while streamlining and updating the policy statement. Safety, security and a sustainable environment, which are so important to Canadians, are part of this government's agenda.

Bill C-11 ensures the Canadian Transportation Agency has the proper legal authority to provide mediation services to interested parties such as shippers and railways. The agency has had good results under a pilot project that was actually undertaken on this alternative dispute resolution approach and there is strong support for this provision.

The committee has actually made other changes, including reducing the proposed time frame for mediation from 60 days to 30 days, in order to make it a more effective and quicker tool for those people who need it. The committee's changes would also permit interested parties to use the agency in commercial dispute resolution processes, including both mediation and arbitration. This is something new and we think it will be quite effective.

Some stakeholders have indicated that they would like access to the agency's expertise, even under commercial processes. The improvements will enable stakeholders to address conflicts voluntarily and in a less confrontational manner, which will in many cases get better results.

The current Canada Transportation Act requires the Minister of Transport to table annual reports on the state of transportation in the country. Toward a more effective government, we actually propose that there be additional changes. Instead of a proposal from the department which stated that it would have to be every three years, the changes put forward by committee, which I think are quite positive in this case, are to table annual reports, but they would be less detailed and more focused on an overview of the system's performance, including trends over the past number of years.

In addition, the committee recommended that a more comprehensive report, one that is actually much more detailed, be tabled every five years. Transport Canada will, however, continue to make existing detailed information available on its website. A lot of data that is accumulated on a daily basis and updated on a weekly basis will allow stakeholders who wish to do their own analysis to go on the website and do so.

The Canada Transportation Act permits the minister as well to undertake a public interest review of significant mergers or acquisitions in the airline industry to ensure that the government and future governments and the minister will know what is going on with the large conglomerates that actually employee many Canadians and have such a direct impact on our economy. This review complements the review of competition issues conducted by the Commissioner of Competitions. Bill C-11 would extend this provision to cover all modes.

One of the first steps would be a decision by the minister that the proposed transition raises issues that warrant a public review. The bill provides for the minister to issue guidelines related to this review. Amendments approved by the committee would require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau in developing guidelines and to include the factors that would be taken into consideration when determining whether a public interest review should be conducted.

The committee approved a number of important changes related to airline service in Canada as well. One change, for instance, would require the Canadian Transportation Agency to report on the complaints it receives in carrying out its air travel complaints functions, including the number and nature of the complaints, the carriers against which the complaints were made, how the complaints were addressed and systematic trends in the industry as far as the complaint process is concerned. This information would actually be included in the agency's annual report.

I should note as well 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.

Bill C-11 contains a provision that would give the agency the authority to develop regulations on air fare advertising; yes, that is right, air fare advertising. Many consumer groups and consumers in Canada have looked forward to this provision. The amendment made by the committee would oblige the agency to make regulations on air fare advertising following the passage of this bill. Truth in advertising, in essence, is what we heard from many groups.

Bill C-11 contains a provision that would allow the agency to resolve disputes on railway noise as well. This would be the case if the railway and complainant could not resolve their dispute through voluntary measures. This provision has attracted considerable interest. A lot of discussion took place by committee members and indeed by many of the witnesses, including groups from Quebec and British Columbia.

The committee made a number of amendments to the noise provisions which, it is hoped, will improve the co-existence of communities and railways. This country for the most part was established and has been kept together by rail. Rail is a very important part of our community and our country, but at the same time it has to coexist with the communities around the railways. We tried to find that balance in the legislation.

First, the committee added something new, vibrations, which was a common complaint, as a matter that would be subject to the provision. Vibrations will be considered in the act.

Second, the committee changed the standard to which the railways would be held. Bill C-11 would have required, as it was in its original form, “to not cause unreasonable noise”, when constructing or operating a railway. We did something different and we are very proud of this provision. We changed it to “cause as little noise or vibration as possible”. This is very important because it will maintain less noise for those people who live in those areas. It is very, very important to them. We were listening. This government does listen and it reacts in the best interests of Canadians.

Finally, the committee's amendments would add the potential impact on persons residing on properties adjacent to the railway as a factor that a railway must take into consideration when it attempts to cause as little noise or vibration as possible.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee members for their due diligence, hard work and cooperation in improving this bill. We have a great bill before Parliament now as a result.

I would encourage the House to move quickly to approve the bill. There is a lot of support for this bill in commercial and residential areas across this country and a lot of people are watching this today to see that cooperation move forward.

We owe it to many stakeholders who have waited patiently for the last five years especially. I thank them for their patience. I hope we can move forward with another great initiative from the committee.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will begin debate on the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation, to which the opposition House leader was referring. Also, we will have Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, following question period.

On Monday, we would like to conclude the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, which is very important for Canadians for public security reasons. We are also getting down to the deadline when certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset.

I have consulted with the other parties and I will propose a related motion at the end of my business statement.

Next week we will consider the following bills: Bill C-37, financial institutions; Bill C-41, competition; Bill C-11, transport; Bill S-3, defence; Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill C-36, Canada pension plan and old age security; Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties; and depending on developments regarding the railway strike, we may call the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation.

Thursday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.

As I mentioned earlier, following discussions with the House leaders of the other parties, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion. I move:

Motion

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, once the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act is called on Monday, February 26, and when no member rises to speak on debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, all questions necessary to dispose of the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act be deemed put, a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 27, at 5:30 p.m.

Canada Transportation Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-11.

The question is on Motion No. 2.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and do not disagree with many of the remarks he made. I know that he was an active participant in the construct of this bill.

I also agree with him when he says that our rail system is stagnating. I know he is aware that we in the NDP have been aggressively trying to champion the state of our national rail system. Many of us believe that we should be making a conscious effort to get the freight off trucks and back on the rails where it belongs.

In fact, I have heard you, Mr. Speaker, make that very point in this chamber many times over the years.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster put forward some amendments to this bill, which I think were seconded by my colleague from Western Arctic. I am hoping that the Bloc can see fit to support these amendments when it comes time to vote. Specifically, they are Motions Nos. 2 and 5 and Motions Nos. 3 and 11. We are optimistic that we can count on the Bloc's support.

On the issue of noise, let me simply say that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is bordered by a significant rail yard where the hostlers are constantly putting trains together. I am well aware of how residents feel about the noise in the night as the hostlers couple the trains. Sometimes prairie trains are 200 and 300 cars long. A significant amount of that goes on.

However, that inconvenience is offset by the enthusiastic support that we as Winnipeggers feel for our national rail system. We lament and in fact we terribly regret and even criticize how the rail system in Canada has been dismantled systematically by years of neglect. It has been dismantled by successive federal governments that are not in favour of a national rail system and prefer to put the freight on the road, much to the expense of the environment, jobs and everything else that goes with it.

Having said that, I hope we can count on my colleague's support for the motions that the NDP did succeed in putting forward to amend Bill C-11. Perhaps he can give us that assurance today.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As hon. members could see by the exchange I had with my Liberal colleague earlier, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of Bill C-44, which preceded Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, Bill C-44 did not make it through the legislative process because of the infighting within the Liberal family, namely whether VIA Fast would see the light of day or not. The leadership of the Liberal Party changed and VIA Fast did not see the light of day. In the meantime, an entire section of Bill C-44 was devoted to making VIA Rail an independent corporation that would be able to ensure its own development. Today, once again, the railway sector is stagnating.

However, Bill C-44 was divided into a number of bills, including Bill C-11, which is now before us. Since the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has been very interested in the development of this bill for the simple reason that it includes several sections—I am not saying they are big sections, just that they are very important—on the problems that some of the population might experience, the noise problem in the rail road sector, among others.

The purpose of Bill C-11 is to help all citizens, all Quebeckers, who are experiencing problems with noise. There are some major problems with noise, such as the noise generated by the big railroad yards, the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, the Joffre yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, formerly Charny, the Farnham yard in Brome—Missisquoi and the Pointe-Saint-Charles yard in Jeanne-Le Ber in Montreal's east end.

With the new technology, jobs have been lost. Employees have simply been replaced by remote controlled technology. This causes an infernal noise when the cars are being connected to the locomotives or to other cars.

With the arrival of this technology, in the 1990s, jobs were cut to save money. What was once done by hand, more intelligently and less noisily, was replaced by technology, and no one has yet found a solution to the problem of remote linking. It takes a lot of momentum to join cars together. People living near marshalling yards have to put up with a terrific amount of noise, not to mention locomotives running practically day and night, even during cold weather.

All this causes problems for the people living near marshalling yards, in addition to all the other noise and vibration problems.

I would like to read clause 95.1 of the bill:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and vibration as possible—

Previously, the bill mentioned noise only, and the Bloc Québécois worked very hard to have the word “vibration” included. Now, the bill requires that companies cause as little noise and vibration as possible. We hope that the bill will be adopted.

I will continue to read from clause 95.1:

—taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

(b) its operational requirements;

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place; and

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

The bill amends the act by adding provisions that state that companies operating a railway must cause as little noise and vibration as possible and must take into account the impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

For the first time, the Transportation Act is being amended to enable the agency, under clause 95.2, to issue and publish guidelines and receive complaints. This was not allowed previously. Courts ruled that even though the Transportation Agency had wanted to get involved in the complaint process, it did not have the authority to do so. In one case in Ontario, the courts told the agency that it did not have the authority to intervene and that even though it issued recommendations and acted as a mediator, it could not force the company to comply with those recommendations.

That is where the law stood. Obviously this prompted a lot of people who objected to join together and organize to express their opposition. When they became aware of the judgment of the Ontario court, they decided that there was no point and they were spending their money for nothing.

All of these communities got together and wanted to challenge this, and tried to get the railway companies to change, in particular, as I said earlier, the Moreau switching yard, the Joffre yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, the Farnham yard in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi and the Pointe-Saint-Charles yard in the riding of Jeanne-Le Ber.

The people who live near those yards decided to step back and try to reach an amicable agreement. All the Transportation Agency did was arrange a meeting. They met with representatives of the railway companies. The citizens' groups tried to explain their problems to the companies, and in some cases, some of the companies adopted some solutions.

However, when it came to noise, when the noise was a problem for people, the companies came up with all sorts of reasons. When it cost the company a bit too much, they did nothing. And if they were presented with good recommendations, they did not apply them or did not follow them, even though, in some cases, agreements had been made between the company and the citizens' groups.

I myself have met with members of the public, with citizens' groups, and even with representatives of the company, in particular in Hochelaga, the riding next to the Moreau yard. Even though we showed good faith, when we took part in that meeting—my colleague from Hochelaga was there—nothing came of it.

In any event, before the railway company representatives left the meeting, they said that the complaints merited consideration, but they never adopted any solution after that.

This is what people want and what this bill provides that is new: that from now on, the Transportation Agency can receive complaints and make and publish recommendations, and compel the companies to abide by them.

Obviously, it must be understood that we would have wanted more from this bill. It refers only to noise and vibration; it says nothing at all about environmental damage or the other requests that a number of my colleagues had made to me. Even though the railway companies make huge profits, they are not always inclined to comply with environmental standards, to pick up their garbage or what have you. As well, when they lay new tracks, they often leave all the wood lying there all along the rail line. They are in no hurry to clean up.

We were very aware of that and we wanted to propose some amendments. Yet the government went ahead and tabled its noise bill. Since we are on the subject today, we have to be very careful when we propose amendments: amendments that change the spirit of the bill are not allowed. As such, our amendments were automatically dismissed by the legislator or counsel representing legislative services here in Parliament.

Our colleagues submitted good changes and good amendments that they would have liked to have seen reflected in the act, but their amendments were found to be unacceptable by counsel for the legislators here in Parliament.

It is not that we did not try; it is that the law did not let us. Clearly, the government only wanted to address noise. Consequently, we could not move on other problem areas. We managed to include vibrations because they can be considered a noise problem.

As to the other interesting and intelligent amendments proposed by members of the Bloc Québécois and others, we could not move them through; the legislator found them to be unacceptable because they would have altered the spirit of the bill.

This bill includes other provisions concerning air travel complaints. There is to be a complaints commissioner who will address these issues directly.

As I am sure hon. members are all too aware, there have been a lot of complaints about Air Canada. So the complaints commissioner's office will also include a section to address complaints from citizens who were not served in their official language when using Air Canada services or who have experienced other problems related to airlines.

This will make it easier to file a complaint, and, once again, the office of the commissioner will have the power to intervene. We hope that this bill will be adopted swiftly.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's presentation about how much he wants Bill C-11 to be adopted.

I would like to review the history of this bill because it is a nearly word-for-word copy of part of Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Liberals in the previous Parliament.

One of the reasons Bill C-44 never went through, that is, was not adopted before, is that the Liberal Party itself decided to block its own bill. Bill C-44 had a whole section devoted to developing VIA Rail. It wanted to change VIA Rail from a Crown corporation to an independent corporation to enable it to grow. Among other things, the bill promoted VIA Rail's growth and development. VIAFast would have made it possible to build a high-speed train from Quebec City to Montreal and from Montreal to Windsor.

My question is simple: Why is the Liberal Party in such a hurry today? Why was it not in a hurry when it was in power during the previous Parliament?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we were talking about Bill C-11, a transportation bill that was born out of much policy development by the former Liberal government. I complimented the current government for having had the wisdom to adopt the bill that preceded this one and was divided into three parts in order to secure speedier passage in the House. We have done that already with one bill. This is the second one. There is a third one coming up.

I know that my colleagues on the transport committee are busy in committee right now. I am not suggesting that they are not here and therefore that it is bad; I am saying that they are involved in the business of the House in another place and it is left to me to carry the load, as it were.

The last time we spoke to this bill, we addressed one aspect of the importance of Bill C-11. What we were looking at really was establishing a mechanism for resolving disputes between public passenger service providers and railway companies. In other words, we were looking for access to rail lines for those commuter companies, especially in main centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, so that they could have an opportunity to develop commuter services on lines that were already existing. They wanted to have access and this legislation provides for their getting that access.

They also wanted to have an appropriate mechanism for arriving at an acceptable market driven and public policy driven price for that access. They were looking for mediation. This legislation provides it, as did its predecessor.

Finally, when rail companies are in the process of divesting themselves of the assets, they would be offered up to the commuter companies on a predetermined basis.

The last time we were discussing this in the House we talked about the importance of this as public policy. It is integrated into the legislation and for that purpose the legislation demands our support. In fact, it should have our support.

There is a series of other important issues here. My colleagues know that if we can pass this legislation expeditiously, we will have seen the fruit of the labour of at least two governments.

The Liberal government, in which I was proud and privileged to serve as a cabinet member, had come forward with transportation policy that reflected the real needs of the day some 24 months ago. There has been a different government for well nigh on 13 or 14 months, and here we are, still here with that same piece of legislation that would have authorized the government to put in place the kinds of things that consumers, the industry and the Canadian public as a whole demanded and which the economy needed to have in order to ensure there would be an efficient, safe transportation network around the country. Whether it involved rail or air was immaterial. The issues were those that required the opportunity for government to intervene to ensure that the efficiency, security and safety of those mechanisms be always there.

Safety is defined of course as all Canadians always define it, that the security and safety of the person always be first and foremost, but it includes as well the security and safety of the movement of goods and services. I know that my colleague from Montreal agrees with me, being a former justice minister who at the time was a consultant on the language of the legislation. I am sure he is pleased to see the realization of the sum of his thoughts.

It is true that we have finally as parliamentarians come forward with something that addresses, as I said, the economy and the consumer.

For members of the House to think about anything other than passing this piece of legislation would be a disservice to the entire Canadian commonweal.

Some members are making suggestions about a series of amendments that ought to take place. We have accepted a good number of those amendments. I say that we have accepted them not because we are presenting the legislation. We originated the legislation, but we are not the ones who have proposed it to the House. We did propose it, and the opposition parties of the day turned it down, especially those on the extreme left of the spectrum. They are on the extreme left of this House too and they have almost disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will not be offended by that because you are one of the few who has been here longer than I have, and whose hair is greyer than mine, and you are always interested in transportation issues. Those transportation issues are absolutely crucial to the proper functioning and the economy of this country. The infrastructure cannot move along without a good infrastructure in law and that is what this bill is supposed to represent.

We support it. It is not ours, but it comes very close to what we wanted to do. We always want to look out for the interests, safety and security of Canadians and the proper, efficient functioning of an economic infrastructure that would allow us to profit by our own enterprise.

I will take 10 seconds to note that the rail strike by CN has gone on for far too long without government attention. I deplore the fact that the Minister of Transport has not addressed this issue. It cries for government attention, but the government is being inattentive and inactive.

I leave on those very careful words. We hope that the government will become active on and attentive to an issue that is crucial to everybody. I know the hon. member will agree with me when I say that all members on this side of the House, the good guys, want immediate action.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest and his research. I would suggest that instead of holding it close to his chest, as so many other members from other parties in the House do, he should provide that information to me. I would be more than happy to look at it, review it and provide it to the minister if it be appropriate. We are a government that is listening to stakeholders and listening to all parties because that is what Canadians want us to do, to work together. I would suggest that the member and all members do that.

I just hope it is not similar to the situation with respect to Bill C-6 which is in the transport committee, and Bill C-11. Bill C-11 was on the projected order for today but I understand the NDP put forward some speakers to try to hold up legislation again. I am hoping that we can count on the member to provide us with the cooperation that is necessary to move legislation through the House and to move in a way that acts in the best interest of Canadians.

I assure the member that is what this government will do. We will act in the best interest of Canadians overall, but we have a balance to strike and we will strike that balance for the Canadian public.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, with Bill C-35, the bail reform bill as backup.

Monday we will call Bill C-31, elections, if it is not completed tomorrow; Bill C-44, human rights; Bill C-11, transport; Bill C-33, technical income tax; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and the statutory order. We have an ambitious agenda there.

Tuesday, February 20, and Thursday, February 22, will be allotted to the business of supply.

On Wednesday we will continue with the business outlined on Monday.

Next Friday, I will consider beginning the debate on Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries.

With respect to the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, if an agreement on debate is not reached before February 28, certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset. It is the government's view that all members should be given the opportunity to decide the fate of these provisions because they involve the safety of people they represent.

Recent events have made us aware that the terrorist threats continue to specifically target Canada, but if the terms of the law are not extended by March 1, the protections that we have in place right now will cease to apply.

If an agreement can be reached, I am prepared to call the motion sooner and sit as long as necessary on that day to bring the debate to a conclusion.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Part of the enabling will also call into question a series of relationships as the safety management systems are being rolled out. As you say, they're already there, but they aren't all fully operational because we're actually trying to expand the authorities of the minister in order to ensure a variety of outcomes.

It's my understanding as well that there will be several bills conflicting with each other. I'm not sure yet whether Bill C-11 captures the responsibilities under the Canada Labour Code. Would you address that for a moment?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the statutory order concerning the Anti-terrorism Act. That is for the extension of its provisions.

Next week will be justice week, when the government will showcase part of its safer streets agenda, starting on Monday with the continuation of the debate on the Anti-terrorism Act if it is not completed on Friday.

On Tuesday we plan to begin debate on Bill C-35, which deals with bail reform, and on Wednesday we will resume debate on the second reading stage of the dangerous offenders legislation, Bill C-27.

Thursday, February 15 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10 on mandatory minimum penalties, on the assumption that the justice committee can have it to the House by that time.

For each day, we will have the following business scheduled as backup bills: Bill C-31, the voter integrity legislation; Bill C-44, relating to human rights; Bill C-11, on transport; and Bill C-33, the technical income tax act.

I will be working closely with my counterpart in the Senate with respect to progress on Bill S-4 or, as we keep hearing, the lack of progress.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a strong, effective and responsible government must speak with one voice, whether it be in the Senate or the House of Commons. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate cannot present the same position on Bill S-4 is further evidence that the Liberals are currently not fit to govern. I certainly would like the opportunity for this House to deal with that bill.

Motions in amendment

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know you are only going to give me a few minutes before you cut off debate and everybody is transfixed to hear what I have to say.

My first reaction is: What a wonderful bill. Another week and another Liberal bill recast as a Conservative initiative.

Members will know this bill because it appeared in the previous Parliament as Bill C-44, and it was for a wider transportation policy to address a series of issues. Now, Bill C-44 has been broken down into three parts, and this is one.

I am going to speak for about 10 minutes to ensure that everybody understands the benefits of the bill. I do not want to be too critical, but I noted that there are some members here who are particularly interested in one aspect of this bill that merits reinforcement; and that is, those agencies, corporations and entities that are engaged in commuter railways and commuter traffic and who depended on a change in the national transportation policy are addressed to ensure that they were included in transportation issues to the benefit of all consumers and commuters because they are one and the same. The bill in its initial format, and now repeated again, addresses issues that are of concern to them.

One is access to federally regulated rail lines that might be declared surplus, or not, but certainly to have commuter agencies at least access them so that they can be maximized in their utilization for the purposes of consumers.

Second, to establish under this act opportunities to arbitrate on what amounts might be charged by the tier one railways to some of these commuter lines. So, to have not only access but to arbitrate on a fair process of remuneration in order that these agencies function in an economically feasible environment. I think I have that right.

Then, finally, to have, when there is a disposition of these access lines, the valuation process be one that makes it feasible for commuter agencies to acquiesce the purchase process and then to make the application for commuter use in an environment where there is a valuation process that makes it fair for those agencies to function.

Members must remember that I am talking about federally regulated rail lines and federally regulated agencies.

What we had envisioned under Bill C-44, and now repeated in Bill C-11, was a process whereby the interests of the user, the end user, in this case the commuter as an end user, be part and parcel of transportation policy.

I know that the debate so far on these amendments has focused on where a member of the board of directors would live or not live and who would get the advantage in terms of getting employment. I think that is nice. It is fine to do that. However, the most important issue is to keep in mind how we develop railway policy throughout the country.

When I said that this is another Liberal bill being re-presented and cast by a minister of transport who is accustomed to borrowing good ideas from the Liberals, it makes one wonder if actually he is a Liberal. Hold on. I think he was.

Nevertheless, we can become once again what we were generated to be, at least through the ideas and legislation that is going to help Canadians everywhere. I think that there were three sections especially that were presented to committee members. While I was not there, they are issues that are--

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the hon. member's riposte. I will simply continue to focus in on the things that the bill does, the things that we as a committee agreed to do.

The big beneficiaries of Bill C-11 are of course not only those in the transportation industry but Canadians across our great country.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard from a wide range of witnesses, as I mentioned earlier. We studied the legislation in detail and considered a wide assortment of amendments from both the government and the opposition parties.

For Canadians, transportation is a vital aspect of daily living. Indeed, railways and ships were critical in building our country. Most of the opposition's proposed amendments were, I believe, put forward in the best spirit of non-partisanship with a view to improving the bill and making better legislation. Very few suggested amendments were posited for the opposite intention.

Perhaps it is best to start from the beginning and review how thorough the committee's analysis of Bill C-11 was.

Every effort was made to study the potential impact of the bill upon all the relevant stakeholders. In addition to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and officials from Transport Canada, witnesses included representatives from the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Travellers' Protection Initiative, and citizens groups from across Canada. In fact, there were citizens from the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, whose member spoke up just a few minutes ago.

The large majority of the witnesses supported the bill, or specific provisions of the bill, and encouraged its quick passage. Many witnesses sought improvements to the bill to make it work better. Based on the testimony from witnesses, I am pleased to note that the committee presented and accepted a number of amendments, which I believe strengthened the bill. I thank the committee members for taking the opportunity to hear from witnesses and for their thorough review, due diligence and cooperation in improving the bill.

Let me summarize the main amendments.

First, we addressed transportation policy. Our aim was to simplify and modernize transportation policy in Canada. The policy statement provides broad guidance to the development of transportation policy programs and direction to the Canada Transportation Agency and the courts in resolving disputes.

The amendments to Bill C-11 will strengthen references to safety, security and sustainable transportation and improve the language that pertains to the role that transportation rates and conditions play.

We also believe that reducing the number of permanent members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five and locating them at national headquarters, instead of across the country, makes good common sense. It saves taxpayers' dollars and it does not rely on unnecessary travel.

In the bill, we also addressed mediation. The committee has shortened from 60 days to 30 days the period in which mediation needs to take place. The purpose of this was a general agreement that transportation in a country as large as ours is a vital component of daily living. Transportation is not only in the national interest; it is often the national interest.

Disputes often have a profoundly negative impact on the lives and jobs of thousands of Canadians who rely on the transportation sector for food, clothing, merchandise and supplies of all kinds. We as a committee believe that it is in the national interest to resolve transportation disputes in a timely manner.

We also addressed the whole issue of reporting, of making sure that the Ministry of Transport reports on a regular basis and in an effective manner. We have proposed that the current annual reporting by the minister on transportation activities be replaced with a major report every five years.

The chief difficulty with data management is not so much its collection but its analysis. The data must be appropriately assessed in order to justify its gathering. Furthermore, it is environmentally responsible to find ways of using less paper and to find alternative ways of disseminating the information through the website.

The requirements for annual reports for transportation were put in place in 1987. Those provisions have never been updated. After some 20 years of experience, it has become very clear to our government that trends in transportation are more easily detected when reports cover longer periods of time. With that in mind, we introduced a five year reporting requirement, and the committee agreed to that.

That said, the committee also amended the bill to maintain the annual reporting requirement, the only change being that in the future the report will provide only a cursory review of the state of the transportation industry, leaving the comprehensive analysis for the more significant five year report.

We also addressed the issue of mergers of different transportation companies. We have existing provisions that relate only to airlines. By changing these and expanding them, we are covering all modes of transportation.

This will require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau and send a recommendation to the governor in council on whether or not to approve the proposed merger and, if appropriate, what conditions would apply. Again, we believe that this would be in keeping with the best interests of all Canadians. For example, if a merger adversely affects access to transport in a given region of the country, then that is going to be a factor that the minister may want to consider.

Many sectors of the transportation industry are served by a small number of enterprises. Mergers in these sectors may raise issues of regional and national interest that fall beyond the scope of reviews conducted by the Competition Bureau.

A new merger and acquisition review process will cover all transportation undertakings over a certain threshold level of assets and revenues. The process we are proposing will involve, first of all, that applications for mergers would be required to address specific issues set out in review guidelines. If the proposal also raises sufficient public interest issues related to national transportation, the minister could appoint a person to review the proposed transaction. Finally, any proposed merger would result in one government decision, to avoid duplication. Public interest concerns would be addressed by the minister and competition concerns by the Commissioner of Competition.

The amendments to Bill C-11 will also require the minister to publish guidelines on information related to the public interest that must be included in the notice given to the minister by companies proposing a merger. The amendments will also require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau in developing these guidelines.

We also addressed the whole issue of air complaints: consumers who are using the airlines and have beefs. As we know, many Canadians travel long distances and use air travel to do that. The industry's growth has resulted in an increasing number of complaints.

However, even if complaints are properly addressed by the airlines, it is incumbent upon the industry to keep a record of what these complaints were and how they will be or were addressed. A lesson is learned only if the action taken to rectify the complaint is duly recorded and available for use again.

Therefore, the committee added a requirement that in its annual report the agency must report the number and nature of complaints filed with the agency for each carrier, how the complaints were dealt with, and systemic trends that the agency has observed.

Complaint letters sent to the agency now increasingly relate to matters within the agency's core regulatory functions, such as the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of flights. With the recent implementation of the air travel complaints program, the agency has successfully demonstrated that it can address the need to respond to travellers' complaints, allowing agency staff to continue to respond to complaints in an informal manner. The agency already publishes information regarding many important airline consumer issues in its annual report and on its website.

We also addressed the issue of airfare advertising. The committee added this requirement. Arguably, no other form of transportation contains as many hidden expenses as does air travel. Bill C-11 requires airlines advertising airfares to indicate all fees, charges and surcharges, to allow consumers to readily determine the cost of their flight.

We also addressed railway noise, something that was of great concern to communities across the country. We believe we have introduced complaint mechanisms and mediation processes that will address this.

In short, committees often represent the best of the parliamentary process, whereby members from different political parties work together to improve legislation. That is what the committee did in this case. We believe we have done this and that is why it is time to move the bill forward.

Stakeholders are interested in the passage of the bill. They have been patiently waiting for the bill to become law. We are now one step closer to doing that. I encourage members of the House to support the amended bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Motions Nos. 1 to 12 that are on the order paper, some of which come from the government and some of which come from the New Democratic Party.

I should begin by saying that Bill C-11 was supported by all parties. There were some important elements within Bill C-11 that needed to be brought forward. A very healthy process took place throughout the fall. All four parties in the House of Commons worked together to improve the initial legislation that we supported in principle and brought amendments forward that would make this legislation even better. This was done with the cooperation from Conservative members, Liberal members, my colleagues in the Bloc, and myself representing the New Democratic Party.

We worked over the course of a number of weeks to improve this important legislation. We succeeded in a number of different elements. There is no doubt that the bill coming back from committee is much better than it was when it came to Parliament. We were able to make important improvements.

I do want to flag a number of areas, particularly the area around representation within the Canadian Transportation Agency. This was brought forward by the New Democratic Party. We thought this was an important element to change as we were endeavouring to modernize the Canada Transportation Act. We wanted to make the kind of changes that would help to address some shortfalls and deficiencies within our transportation system.

A number of components of Bill C-11 do this, but one important component is missing and that is having the best possible people from across this country at the Canadian Transportation Agency. To ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency is not an Ottawa centric organization, the NDP endeavoured to bring forth an amendment to allow essentially important members of the Canadian Transportation Agency to reside outside the national capital region. There are two important reasons for this.

First, by broadening the pool we can get the best qualified people, regardless of where they live. It is not true that every Canadian wants to live in Ottawa. It is not true that people from British Columbia can simply deny their family ties, uproot their family and move to Ottawa if they want to work in the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is important that we have the broadest possible pool of potential candidates, the best qualified people in the transportation business to ensure that we have the safest transportation sector and transportation elements in the world. Second, and this is perhaps even more important, we want to ensure that those who are appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency, who will play an important role within our country, actually understand the regional variations.

Over the past few years we have seen an increasing rate of railway accidents. I can cite some of the more well known examples of high profile and tragic railway accidents in places like Wabamun Lake in the Fraser Canyon of British Columbia, Wabamun Lake in Alberta, and Cheakamus River in British Columbia. These are issues of transportation safety and the viability of our transportation system. These are important components of the Canadian Transportation Agency among many other things. We need to ensure that the people who are appointed to these positions actually understand the regional requirements in B.C., the prairies and Atlantic Canada.

We brought forward these amendments simply to allow that broad pool of potential candidates, not shutting out most Canadians who do not come from Ottawa and would prefer not to live here.

Second, is also to have that regional expertise. When we talk about regional issues, whether it is British Columbia or Atlantic Canada, members appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency would have the regional expertise and could contribute to enhancing our transportation system.

Because the Conservatives refused that very logical and sound approach, what we have before us a requirement in Bill C-11 that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency to reside here. It says, “The members shall reside in the National Capital Region”.

We are essentially centralizing the Canadian Transportation Agency in such a way as to not have that regional expertise and understanding. At the same time, we are narrowing the pool of potential candidates for the Canadian Transportation Agency. It does not make sense.

I do not understand the opposition of the Conservative Party to broaden that mandate to ensure we get the best qualified people wherever they live in the country. In addition, the bonus, particularly coming from western Canada and this should be understood, is we would have a broader understanding of western Canadian transportation issues. It is simply logical. It simply makes sense.

The government refused that amendment. It has put before us instead a requirement that those appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency “shall reside in the National Capital Region”.

For that reason, the NDP is moving to delete the requirement that individuals appointed to the transportation agency have to live in the national capital region. As a result, we have a number of consequential amendments.

The four motions all deal with this important factor; that the Canadian Transportation Agency should not be limited to those who choose to reside in Ottawa. We should not exclude the vast majority of Canadians who may want to contribute or who may have real talent and real skills to contribute. In addition, we should endeavour to have individuals within the agency that have the regional expertise.

It has often been said that British Columbia is perhaps the most remote of the provinces to Ottawa. We certainly have to fly across the country to get to Ottawa. B.C. members of Parliament are honoured and privileged, particularly the 10 B.C. MPs who represent the NDP, to do that.

I cross the country twice a week. On Sundays, normally, or Monday morning I fly to Ottawa. I fly back on Thursday evening or Friday morning. My family is very understanding, as are the families of the nine other B.C. NDP MPs who represent our province in Ottawa.

It is very clear, and there is no doubt about this, that sacrifices have to be made. Many British Columbians would love to participate and provide their expertise to the transportation agency. Yet they are being told that they cannot do so unless they reside in the national capital region. That is simply unacceptable. That is why we are offering the opportunity for the government to address an important issue, one that it should have allowed in committee.

The government should have simply said that it made sense to provide for the best possible expertise in the country and not limit the pool to only those who would choose to live in Ottawa. It should have said that it would attempt to do the recruitment in such a way that it would have regional expertise, that those individuals in the mountainous areas of British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean with that expertise would be encouraged to be part of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

As we know, the way the bill is currently configured, they do not have that choice. The government has simply said that they do not have that choice, that they have to live in Ottawa. That is unacceptable.

That is the element of the motions the NDP has brought forward. We are essentially supportive of much of the bill.

I would like to mention the work of Brian Allen and the Quayside Community Board in New Westminster, British Columbia. Mr. Allen, as did mayor Wayne Wright, both testified before the committee and provided valuable feedback as well on the issue of railway noise, which is another area of weakness in the bill.

Despite the fact that the bill is less strong on the issue of railway noise, we are hopeful we will see improvements to government policy over the next few months so people in the quay area of New Westminster and in other urban communities can finally get a good night's sleep. Mr. Allen was indispensable in providing support to ensure that the committee did deal with railway noise. Although we are disappointed with the results in that area too, we do have some hope that over the course of the next few months we will see action finally.

We are supportive of Bill C-11 and of many of the amendments that the NDP and other parties brought forward. It was a collaborative effort. There are a couple of weaknesses and we hope they can be addressed at report stage, particularly the area around the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 12 motions in amendments standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-11.

Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I raise a point of order.

I just wanted to point out that Bill C-11 has been radically changed and toughened, and as a result—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Let me remind you, though, that there was Bill C-11, and there were three of us here who were at this table when it was passed. As far as I know, it has not even received royal assent yet. Or has it? But that was setting up the independent office for whistle-blowing, and I haven't seen any movement on that one either. I understand that Bill C-2 came after the fact, but I think there could have been considerable work done on that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fine words of welcome from the opposition House leader.

Today, of course, we will be continuing with the opposition motion. Tomorrow we will continue debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-31, the election integrity act amendments with which we are all familiar.

For Monday and Tuesday, we are intending to call Bill C-26 on payday loans, which is at third reading, Bill C-32 on impaired driving, Bill C-11, the transport act, and Bill C-33, the technical income tax bill.

On Wednesday we hope to begin debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-31, followed by Bill C-44 relating to human rights.

Thursday, February 8 shall be an allotted day. Next Friday we would like to begin debate on the anti-terrorism motion that would extend the application of certain sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act that are due to expire.

Finally, as members know, democratic reform is a priority for Canada's new government, and given that the Liberal leader has publicly expressed his support for term limits for senators, could the official opposition inform the House as to when it can expect the unelected, unaccountable Liberal senators who are delaying and obstructing that bill to give us a chance to consider it here in the House of Commons?

Prebudget Consultations

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to wish the people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel happy holidays. I know that if my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé had the chance, he would extend the same wish to his constituents. As the Bloc Québécois transport critic, I would also like to recommend that the people of Quebec and Canada drink responsibly and call Operation Red Nose where the service is available.

My question for my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who did excellent work, concerns railways. I received many requests from him, because I had the opportunity to introduce and shepherd the amendments made by the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-11 on noise pollution.

I am very proud of the requests I received from the member for Jeanne-Le Ber. I can tell him that we will now talk about the least possible noise from vibrations. He had asked me to suggest “vibrations and fumes”, but the Conservatives did not want to accept anything but “vibrations”.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will now be able to address complaints of noise and vibrations. One of the member's urgent requests concerned the inconvenience to homeowners living near railroad tracks. This will be covered in the legislation, and if homeowners living near railroad tracks are inconvenienced, the Canadian Transportation Agency will be able to look into these cases and make comments.

My question about this ways and means motion concerns railways, which need some relief. I know that they called for accelerated depreciation. I will therefore ask my colleague to explain how accelerated depreciation will benefit railways.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

In accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, your committee considered and held hearings on the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and agreed on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, to report it with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Monsieur Laframboise.

I am advised that the amendment creates a new section in the Canada Transportation Act concerning limitations imposed on operators of railway companies relating to unreasonable noise resulting from the construction or operation of the railway. The amendment proposes to also include limitations on operators with regard to vibration and fumes resulting from the construction or operation of a railway, and Bill C-11 does not address any issues relating to vibrations or fumes.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The advice I've received and the opinion of the chair is that the introduction of limitations relating to fumes associated with the construction or operation of a railway in this amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-11 and is therefore inadmissible.

Mr. Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 31.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, we are examining Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

After a very successful last day, we're going back to the three clauses that have been stood. We are starting with clause 29 and we are dealing with amendment number BQ-4 on page 21 of your program.

I will advise Monsieur Laframboise that the chair has a concern with the motion, but I'm prepared to let you place it on the table, and then we'll proceed.

Monsieur Laframboise.

(On clause 29)

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

The groups that have also approached us as a committee, the various shipping parties that are interested in these amendments, asked us to take note that the Coalition of Rail Shippers, which represents some 80% of Canadian railway revenues, have come together to develop a common approach to fixing what they call “chronic service shortfalls” that are negatively impacting the Canadian economy in a very serious way. My amendment would hopefully simplify and rationalize the negotiating opportunity between shippers and railways.

Right now, the Canadian Transportation Agency permits final-offer arbitration--FOA, as we call it--as a recourse for shippers who can be held captive, sometimes, by the terms and conditions of what amounts to a monopoly, a monopoly means of transporting goods in some cases. These amendments would enhance final-offer arbitration by allowing groups of shippers with common interests and concerns to bring their grievances to arbitration simultaneously.

I just want to go a little further, if I could, on the background. Last May 5, according to the shippers who have contacted my office, Transport Canada agreed to bring forward amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, to enact such group rights for shippers. That was May 5. Some shippers I have spoken with felt that a promise was made to see these amendments in legislation by the end of June. It's now December. They are frustrated that these elements that were originally proposed in Bill C-44 are not on the agenda and certainly haven't found their way into Bill C-11.

If we examine the letters we all received with respect to these concerns, we see, for example.... I'm quoting the Western Grain Elevator Association: “We applaud and support your efforts to have provisions for group final offer arbitration included into Bill C-11.”

As a committee, Mr. Chair, I think we can agree on this modest evolution as a short-term attempt to re-balance the power between shippers and railways. We all agree that our economy depends on an efficient transport system. Enhancing that balance I think could only be a good thing.

I don't know if there's any other information, Mr. Chair, that the government wishes to share or can share with us with respect to these provisions, but they've now been delayed May through December--nine months. This is continuing to wreak havoc in the dispute settlement mechanisms in the business world. I think this is something we ought to address, which is why I put them here for consideration under L-5.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a few minutes, if I could, just to walk the members through why this is here. We all know that Bill C-11 has been derived significantly from Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. We know that Bill C-44 included parts, for example, of Bill C-3, on international bridges and tunnels, which we've already considered and has gone before the Senate. Bill C-44, of course, included many aspects of the bill that we're currently studying here in Bill C-11.

Bill C-44, for example, also included provisions regarding VIA Rail, which we do not see in Bill C-11. It included the provisions that you see before you in amendment L-5.

I'm bringing these before the committee to reflect the concerns of many shippers who are saying--this is their language--that they've been thoroughly neglected by the government in its rush to bring Bill C-11 forward. I'm deeply concerned by this, because I know the members of the committee ought to all have received by e-mail letters written on or around December 4 by groups like the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Industrial Transport Association, Forest Products Association of Canada, and the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.

I'm not sure if everyone has received these letters, Mr. Chair, but they contain very strong endorsements of amendment L-5, and I'd like to table that if I could for one moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've been advised that new clause 47.1 is inadmissible. The amendment seeks to amend section 160 of the Canada Transportation Act, and the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

An amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 160 of the Canada Transportation Act is not being amended by Bill C-11, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment; therefore, it is inadmissible. I do have that in writing. I have it en français and in English, and I'm prepared to circulate it.

So new clause 47.1 is denied.

Now we go to amendment L-5, page 42 to 44, a new clause. Again I will advise the committee that I do have some reservations and an opinion, but I do ask Mr. McGuinty to submit the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 30.

The order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, is a study of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us again are people from the department. We welcome you. I don't think introductions are necessary.

When we left off in the committee the other day, we were dealing with clause 13. Mr. McGuinty had put forward an amendment, which is on page 14. It is amendment L-2.

At that time, Mr. Jean introduced what was proposed to be a subamendment, but the discussion that followed suggested that it was too much of a change from the Liberal amendment and would have to be a stand-alone amendment.

What we're deciding right at this point is that if Mr. McGuinty's motion succeeds, then the motion by Mr. Jean would move off the table, and we would move either to (2.1) or on to the other clauses.

Mr. McGuinty, can you give us just a quick briefing on where you are with amendment L-2? Then I'll ask Mr. Jean or the department to discuss theirs, and then I think we can make a decision.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, one of the reasons we pushed this aside and set it aside was that although it was sent out by you on November 2, 2006, members had not received the Competition Bureau's submission on Bill C-11. I think we distributed it at the last meeting.The clerk made copies available.

Before moving any subamendment, I'd certainly like to treat the merits of this serious brief that was put forward. This was put forward in the absence of knowledge of even Transport Canada officials. I'm not sure why it would happen, but it did.

It might be useful for us to examine some of the merits of the concerns raised by the Competition Bureau. It was the thing that struck me when I first read the M and A section, the mergers and acquisition section, of the bill.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Are we then, in effect, cleaning up the language of Bill C-11--cleaning up this bill--anyway?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Julian raising the operative paragraph being put forward by Monsieur Laframboise. I wasn't dealing with that, but I will take the opportunity to say that I did have a concern.

Maybe the government can tell us why Bill C-11 as presently written does talk about submitting it to the minister, who shall cause it to be laid before both houses of Parliament, when this draft proposal with compromise language does not. Is it merely a drafting—?

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to Bill C-11, which will indeed take effect in 2011, I will point out to him that there is nothing about hybrid locomotives in that bill. There is no stated requirement for all train engines in rail yards to be hybrids by 2011, and there is nothing about the type of oil to use in order to reduce sulphur and particulate emissions either. None of that is covered.

What is this legislation, which I am very familiar with and have discussed previously, all about? What more does it do?

Perhaps we should put that in Bill C-30, because we did not in Bill C-11.

Whistleblower Protection

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we want to create a culture within our public service where the men and women who serve Canadians and serve our government have the confidence that if they step forward to report wrongdoing, their concerns will be taken seriously. They will also have freedom to do so without fear of repercussions of losing their jobs or facing a demotion.

We have brought forward the most comprehensive, meaningful whistleblower protection ever tabled in Canadian history. Not a single union stepped forward before the Bill C-11 committee hearings, the Liberal bill to support it.

A lot of hard-working public servants are proud of our measures to protect whistleblowers.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Just going back to Monsieur Laframbroise's concern, then, as it's presently drafted, Bill C-11 would compel the agency—no matter who's in charge of it, what president, what CEO, what budget it was working with—to conduct its affairs this way. In the future, three years or five years from now, could someone say, “That's enough, we're not going to treat level one complaints the same way we've been treating them for the past five years”?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just want to go to Mr. Fast's point.

Here is the memo received from Mr. D'Amore to all members of the committee and analysts. It's the brief prepared by the Competition Bureau of Canada with regard to Bill C-11, dated November 6, 2006. It was sent to the chair, in fact. There are three aspects of the bill that are focused on. I assume every member has seen this and read it. There are some very serious concerns put forward by the Competition Bureau.

I don't want to read the brief, Mr. Chair. I assume everyone has seen this.

[Helena Borges]

Can I clarify whether that happened for Bill C-11? We just had communications with them two weeks ago, and we haven't seen any written documentation from them.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment stems from a concern about vesting the minister with a serious new power, which is to review mergers and acquisitions beyond airlines in the transport sector, in federally regulated transport areas. The problem that some of us are having at the table, Mr. Chair, is that we're not sure what criteria the minister might intend to use in the review of any kind of merger or acquisition that he's being empowered to review.

I'm sure we recollect receiving a serious memo from the Competition Bureau about these provisions, raising concerns about this new power being vested in the minister and whether or not this power in any way contradicts the power or the target of the Competition Act and the role of the Commissioner of Competition to oversee all mergers and acquisitions in a Canadian context.

At first blush, when I first read this as part of Bill C-11, I was quite surprised. Unless counsel can point us in some direction, I haven't found in the federal system—which doesn't mean it doesn't exist—other areas where line department ministers have been given authority for this mergers and acquisitions types of power, which seems to be in direct conflict, or at least side by side, with the power of the Competition Bureau under the Competition Act.

What I'm trying to do is simply ask that the minister clarify, in a public way, the criteria that would be applied by the minister in making a decision about a merger or acquisition in the Canadian context. Maybe we ought to be examining what criteria are being used by this minister, whoever that person is and in whatever period of time going forward, and the criteria that are being used and applied under the Competition Act. If we have two separate bodies in the federal family conducting precisely the same review of mergers and acquisitions, using the same criteria or slightly varied criteria, what's the point? Why are we vesting this new power in the minister in the first place? That's what the amendment is trying to do.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

As a point of clarification, Mr. Jean, would proposed paragraph 52(2)(c.1), “the long term outlook in trends in transportation in Canada”, include, for example, the air travel complaints responsibilities addressed by Bill C-11 as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 28. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, are for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have our witnesses joining us again today. I don't think I need to introduce everyone. I think everyone is familiar. Welcome again today.

(On clause 11)

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, what's beautiful about the clause that's drafted here is that it is broad enough to cover everything. In my experience in the legal profession, the profession has moved towards and the law societies have moved towards something called plain language. They've even established a plain language institute. People who use the legal system and who have to read this terminology want something they can get their minds around.

Quite frankly, I did have some difficulty with the previous version in Bill C-11. The one that we have before us today, which is the government amendment, in its scope and its generality, covers everything Mr. Julian has been harping about for the last few minutes. It's difficult to conceive of anything in what he was proposing that would not fit under this. In addition, this is even broader than that, so it can take into account future changes in the movement of traffic throughout Canada.

It's there. It's general. It's going to do the job.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

The current national transportation policy, under section 5, starts off by saying:

It is hereby declared that a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of viable and effective transportation services accessible to persons with disabilities

It then goes on in paragraph (a) to say:

the national transportation system meets the highest practicable safety standards

If we don't adopt Monsieur Laframboise's motion, we're diminishing or watering down what currently exists as our national transportation policy.

Just to get a little bit ahead, the next amendment we're bringing forward is on persons with disabilities. We're referring to the current national transportation policy. So this already is in place--talking about the highest practicable safety standards, meeting the needs of people with disabilities, and having an adequate network of viable and effective transportation services. That's all here. We're making a political choice if we take all those words out, and that's what's in the version that has come before us of Bill C-11.

It's certainly not an inconsistency to say this transportation policy has been streamlined, but there are some elements that must be contained within it, and they're already there. If we choose not to adopt Monsieur Laframboise's motion, then essentially we're watering down what the current national transportation policy, as adopted by Parliament, says.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Why are we using the word “adequate”? My understanding is that we hire very skilled drafters in government to do this job for us. They draft something in context, and we run a serious risk, when we start nitpicking and inserting our own terms, of upsetting that very delicate balance that drafters use when they put together legislation. Later on there are some further amendments, and I'll be raising the issue again that there's a danger of our losing the balance between some of the parts of this particular clause because we're mickey-mousing around with the wording.

The word “adequate”, quite frankly, to my mind, coming from a legal background, is inviting litigation. It's returning uncertainty to something that the drafters had hoped was going to be certain. If this is any indication of where we're going with some of these amendments, I'm a little discouraged. I do trust our staff. It doesn't mean we don't exercise oversight over what they do, but at the same time, we have to trust them to a certain degree to provide us with the kind of wording and the flexibility that are required to deliver what we're hoping to deliver with Bill C-11.

I'm not sure this is a great start for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

What we'll do is proceed, and when we run into those difficult clauses, we'll remember the words of wisdom that we've just heard.

On Bill C-11, we're going to start with clause 1. There are no amendments put forward on clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

That first one didn't hurt at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to meeting number 26 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Today we're following the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us today are Helena Borges, director general, surface transportation policy; Brigita Gravitis-Beck, director general, air policy; and Alain Langlois, legal counsel. As everyone should know or will know, they're here to offer us advice on some of the amendments that we'll be reviewing today.

I want to make a couple of comments. We do have some amendments. I should thank the people who submitted their amendments last week so that the department could look at them, so the legal counsel could look at them. I will have some comments on them as we go through the process, reflecting the advice I've been given on those issues. As we go through them, we'll certainly try to address them individually with the staff that's here today.

With the committee's indulgence, I'm looking for agreement on something. If it's there, fine, and if it isn't.... One of the things I've asked the Transport people in general to look at is the clauses that are currently in the bill for which there are no amendments or that are not impacted by any of the amendments that are coming forward. I'm looking for direction, to see if there might be a willingness to move through it in that order and deal with the clauses that we know we can move through quickly, and then spend more time discussing and debating the amendments. We'll go over them line by line, if there are any questions. If there hasn't been an amendment put forward for a clause, then it would be something that we could pass, and then we could move into the more difficult amendments that have repercussions throughout the rest of the bill.

I ask for the committee's indulgence, if there's a willingness to do that. If not, we can proceed line by line.

Mr. Scott.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

First, allow me to thank you for your comments on bill C-11, which, obviously, deals with noise levels. I know that Mr. Laframboise spoke about it recently and I'm pleased to hear that he will be supporting this bill, which is extremely important for our communities, especially in urban areas where noise is a source of problems for our taxpayers. We were the ones who brought this legislative measure in.

With respect to the MRIF, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the title implies that this is a partnership with municipalities and small communities throughout the country.

It is my opinion that people living in these municipalities and small communities know what their priorities are. As partners, we work with them, we follow them. We are very happy to work in that manner and, obviously, according to conditions that set out terms of good management and healthy administration. I have always believed that municipalities are capable of making their own decisions. The elected members of city councils are capable of making their own decisions. They are accountable before the same taxpayers you and I are accountable before. As far as I'm concerned, in those circumstances municipalities are on the same footing as the provinces.

Obviously, decisions have to be made in terms of amounts and allocation of funding, however I feel that the municipalities are full-fledged partners in terms of the choices of projects that will be funded.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I am pleased to see that you take to heart issues that affect the Quebec City region because the pont de Québec leads to the beautiful riding of Lévis—Bellechasse. I would also like to tell you that your bill, bill C-11 — we're wrapping up our hearings — also affects many communities throughout the country. I think that many of these communities look forward to seeing it passed. We will soon be moving on to clause-by-clause study of the bill, and we truly realize that this bill has been a long time coming and that it meets the need.

That said, I would like to come back to some questions that were asked about infrastructures. This committee has discussed safety to a great extent, to date. Admittedly, the committee's mandate is rather broad. In the last budget you also significantly increased subsidies for infrastructures and you had indicated your intentions in that respect. For example, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund is of particular interest to me. This fund involves $200 million for 2006-2007 and $332 million for 2007-2008. That is a much appreciated increase, given the needs of Canadian municipalities and communities.

I have an administrative question. I think this funding is much appreciated. In terms of its management, as you know this is a federal-provincial fund. Currently, the provinces are responsible for managing the fund and they decide on the provincial and federal allocation of funds.

Could you tell us how the federal government's investments are prioritized, and describe the decision-making process for the municipal-rural infrastructure fund? What do you think? Is the current situation satisfactory? Do you have any ideas or suggestions for managing these funds?

Aeronautics Act

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-6 concerning the Aeronautics Act.

When this bill was first debated, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport Canada told us that it provides for a legislative framework to further enhance aviation safety and, through safety management systems, to have a system in place that will actually allow a continuous method of keeping Canadians safe. According to him, Australia and the United Kingdom have had great results from this system.

Bill C-6 does indeed deal with integrated management systems and does allow for voluntary reporting programs under which information relating to aviation safety and security can be reported. Bill C-6 is indeed also based on the work done by the previous Liberal government.

However, it will be up to the present government to persuade us, to persuade us and Canadians, that the bill is still a good one.

Before I delve into the provisions of the text, let me make perfectly clear the principle upon which this side of the House's comments are predicated. The average Canadian citizen trusts that when it comes to boarding an airplane in this country, to fly to any destination, our federal government carries out its responsibility to ensure that the flight will be safe.

When parents send their teenage daughter on her first trip away from home, they trust in our federal safety system. When children see their father off on a business trip, they trust in our federal safety system. When a family waits patiently at the airport for a visit from their grandmother, they trust in our federal safety system.

The government has assigned this responsibility to Transport Canada and this bill seeks to amend a large piece of the legislation that safeguards passengers on the planes in our skies.

Bill C-6 amends the Aeronautics Act, which, as we know, establishes the Minister of Transport's responsibility for the development and the regulation of aeronautics in Canada and the supervision of all matters related to aeronautics. In particular, the Aeronautics Act enables the minister to apply the Canadian aviation regulations, which are, in effect, the rules governing aviation in Canada.

Keeping this in mind, I believe all members in the House will understand the caution that we as an opposition will bring to our examination of Bill C-6.

There are four avenues of inquiry that I would like to raise here today. If Bill C-6 is acceptable in premise to this House, then we will soon see it in committee and will be able to apply a stringent analysis of it, beginning, I hope, with these questions.

A large portion of this bill deals with the decision to make “integrated management systems” the basis for a broad range of important regulations, but what exactly are integrated management systems?

Over the past 10 years, companies in the transportation industries have adopted complex plans to achieve certain goals. These are management tools. These plans are systemic, in the sense that they coordinate activities throughout the company to achieve their goals, and they are integrated, in the sense that they bring together the standards set by outside authorities with the processes used by modern transportation enterprises.

Safety management systems are an example of an essential kind of integrated management system. Under a specific safety management system, an airline may, for example, set out how and how often its mechanics have to check an airplane's engines. The plans, the safety management systems, are meant to prevent problems from occurring by taking every reasonable precaution.

By planning how often mechanics are to check the engines and by planning what they should do if there is a question mark of any sort, hopefully there will never be a safety incident. This is the role of a safety management system.

Transport Canada has been working with airlines and safety management systems for several years. Up until now, they have guided a company's actions but have not had the force of law. Instead, Transport Canada has continued to enforce safety regulations, enabled by the existing Aeronautics Act, as the legal standards for safe flying.

If an airline did not comply with the actual aviation regulations, including the paperwork submitted to prove that it was in compliance, it did not matter how good the safety management system was. The airline was simply breaking the law.

Now, with Bill C-6, the government would like to change the obligations of airlines and certain other aviation organizations. The government is saying that Transport Canada should be able to compel these organizations to meet their safety standards, these requirements, and do away with the old prescriptive Transport Canada regulations.

The argument for this evolution is that airlines have many things to do to ensure safety. They have every incentive to be safe and so have already come up with the systems that are most effective.

It is a waste of time and energy, the government argues, for these companies to verify to Transport Canada at every turn that the safety checks are done. Instead, Transport Canada should focus on ensuring that the system agreed to is actually in effect through audits and inspections.

Let us think about this for the average Canadian as if we were taking care of a truck. Right now, Transport Canada tells the company to inspect the brakes every month. It asks for paperwork stating that the inspection was complete. The company's representative declares that the inspection was done and that there was no problem. With Bill C-6, Transport Canada would instead require the company to plan to check the brakes and it would check to see that the plan was being followed, but no paperwork would be submitted on a continual basis attesting that those individual checks were done successfully.

Is this a better way of ensuring safety for travelling Canadians? Does it allow precious safety resources to be better focused on integrating a whole safe system so that incidents do not occur? Or, does it relieve pressure and ultimately lead to gaps that could have tragic consequences?

Despite the enthusiasm of the parliamentary secretary and the minister for Bill C-6, I do not see a clear-cut answer to this yet. We need to know that the safety measures that are to be used are accurate and encourage the safest possible flights. We also need to know that the safety indicators, tracked by different airlines, are comparable, that when we raise the bar, we are comparing apples to apples in establishing our safety standards.

Bill C-6 contains the provision on voluntary reporting of information relating to aviation safety and security, a provision that gives rise to another concern.

The bill authorizes the minister to establish a program under which individuals working in the transportation industry may report to his department any information relating to aviation safety that they consider to be relevant, in the strictest confidentiality. The goal here is for people who are responsible for mistakes to have every reason to admit them as soon as possible so that they can remedied before any damage is done.

I fully support the creation of an environment in which employees and others will do everything possible to ensure safety. In fact, from the important work done by our government in the area of intelligent regulation, I have observed over the years that we must be more flexible in the instruments we choose to achieve the desired result. The desired result in this case is clear: safe aircraft—period.

The government has a spectrum of possible tools at its disposal to achieve this clear goal of safety. They range, on the one hand, from specific command and control style regulations, with Transport Canada saying, “Thou shalt abide by this rule”, to, on the other hand, purely voluntary measures. My concern is that voluntary reporting of critical safety information may not be sufficient in a situation where people's lives and people's livelihoods are at risk.

Undoubtedly, we need a mix of rules and regulations that provide for the best opportunity to prevent air disasters. We have a good track record. Let us be careful about what changes we are ready to make here.

My third area of concern is the powers of the minister generally. There are several pieces of legislation before us this fall, during a minority government no less, that intend to increase the powers of the Minister of Transport.

Bill C-3 would give the minister the direct power to authorize the construction of international bridges and tunnels without parliamentary oversight. Bill C-6 would open the door for the minister to devolve his powers and responsibilities for aeronautical safety to other organizations. Bill C-11 would allow the minister to review mergers and acquisitions in all federal transportation sectors, hardly the hallmark of a Conservative government. Bill C-20, if we ever see it come to the fore, proposes to let the minister oversee and constrain the operations of airport authorities in new and restrictive ways.

When taken as a whole, these measures indicate clearly that the government is moving forward on all fronts to give the Minister of Transport new powers.

It is fear of this very tendency, what was described as a power grab, that prompted a loud outcry from the members of the Conservative Party when they were in opposition. I note that they have been strangely silent for several months now, however, when it comes to expanding government powers. This is particularly true in the case of the backbenchers on the government side.

I would note that I am not opposed to the principle of greater powers when that is necessary, but I would like to remind the minister and the government side of what they said and the expectations they created on the part of the Canadian public. They still have the onus of demonstrating the urgent need to expand the minister’s powers, not only in Bill C-6, but also in four other transport bills.

Finally, let me turn to my fourth subject and my fourth area of concern, the proposed creation of the Canadian Forces airworthiness investigative authority. The new CFAIA, as it is called, would take on the responsibilities of the Transportation Safety Board for aeronautical incidents, including accidents that involve Canadian Forces aircraft.

The information surrounding these events would now fall under the clear jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence, as we have just heard from his parliamentary secretary. This is, in and of itself, a sensible development. However, the concerns expressed to me by various groups, which I wish to express to the government, regard incidents that involve both military and civilian aircraft.

The new CFAIA would be given the authority to investigate these incidents and accidents in Bill C-6. However, Canadians want to be assured that they will still have access to full and complete information in the unfortunate circumstance that an accident affects them or their loved ones. In fact, they would like access to full and complete information whether or not the accident directly affects them because transparency is of the utmost importance in a democratic society such as ours.

The new subsection 17(2) of the Aeronautics Act would read that investigation observers from outside the forces are “Subject to any conditions that the Airworthiness Investigative Authority imposes...”. It is incumbent upon the government to now clarify what measures are being taken to guarantee that the facts of any future incident will not be covered up using the proposed provisions of the Aeronautics Act.

I know that the government is committed in words to transparency, but Canadians need to see that the government is equally committed to act in a transparent manner.

I am pleased to see that under Liberal leadership, the government did extensive consultations with industry, labour and other stakeholders, and that there appears to be widespread support for some of the provisions in this bill, but as a responsible opposition, we are not yet convinced that the bill as written meets the appropriate societal tests.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must be constantly vigilant to ensure that the federal government, which is constitutionally seized with and responsible for aeronautical safety, and the private aircraft operators and companies who compete today in a low margin, highly competitive international marketplace, have struck the appropriate balance of rule and regulation to provide for safety in the greater public interest.

The families who depart and arrive in airports throughout Canada, every minute and every hour of every day, deserve no less than our full attention to Bill C-6.

We will support the bill at second reading and I look forward to the opportunity in committee to hear witnesses explain, in much greater detail, what will actually happen on the ground should Bill C-6 earn our ultimate approval.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

As the agency responsible for the mediation and adjudication process outlined in our dispute resolution section of Bill C-11, do you feel that both the public service providers and the rail companies will be on a level playing field with this, or will there be any inherent advantages for one or the other?

[Gilles Dufault, Acting Chairman, Canadian Transportation Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We are pleased to be here this afternoon to answer questions that members may have on Bill C-11.

As was the case last time, I have with me today, from the Canadian Transportation Agency, Mr. Seymour Isenberg, Director General Rail and Marine Branch, and Ms. Joan MacDonald, Director General, Air and Accessible Transportation Branch.

Mr. Chair, we're ready to answer questions of the members of the committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'll start with Mr. Churko. We appreciate your coming before the committee today.

You made a couple of comments around the costings of rail cars, that the costings come from the railways themselves, which is a real problem for farmers. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, there is no process now for involving stakeholders, the farmers themselves, in the costing around rail cars.

I'd like you to go into some detail about what process you would recommend and whether or not you believe it's germane to Bill C-11 and whether there are possible amendments we could bring forward to that.

[Bernie Churko, Chief Executive Officer, Farmer Rail Car Coalition]

Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Transport, good afternoon. On behalf of the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, I want to thank you for this opportunity to comment on Bill C-11.

The Farmer Rail Car Coalition, an organization comprising 17 farm organizations from the three prairie provinces, was established to realize a fairly simple goal: to provide an adequate supply of reliable, well-maintained, modern cars for the movement of western Canadian grain at the lowest possible cost to farmers.

Considering that the previous government had committed to selling its hopper car fleet, the FRCC is convinced that it had developed a business plan that would have delivered on that goal. It is that plan that formed the basis of the agreement reached by the FRCC and the Government of Canada in November of 2005.

During the development of its business plan, the FRCC examined the costs associated with the maintenance of hopper cars in North America. After extensive study, it determined that the North American industry average cost related to the maintenance of a grain service hopper car of similar vintage to those of the government fleet is approximately $1,500 per car, per year. The Canadian Transportation Agency had estimated that for the 2002-2003 crop year, $4,329 per car, per year is embedded in the revenue cap. Not only were the costs excessive, the cars were not being maintained to acceptable standards. For the federal government fleet, this difference in cost approaches $40 million annually.

On May 4, 2006, the new federal government announced its decision to retain ownership of the federal hopper car fleet, thus ending the proposed purchase of the fleet by the FRCC. To address the excess hopper car maintenance costs being paid by producers, as identified by the FRCC, the federal government announced that legislation would be introduced that would result in a net reduction of freight rates by an estimated $2.00 to $2.50 per tonne.

Considering that approximately 25,000 cars are used in grain service in an average year, the difference between FRCC's maintenance plan and the costs embedded in the revenue cap could amount to over $70 million per year when all cars--other government cars, the Canadian Wheat Board cars, and the railway cars--are included.

The FRCC advised the government that it was prepared to support the government's decision to retain ownership providing six recommendations were adopted. Two of these require legislative amendments. These recommendations were forwarded to the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and, I understand, to this committee. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food adopted a variation of the FRCC's recommendations on May 30, 2006.

The first of these six recommendations was to introduce legislation to remove from the revenue cap the excess maintenance costs for all cars moving statutory grain. Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to see that the government has taken action on this recommendation.

After examining the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act proposed in Bill C-11, the FRCC has concluded that the addition of clause 57 of the transitional provisions does provide the agency with the legislative authority needed to undertake the recosting of hopper car maintenance for all hopper cars.

The FRCC and all its member organizations wish to thank the government for recognizing and expeditiously addressing this problem. We do have two concerns, however. In many cases, when the agency undertakes a railway costing exercise, the primary source of their information is the railways themselves. This happens because in most instances no other source of data exists. In the area of hopper car maintenance, however, there are numerous sources of information that can be drawn on by the agency. In fact, parties other than the class 1 railways own nearly 65% of hopper cars in service in North America. It is our view that this information provides an invaluable benchmark against which the railway maintenance costs should be compared.

Our second concern is that in some cases the agency conducts its work in railway costing without the benefit of input from affected stakeholders. We believe it is imperative that in this case stakeholders be invited to participate in the process. This has proven to be a very successful process when the agency indexes costs, as required under the act.

With respect to clause 151, the FRCC has examined the proposed legislative amendment and has determined that it is inhibiting the ability of shippers to economically acquire their own car supply; and secondly, it is impeding private sector shops from successfully carrying out the maintenance of the government fleet where it is the lowest-cost option. Both of these are important if the transportation system is to effectively serve the grain industry.

In a circumstance where government-supplied cars are to be provided to the railways on a full-service basis--that is, the railways are not responsible for maintenance costs, or are removed from railway service and leased directly to shippers of statutory grains on a full-service leased basis--no clear provisions exist in the act to remove the maintenance cost embedded in the revenue cap for these cars. As a result, a situation could exist where the railways are being paid for maintaining cars that they are no longer maintaining.

The FRCC recommends that paragraph 151.(4)(c) be amended to state:

The Agency shall make adjustments to the index to reflect the changes in costs incurred by the prescribed railway companies as a result of the sale, lease, change in lease terms or other disposal or withdrawal from service of government hopper cars.

Finally, it is common practice for shippers in the business of moving bulk commodities to acquire rail cars to ensure they have the capacity to meet market demands. The act supports this practice. Subsection 113.(3) of the act states:

Where a shipper provides rolling stock for the carriage by the railway company of the shipper's traffic, the company shall, at the request of the shipper, establish specific reasonable compensation to the shipper in a tariff for the provision of rolling stock.

However, in the case of statutory grain movements, the legislation does not easily accommodate this practice. In some circumstances, the affected railway may not be able to recoup the compensation it provided to the shipper; in other cases, the railway may be compensated again for revenues that it's already entitled to under the revenue cap.

The agency requires the clear authority to assess the circumstances and permit an adjustment to the revenue cap that deals fairly with both the railway and the shipper. The FRCC recommends that paragraph 150.(3)(a) of the act be amended to state:

For the purpose of this section, a prescribed railway company's revenue for the movement of grain in a crop year shall not include

(a) incentives, rebates or any similar reductions paid or allowed by the company,

—and this is the addition—

including reasonable compensation paid by the company to a shipper for the provision of rolling stock for the carriage by the railway company of the shipper's grain;

I look forward to discussing these issues as well as any other issues of interest to the committee during the question period. I also hope we have an opportunity to explore the FRCC's other recommendations.

[Jean R. Gauthier, President, Regroupement des citoyens contre la Pollution]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for giving us the opportunity to make observations and recommendations. We hope that we can be of use to you and inspire the committee in its work.

The Regroupement des citoyens contre la pollution was founded a few years back. Its mission is to pursue humanitarian objectives, such as defending quality of life and environmental integrity, providing its members and the general public with the information needed to properly understand issues of industrial and agricultural pollution, and taking all the means available to identify, denounce and, if necessary, prosecute individuals or corporations responsible for commercial and industrial activities deemed to contaminate or harm the environment. That is our purpose.

In our introduction, we would like to stress that we fully endorse the brief submitted by the Coalition québécoise contre les bruits ferroviaires (Quebec Coalition Against Railway Noise) and that of the City of Lévis, which were submitted to you and tabled a few days ago in the context of the review of Bill C-11.

The railway industry has flourished in recent years, and we are delighted that it has. However, this has given rise to a number of problems for people living close to railway tracks.

The two major problems linked to this growth are a significant decline in the quality of life caused by noise (whistles, engines running at full power, screeching wheels, cars being coupled in switching yards and inconvenience to road users) and the imminent dangers related to the transportation of dangerous goods (derailments, spills, collisions, explosions, etc.).

This situation has a deplorable impact on the quality of life and on the health of residents along with negative economic impacts. The activities of the major rail carriers, i.e, CN and CP, have a direct impact on the real estate value of adjacent properties.

I will now ask Ghislain to talk to you about noise pollution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call to order meeting 23 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Certainly, Mr. Chair. I apologize.

Let us take Bill C-11, for example, which is being considered in the transport committee. We have now had four weeks of hearings from witnesses across the country on that particular bill, and in fact we are looking at a period of six weeks to submit amendments.

In this case, the opposition was extremely cooperative. Eight days after receiving a clause-by-clause report, it submitted clause-by-clause amendments to the bill. That level of cooperation is something that wasn't seen either in this or the previous Parliament.

So I would hope that the government would cooperate back, given that we have made concessions, both in terms of the time required for amendments and also in extending the time today for the hearing.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to come to the most important thing, the actual witnesses themselves, and what they have said in requesting to be heard in front of this committee. Whether it's by teleconference, video conference, or in person, I think this is of much less important than the fact that they want to appear.

Russ Cameron of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association stated the following. He urges you to convene committee meetings so that the parties affected by Bill C-24 may appear as witnesses and express their views on this pending legislation:

We realize that sessions were held earlier in this process as we appeared at them, but things have changed a great deal since that time. For example, we were originally assured that all our interest would be returned to us, but now Canada will take some of it too. We were originally told in writing that we would get all our money back if we elected not to sell to EDC at a discount, but now Canada is imposing a special charge and will take that money from us too. We were originally told that 95% support was required, but when it was not there, Canada changed that requirement. We were originally told that all litigation must be dropped, but when it was not dropped, GOC changed that requirement too.

We have yet to see the much changed final agreement that the GOC plans to force upon us, yet we are currently operating under it. We now have experience with what this agreement will do to our industry and we need the opportunity to relate this new knowledge to the Committee.

At the July 31 Trade Committee meetings, a motion by Mr. Julian was passed to take the Committee to the affected parties and hold meetings in BC, Quebec, and Ontario. This has not yet occurred

--and we ask you to follow through with this motion.

The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association represents 120 B.C. companies, employing over 4,000 Canadians. Our annual sales are $2.5 billion on four billion board feet.

So that's Russ Cameron from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association writing to urge this committee to have hearings on Bill C-24 before we move to clause-by-clause consideration.

We have a letter from Frank Everett, and Bill Derbyshire, who's president of Local 1425--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I was going to make a suggestion, and we will deal with Mr. Laframboise's request.

In the note we sent out to members of the committee, we did ask what extra time they would have to allow us to set up some extra committee meetings. To date, one committee member has responded, so please put that in to us.

I was going to ask the subcommittee to have a meeting--and I agree with my colleagues on this side--to lay out the agenda beyond Bill C-11. It would include some of the motions that have been put forward and would also deal with future bills that are coming down the pipe.

I know everyone has a busy schedule, but from a selfish point of view, I would like to have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow. I would suggest from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Perhaps we could put some detail around the outside meetings we want to have and also the order of the motions that we've taken.

I felt I was under the instruction of the committee to organize the witness schedule and the clause-by-clause consideration, and I'm certainly prepared to listen to other suggestions, but beyond that, I think the direction of the subcommittee should make those decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I was given the direction by this group to deal with Bill C-11. What I did was arrange the witness list and dates. As of Thursday, we will have heard the last witnesses on Bill C-11, as is indicated on the schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, you should have received the calendar that lays out the agenda for Bill C-11.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I know we have a lot of things on the table, including Mr. Laframboise's motion and Mr. Bell's that is coming. We have the estimates that should be looked at sometime within the next week. All of these will have to be somehow built into our work.

When we vote on whatever comes out of Mr. Bell's motion, we're really acknowledging the need for that inquiry or study of railway safety. It's then up to the subcommittee to come back to our overall committee and determine how we're going to proceed with all of these. For example, when do we see the final date for Bill C-11? Somebody says that's next week, but it would be good to know, Mr. Chair.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I do not want to be misunderstood. It had already been determined, in the context of future work, that railway safety would be included in the work of our committee. However, if, because of a motion, we change the order in which we deal with the files, we run the risk of everyone presenting motions on specific files and then having to deal with them. For this reason, I would say that, if Mr. Bell believes that safety problems are worse in the west than in other areas, I am not opposed to dedicating one meeting to that issue and calling upon experts.

If I were told that this is one of the issues that the committee should study, I would reply that we should have a meeting on future work and make a clear decision. Do we want Bill C-11 to pass or do we want to talk about safety? If we talk about safety, we must set the bill aside, send it back, and give priority to safety issues.

I do not want a motion to divert the work of the committee. We already agreed to study safety issues. For me personally, Quebec is just as important, if not more so, than other regions, but if there are specific problems at this time in western Canada, as is the case in Montreal regarding air safety, I am prepared to support the cause and opt to study safety problems. If we want our committee to focus on studying safety, I would suggest to Mr. Bell that we hold a meeting on the committee's future work, that we organize ourselves accordingly and that we leave nothing out. I am not against proceeding in this manner. For now, however, I am having a hard time following.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Laframboise, the intention of the original motion was that it be Canada-wide. And if you'll notice, the phraseology said “into rail safety and particularly”, not “selectively” or “only.” But the words “in Canada” were simply to clarify that.

What I envisage is that we would gather statistics--we wouldn't do it, the statistics would be gathered for us--as to the experience, and we have some of it now in Ontario and other areas, in Quebec and the Maritimes. If there aren't problems beyond the ordinary, if there doesn't seem to have been a particular rise or the level appears to be okay in the other areas, that's one thing. But particularly in western Canada--and I have a list of incidents in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan--where the number seems to have risen. In one instance, it's suggested that there have been ten so far this year in Saskatchewan; in 2005 there were nine. So it does not seem to be dissipating. It may well be that the primary focus of the inquiry would be on the west. But I did not want to exclude the other parts of Canada that might think we were not interested in rail safety in those areas as well.

Certainly, it is not meant that this would queue-jump over some of the other work this committee is already proceeding with. The one mentioned is your concern about the airport. Originally, when I first drafted this motion, I made a reference that it would follow Bill C-11 and some of the other priorities of this committee. This would fit in with the priorities of the committee, and it's not meant to supercede them. It's meant to ensure that when we do this, we establish some baseline information that can be used in future, so that we can reference back to it. If we do the reference work now, it's there. Five years from now or two years from now, this committee can go back and say these were the facts in 2006--the history. It can then determine...because we've had statements from presenters who have said things are getting better, particularly the railways. I'd like to see how much better they are getting--or, as Mr. Gow and some of the others made reference to, they're getting better but they may not be getting better fast enough.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to touch on the issue of airfare advertising and air travel complaints within Bill C-11. You mentioned, Mr. Gow, that your organization represents air travel consumers as well.

Mr. Benson, when we talk about the Teamsters we're talking about all modes of transportation. I wonder if you have any comments to offer on either of those elements of Bill C-11--transparency in airfare advertising and air travel complaints going to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

[Phil Benson]

I'll send it directly to the clerk.

I'm sure there are laws, but the question is whether they are specifically similar to Bill C-11. So I will pursue that matter.

[Phil Benson]

Thank you very much.

The issue is that often when we look at one statute, in this case Bill C-11, we tend to look at one problem. If we stand back and look at a broader concern, we could be parochial and say, “If it doesn't go by rail, it's going to go by road; fine by us.” At the same time, we have a lot of social concerns. We have concerns about clean air. We have concerns about using things environmentally correctly. We have all sorts of broad social concerns.

We also have issues where, in other parts of Transport Canada, different regulations and different acts permit different ways of marshalling that, quite truthfully, we've had concerns about for safety and other reasons. They tend to make things a tad noisier. We don't like the squealing of large trains going around bends, but we permit the trains because, for the economy, we just have to have them.

So the only concern I would raise is that it's not the issue of reducing noise. People have a right, and I think as a society we should stand up for that right, to have a certain quality of life, and that includes not being harassed by screaming noise. But quite often with government, and especially with regulatory bodies, the right hand is doing one thing and the left hand is doing another. One says we don't want noise, the other one says it's okay. One says we don't want marshalling yards close to cities; if that means there are going to be more trucks, fine. The other one says we don't want pollution, we want to have more efficient use of stuff.

That's why I say that when we go to the regulatory thing, if parliamentarians retain some kind of control and handle on it, we can actually have a holistic solution. When we just look at one thing in isolation, we come up with one answer. From our perspective, if you look at it in a global way, you end up with a simplistic solution that may in fact....

Would people like a little bit more noise and a little less pollution? This is the type of thing we have to weigh. I'm looking forward to things like the Clean Air Act coming forward so that we can discuss them.

Thank you.

[Phil Benson]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Simply to make you aware, in other transport areas they are looking at things like speed limits for marshalling yards for other reasons. You talked about the humping; there are also remote control units they're pushing, which give less control over how fast things go, how hard things couple. While you're looking at Bill C-11 and talking about noise, at the same time there are what are regarded as complementary consultations and discussions going on about various technologies and uses they have to marshal. Again, that's why I said the devil's in the details, because we are aware that things are happening in other areas of Transport Canada that kind of address some of these issues, or may address some of them.

Consider noise, one issue that was raised by our locomotive engineers. Again, if you pick an area where they have very high-priced condos or homes being built and we have a crossing that isn't a properly controlled crossing, they have to blow their whistles: there's no option, they have a requirement to do it. Of course, we can go ahead and build a proper crossing for them and put an overpass in at $25 million to $30 million or more a pop. So I think the devil is really in the details about how we deal with it. Certainly, having lived across from a marshalling yard in Vancouver and being awakened at three o'clock in the morning with a loud clatter and bang, I can appreciate it.

I think somehow we have to balance the needs and interests of the business with what the community needs. I think we have to respect things like sound levels, and we have to do it in a meaningful way. I think we have to look at it holistically. We can't have one part of Transport Canada creating regulations that will make noise under one act and under this act have a bunch of regulations to make less noise.

The devil is really in the details, and we look forward to working with you on them. It's something I really sympathize with.

When we talk about long trains, Transport Canada gave authority for long trains so we can move stuff out of Vancouver. As you understand, coming from there--in fact, we got together out there because it's my original home as well--we have complaints about screeching wheels going around a bend and that it's the railway's fault. Well, we had an economic problem. How do we move all that stuff off the port? Let's make one-mile or two-mile-long trains. Now we have people complaining about screeching. So are we going to use Bill C-11 to stop the screeching when some other department has said we have to do that?

Coming from Teamsters Canada, where we look at all modes of transportation--we look at everything--we tend to view it in a more holistic manner. I think that's why, as we move forward...it's how we link all of these things together to get a solution that will allow our members to do what they do very well and allow the businesses to make business and get the stuff that has to be...and also to make sure that your constituents and Monsieur Laframboise's and others' constituents can have a good night's sleep as well.

[Harry Gow]

No, it's context. It's not within the bill. This is simply a plug to remind members that VIA Rail has some needs. They haven't all been met.

But for the act to operate efficiently, one has to have viable carriers. That's all. I wouldn't push this as part of Bill C-11. It's context, sir.

[Harry Gow, Founding President, Transport 2000 Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Transport 2000 wishes to thank you for the opportunity to briefly present our points of view regarding Bill C-11. There are a few ancillary matters that constitute context, rather than directly belonging to Bill C-11.

As a general comment, we support Bill C-11, but we have some concerns with some proposed sections as the amendment now reads, because those proposed sections do not appear to serve our best interest as Canadians. There are four points, of which the middle two are really on Bill C-11. The first and fourth are contextual, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Transport 2000 would like to draw the committee's attention to the uncertain long-term prospects for VIA Rail. As a national business and public service provider, VIA continues to suffer from a lack of a legislative basis, which would ensure its long-term survival.

The second point concerns the national transportation policy declaration, particularly, the statement that prohibits investing in one mode of transportation to the detriment of another form of transportation. In our view, this would be highly problematic. Studies from other developed countries, and even our own studies in Nova Scotia, indicate exactly the opposite. In fact, the introduction of one form of transportation can actually increase the use of other forms of transportation in the same region. Such a catalytic effect could reduce our dependence on private vehicles and help achieve the emissions targets set out under the new clean air act.

The Nova Scotia work we did showed that when passenger trains were withdrawn from local runs, for instance, in the Annapolis Valley and up to Cape Breton, the number of bus passengers dropped immediately by 10%. We did a survey and we found it was because people were using the two services in a complementary way to increase frequency. When that frequency dropped, the number of passengers dropped by more than the number or percentage of runs removed.

The other effect is connectivity. People can travel on from a train trip on the bus, or vice versa. Adding a corridor may actually benefit both modes, and the same may be true of other modes, although there are some highly competitive businesses where that might not be so.

While we appreciate that the new act reaffirms established principles and embraces new ones, notably the environment, this strikes us as needlessly restrictive. This may be a surprising statement, but while both economic and environmental factors are identified, we urge the committee to go a step further and add a reference to sustainable development as a guiding principle of Bill C-11. Such a reference would include social considerations as well as economic and environmental ones. This is according to the definition of sustainable development by the Brundtland commission.

Finally, Transport 2000 has been advised that some members of Parliament have received complaints regarding noise from railways. Before resorting to costly measures, changes in operating hours, large sound barriers, or even removal of track, we advise the mediation service available through Transport Canada be first used. There are numerous options for such things as noise abatement. I won't elaborate on that, but if people want details, I'd be happy to supply them at another time.

There is an annex here called ”VIA Rail Service--the Importance of Investment”. It was written to mark the coming of 150 years of service between Montreal and Toronto. It limits itself to a statement about the value of rapid train service in the corridor, but mutatis mutandis, these considerations would apply in other areas of the country, such as the Maritimes, or between Calgary and Edmonton. Indeed, the whole VIA network is valuable economically for tourism, business, and visiting families and relatives.

Finally, we strongly support giving more protection to rural rail lines. The urban lines are and will be protected to a degree. Ottawa, for example, has benefited from this. On the other hand, on Vancouver Island there's the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, which is now in the hands of the Island Corridor Foundation. By the way, the mayor of Parksville, Mr. Jack Peake, sends you his greetings.

The Esquimalt and Nanaimo--the Island Corridor Foundation, as it is now called--is in the process of building its business case and would like to draw attention to a few points. First, protect rural lines the same as lines in towns. Second, the passage of a new VIA Rail act would be helpful for these people on the island. Finally, the language of a bill ought to be modified to include rural rail lines.

We also suggest removing from the bill any references to urban transit authorities, to be replaced with expressions such as transportation agency or similar body. This would allow such authorities, boards or agencies to be established in rural areas, as well. For example, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell plan to expand the territory served by the Clarence-Rockland Transit authority to eventually include the United Counties and even part of Glengarry County. This area is not at all urban, in a strict sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I have said what I had to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We're studying Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us today, we have Mr. Phil Benson from Teamsters Canada. Representing Transport 2000 Canada, we have Mr. Harry Gow, the founding president. Offering support is the current president, Mr. David Jeanes.

Welcome. I'm sure you've probably had some experience appearing before committees before. As indicated, you have a seven-minute timeframe for presentations, and then there will be questions from the committee.

Mr. Gow, if you'd like to start, please go ahead.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My colleagues and I discussed this, and I actually proposed to Mr. McGuinty that we would support this unanimously. That would have a real effect for those outside of the committee to see what we want to challenge and certainly infrastructure in the motion itself is of good content.

My concerns, like those of Mr. Lamframboise, are the security of Montreal airport and Bill C-11, to make sure that these people who have come before us and are watching us so closely and are listening to us today realize that we're not trying to hesitate. We're a committee that gets action done, and we're going to get Bill C-11 done.

Mr. McGuinty, these are projects that are happening five to twenty years from now. I'm very interested in them as well, but as for the $30 million that was removed by the province, you should probably talk to your brother about that, because it was his decision to remove that. Our federal money was contingent—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I agree with you completely and I agree with Monsieur Laframboise completely, and to assuage the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, I don't want to hold up Bill C-11. I think Mr. Scott's suggestion of holding additional meetings—one for Monsieur Duchesneau—as soon as possible and moving immediately to begin looking for a time and place to deal with this motion and to convene infrastructure officials can happen contemporaneously with Bill C-11 discussions. I don't think anyone wants to delay the passage of Bill C-11. We have lots of meat to chew on and lots of amendments to consider, I'm sure.

But it would be unnecessary to delay it until next Tuesday, Mr. Chairman. We can probably move on the motion and continue the debate or put it to a vote. Perhaps we could then work with staff and the clerk to find additional times. I don't know if evenings are doable or not doable in terms of being able to convene. I just think this is of such import that we need to get some clarity around what's happening with booked, unbooked, and future projects.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I simply want us to be on the same page. I don't think there is any urgent need to debate the motion. I tend to agree with Mr. Jean, in that we have adopted a work plan and now we must deal with Bill C-11, as quickly as possible. The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request the presence of senior infrastructure officials [...]

It doesn't specifically say at the next meeting or when exactly.

Getting back to my motion, I'm starting to run out of patience. I've been very nice and civil with Mr. Duchesneau, but my patience is wearing thin. I want to hear from him before we examine this matter, simply because the motion was tabled first. Therefore, I'm asking my colleagues to support me on this. I have no objections to discussing my motion after that. I might even have a small amendment to suggest later, but I have no objections at this time.

However, I do want us to have a debate. Mr. McGuinty, you mentioned earlier that according to Conservative members or to the Minister, municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. That is consistent with the Bloc Québécois' position. Therefore, I can't fault the Conservatives for saying that constitutionally, municipalities are a provincial responsibility and that that the provinces must be included in the discussions. I don't want us to get off track. However, I would like to know the substance of these programs.

I'd like to suggest one small amendment -- I've spoken to you about it -- a little later, but right now, we need to focus on Bill C-11 first, hear from Mr. Duchesneau and then consider the motion. I don't have a problem with that. I'm prepared to hold a special meeting, if necessary. We made a promise to the public in so far as this bill is concerned. Therefore, I want us to adopt the legislation as quickly as possible and get on with matters.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think it's incorrect to suggest that this is inconsistent with the speedy passage of Bill C-11. The only thing we're doing on Bill C-11 now is listening to witnesses. Everybody submitted names for the witness list. We're doing this in due process. I can't see any holdup.

As to as dealing with urgent matters deserving of our attention, Kevin would know as well as anybody that the sitting time of this committee is not unusually onerous. When Kevin was a member of the justice committee with me, I can remember sitting five, six sessions a week. So if we want to deal with this, we should find the time to deal with it as an important matter. I don't think it's a reasonable objection to say we can't consider it because we're too busy doing what we're doing. There's time to do this, and I think it's worth it. We should do it quickly.

The infrastructure programs, big programs, important programs to Canada—I'll acknowledge that some of these have been extended. The municipal rural infrastructure, the border and highway infrastructure, have been extended by the government. But they're making policy decisions on these programs without our having any say in the matter. These are important public policy issues. Large amounts of money are being committed and uncommitted without any parliamentary oversight at all.

So I think we have to do this. We should use time that is not currently committed to dealing with Bill C-11, so nobody can charge that this is getting in the way of Bill C-11. I think we should do it forthwith. In our absence, there are important public policy decisions being taken on significant programs.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The first thing, as Mr. McGuinty would say, is that at this point in time it's very important. People are dying right now in rail accidents. We have some issues with security at airports. My main issue, and the government's issue, is the timing of this. We have some legislation before us. Safety is a primary purpose for which this committee has suggested we look at this as the most important issue, and security is certainly one of those issues. Mr. Laframboise has a motion that we want to support in getting that.

My concern as well is that we have, of course, citizen groups, and this Conservative government is moving forward with legislation to deal with tens of thousands of citizens' complaints on rail noise, fumes and environmental concerns, and even traffic congestion in Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, and Vancouver that affects the health, sleep, and sanity of so many Canadians. Why are these other parties blocking that legislation from happening?

I think those citizen groups are very concerned with that happening. We've heard from many citizens here who are very concerned. They can't sleep. Their health is affected. I'd like to know what the timing is.

Speaking for Mr. McGuinty, he wants to interrupt this legislation to bring this forward now. We have three to five more meetings, and I think we should get it done. If that happens, certainly we'll have no difficulty with the motion after that time, as long as Bill C-11 is dealt with first, and, I would suggest, Mr. Laframboise's motion immediately thereafter.

[Cliff Mackay]

Can I pick up on that? We have had a very aggressive emissions reduction program for over ten years. We're the only part of the transportation sector of Canada that has actually reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in the last ten years, while we've grown exponentially.

Mr. McGuinty, we have stepped out, and we're going to step out some more. We didn't wait for the government to put Bill C-11 on the table. We've been pushing noise and proximity issues for three or four years now, and we've been taking the lead on them.

[Claude Mongeau, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, Canadian National Railway Company]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be here to address the committee.

I'm delighted to be here today to meet with committee members. I will be speaking in English, but I will be happy to answer your questions in either English or French following my presentation.

If I could, I'd like to say a few words about the CTA process, about the state of the rail industry, and also give you the details of the comments that we have about Bill C-11 as it stands today. I think having a sense of the process and the state of the rail industry provides good context through understanding to help you make your policy decisions in the right way.

It was about ten years ago that the current legislation of the CTA was put in place. The previous CTA act of 1996 was put forward with a view to bringing commercial forces and an agenda of change to the rail industry, and it's been quite a successful process. The previous legislation introduced, for instance, more streamlined rules for the abandonment and the transfer of lines. It created an opportunity for the mainline carriers in Canada, CN and CP, to significantly improve their cost structure, but at the same time it created a vibrant short-line industry.

There were a number of other commercial initiatives in the previous legislation that have paid dividends in terms of the improvement of the rail industry over the last ten years. At about the same time, the Government of Canada also decided to privatize CN, which was also a very bold agenda of change. That has also been a remarkable transformation, which I believe improved the rail system in Canada to a great degree.

I think the federal government and your predecessors as members of the transport committee should be proud of where we stand today in the rail industry. CN has transformed itself from a laggard railroad ten years ago to a leading railroad in the North American industry. CP Limited has created CP Rail, which is today a focused, lean railroad serving all of Canada. I invite you to look at the hard facts, because too often you're hearing your constituency talk about various specific points of concerns or issues they have with the railway, but not often enough do we hear the broad picture about where the rail industry is and the progress that's been made over the last ten years.

Today the service is better than it's ever been. If I take CN's example, for instance, our transit time and the reliability with which we achieve our transit time has improved by more than 50% over the last ten years. We went from quoting a service, for instance, from Edmonton to Chicago, which was a week to ten days; today we measure our service one trip planned at a time, and our service from Edmonton to Chicago is 102 hours, which is four days, and we achieve it more than 90% of the time.

Efficiency has improved dramatically through cost reductions, through initiatives on asset utilization. For instance, today CN has 800 fewer locomotives to carry more business than it did ten years ago. With efficiency comes the ability to lower rates and share productivity with the shippers, our customers. Rates are lower today than they were ten years ago. Grain rates, I mentioned to your colleagues in the agriculture committee, as one example, are 35% lower in Canada than they are just south of the border in the U.S.

Safety has also improved dramatically. I'm proud to say that the two Canadian railroads today are by far the safest railroads in North America. We are 40% safer than our four peers in the industry, objectively and consistently measured using the same metric. I know it's a topic of interest and I know it's an area we have to continue to make progress on, but the facts are that the two railroads in Canada are the safest in North America. Of course we're also a lot more profitable, and that's a good thing. With profit comes the ability to invest, and we are a very capital-intensive business. CN this year will invest $1.6 billion back into its plants.

So I think it's fair to say, and I'm a bit biased, we have the best rail system in the world, and we should be proud of that. It's 100% privately funded, and it's a key asset for Canada in terms of transportation for a trading nation.

In terms of the CTA review process, it brings a lot of challenges for railroads. I'll tell you, we're a very unique business. Very few businesses touch more than 200 ridings, as CN does, and we touch every one of your constituencies. We understand the challenge. We are two of us, and there are many out there that have specific issues and have a lobbying agenda. I think it's very important that you, as members of Parliament, relay those constituencies' concerns into policy, but at the same time I think as transport committee members you have to take a balanced view and you have to focus on what's right for the transportation sector.

I think the keeping of that balanced view is very important as you review some of the provisions of Bill C-11. I will tell you from the outset that we are in general agreement with the bill.

We agree, for instance, on the role of the agency for mediation, whether it's for passenger issues or for noise. We also agree on the public interest review for mergers that the minister and Parliament should have in case of transactions. We agree on provisions such as the setting of a list for urban area sidings and spurs.

We agree with the broad goals; we have issues with the devil that is in the details, and we believe that in a certain number of areas the bill goes too far and has risks you should consider very carefully.

On noise, for instance, Cliff gave you a good outline. But there are a lot of efforts. Things can improve, but it's not as though we're sitting still and trying to be good neighbours. Often the issues are land use issues. It's about having harmonious co-habitation. When the residential areas are too close to our rail lines, the proximity creates unavoidable difficulties. The reality is we have a steel rail technology that's outdoors. It's a 24-hour operation and it creates noise.

We have to find ways to address that noise, and the fact that there is a court of appeal and a recourse to the agency with powers to enforce specific mitigation is something we agree with. We would very seriously, though, caution you against changing the wording on some of the criteria.

For instance, “unreasonable noise” is the right test. The notion of having the “least noise” approach is very difficult to manage. Least noise would be a rubber railroad, or it would mean taking the yards out of town altogether.

I think you should give a chance to this new system. Nothing exists today. I think the standard is the right one and that the agency has the power and expertise to address issues going forward.

On passenger and commuter rail provisions, we have some concerns too. We agree with the notion that the passenger or commuter could have the right to go to the agency to settle issues with the railroad, but I take exception to some of the comments I read from the transcript of my colleagues from GO Transit, AMT, and West Coast Express. The impression that CN or that the railroads are gouging commuters or passengers is simply not true. The reality is that in most instances—and there are exceptions, but in most instances—we have a fair approach to those issues.

I'll give you a few examples to explain to you where we have the most difficulty. The most difficulty comes with the notion of setting the rate on the basis of the net book value of our assets.

We agree with the concept that the agency could set the rate and also agree with the concept that the agency could set the rate with a view to the public interest and that the public interest includes a notion that does not necessarily address fair market value or highest best use. But to go as far as setting the policy on net book value would be a big mistake.

I'll give you an example from Quebec of an agreement I just recently personally negotiated with the AMT. It's for the Deux Montagnes line that goes into Montreal through the Mount Royal tunnel. The value of the land on which this railroad sits, as it is assessed by municipal authorities, is $60 million across the fence.

If we were charging or if the AMT were paying the CTA cost of capital on the value that is being assessed by municipalities, the access fee would be $5 million per year. I can tell you that the AMT does not pay half of that.

If they were to pay on the basis of net book value, the amount they would pay would be near zero. It would be a fraction of what they pay today, and there's a very simple reason for that. Net book value is an historical concept. The land we own at CN for this property was purchased in 1912. CN paid, in 1912, $225,000 for the land. That's our book value. If you applied the 8% on that $225,000, you would get thousands of dollars for the use of something that municipalities value at $60 million and tax us on using as a basis that same $60 million.

I know a lot of you have experience in the world of the municipal sector. How would you like it if railroads were paying their tax bills on the basis of historical net book value? That concept would not fly a minute, because it is just not a fair concept. So I urge the committee to think about this particular aspect very carefully.

The federal Expropriation Act recognizes the concept of fair market value. The Canada Transportation Act recognizes the concept of net salvage value if a line is to be sold to a government. The notion that net book value at historical prices from the beginning of the last century would guide the rate-setting is just not the right concept. It's not a fair one and it's not one I would encourage the committee to endorse. In my view, net salvage value would not only be more consistent with the current CTA, it would also be a lot fairer and would give a lot of leeway for the agency to decide in the matter with a view to what the public interest is.

I think you should review this carefully, because the devil is in the details. I think at net book value the provisions themselves ultimately will not succeed; they would be open to challenge as unfair expropriation.

So there is a delicate balance. We agree with the concept that a commuter agency should have the right to go to the agency for recourse, but it should not be done on an artificial measure such as historical book value, because it just doesn't work.

Members of the committee, as you can see, we agree with many of the things that are in the bill. We are asking you to consider a few areas that could be improved and we urge caution and balance in your views about the state of the rail industry.

I'm open for questions with my colleague here.

[Cliff Mackay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Railway Association of Canada, let me first say thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Our association represents about 60 railways across the country, which is essentially the whole scope of railways in Canada: the class ones, the short lines, the regionals, the inter-city, VIA, the commuters--some of whom I think you saw earlier this week--and some tourism railways.

More than six years have elapsed since the Canada Transportation Act review panel rendered its report and made a number of recommendations on moving forward with the act. We see Bill C-11 as an important part of a response to that report.

We've had a number of opportunities in the past to comment on various proposals to amend the act and we hope, Mr. Chair, that we are seeing the end of a very long and complex consultation process on this matter. Our view is that while there are a number of important amendments before you, there are also major issues facing the industry and the country, and we'd like to get on and focus on some of those in the future.

In a nutshell, the Railway Association of Canada supports most of the provisions in Bill C-11. I'm going to spend my time today speaking on the noise management issues. Some of my colleagues from individual railways do have concerns about some of the other matters in the act, in particular the public passenger service provisions, but since the business interests of our members diverge on that particular matter, the Railway Association itself won't be taking a formal position on that matter.

Let me turn to noise management. The RAC believes that the bill sets out a clear authority for management of noise related to railway operations. Since a 2000 Federal Court decision that affected the ability of the CTA to exercise jurisdiction over railway noise complaints, there has been some confusion out there as to who really has the authority to regulate noise in the national railway system. We are very supportive of this bill because it clearly solves that problem. It says clearly that the federal government and more particularly the Canadian Transportation Agency have the authority to exercise noise regulation in Canada.

We think this is important because the demand for rail services is growing, and with it the complexity of our operations and our interface with communities across the country are growing. The trend toward ever-increasing imports, particularly from Asia and the Pacific, and the rapid increase in exports, both to the U.S. and offshore, are making the relationships between communities and railways more challenging every day. We think this bill helps to make that partnership better over time.

However, I must point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the industry has not been doing nothing in the interregnum. A few years back, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other stakeholders to begin a voluntary approach to better management of noise and other proximity issues.

The MOU was signed in 2003 and supported by not only the FCM but also by the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators. The main purposes of this MOU were and still are to gain and share a common understanding of the current issues around proximity, to improve communications between the parties, to implement a flexible but formal dispute resolution process, and to develop guidelines on such issues as land use, noise levels, and other technical matters.

The RAC and the FCM encourage resolution of issues at the local level. I must say, Mr. Chair, that we're very pleased to see proposed section 95.3 of this act does so in a similar manner. We strongly believe that the best place to solve issues is at the community level, and third parties should only be intervening if in fact we can't find the solutions there.

To achieve these common objectives, I just want to give you some idea of some of the things we and the FCM have done to date. We've established steering committees and three large working groups with equal representation from the parties. We've developed a communications plan. We've developed a good-neighbour video, which is an awareness video.

We've completed and published three case studies on real issues, one here just across the river in Gatineau, that will help to explain how issues can be resolved between the parties, and we've developed a data-rich website called www.proximityissues.ca. I would encourage members or your staffs to go and have a look. There's an awful lot of information there on what's going on between communities and railways on proximity issues.

Since its inception in 2004, the website has grown progressively over the years. We've taken 22,000 visits already this year on that particular website. We've also developed a robust dispute resolution protocol, and this is published on the website, if you wish to see it.

We hope all of this material will be helpful to the Canadian Transportation Agency when it begins its job of developing the guidelines that are called for under the provisions of this act.

Let me stop there, Mr. Chairman. I've left a copy of this document, which is the latest MOU progress report, with the clerk. If you are interested, you can distribute it to committee members afterwards.

We think there are a number of key advantages to the approach we've taken in working over the last two or three years, some of which are very clear already. The agreement we have is encouraging more effective and efficient land use; it's providing long-term cost savings in the resources required to deal with proximities over time; it has reduced land use incompatibilities between railways and adjacent land use, and helped the land planning process; and it has reduced noise and vibration complaints in a number of jurisdictions across the country. A good example is Gatineau. Another is Oakville. There are a number of examples we could give you from across the country.

It is also having an ancillary benefit on public safety, because in addition to talking about proximity issues, it provides an opportunity to talk about issues such as trespass and level-crossing safety, particularly in areas adjacent to schools.

Suffice it to say that we think there have been tangible benefits, and I should say, Mr. Chairman, that we are continuing to work with the FCM and others to advance the MOU, as we go forward.

In the very near future we hope to be in a position to publish a comprehensive draft of noise emissions guidelines and a land use guideline. We're in the final stages of preparing this document. It's been the subject of an awful lot of research and technical study over the last couple of years. It is now before the MOU steering committee for their consideration. I hope we'll be able to make it available to committee and other interested parties in the very near future.

I will stop there, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for taking the time.

Just to conclude, we are in favour of the noise provisions in Bill C-11. We believe we need this kind of regulatory framework to work within, but we would very much like to continue the kinds of approaches we've been working on with FCM and others. We believe the best solution to this is at the local level, getting the parties involved with each other.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. We are now in meeting number 21, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today from the Railway Association of Canada we have Mr. Cliff Mackay. He's the president and chief executive officer. Also with us is Mr. Claude Mongeau, executive vice-president and chief financial officer of Canadian National Railway Company.

I know that you've received some instructions from the clerk. Mr. Mackay, if you'd like to start, you have approximately seven minutes.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, I made reference to that. I made reference to western Canada, and we can say “in Canada generally” after “rail safety”. The reason I wanted this is that I felt that if we had it on the record, and when it's acted on is in accordance.... I originally considered putting in “following the consideration of Bill C-11”, but I thought I would leave that up to the scheduling of the committee executive, Mr. Chairman.

To Mr. Laframboise's comment about the timing, it was that it would come at the appropriate moment, but it would be on the record and it would be there for us to act on in due time.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

There are two interesting things in Mr. Bell's motion.

It's curious, because, personally, I would have liked to know the details of the matter. I like what the minister has done — I'm saying that in a nice way — intervening under section 32 of the act. However, I would have liked to invite Transport Canada representatives to appear very briefly in order to determine what happened in this matter.

My problem is that a review application has been filed by CN. If there is a review application and the matter is before the courts or I don't know where, can we discuss it or not? There are factors that escape me. I also would have liked to see the action plan that the company submitted before we make this decision. Is it possible to see it, even though that took place in camera or in another context?

We've already decided to consider the matter of railway safety, and I'd be in favour of that. However, my problem is that Bill C-11 must be examined first. I'm going to support this question, provided we examine Bill C-11 beforehand.

In this specific matter, I'd like to know whether it's possible to have a meeting with Transport Canada and CN representatives so that they can come and explain themselves and give us details. I like the way the minister has proceeded. However, can we get these documents if the matter is before the courts? That's a problem that's preventing me from making a decision today.

So I ask Mr. Bell to wait until the next meeting, because I want more information. Is that possible or not? I'd like Mr. Jean to tell us. I would have liked to examine this matter because I find the solution an interesting one. If we can examine these ways of doing things, that will help us in our own matters.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

You're going to see very soon, sir. It's a summary of what's taken place since some of the accidents. Certainly 2005 was what you would call less than a banner year in relation to what took place with CN and just generally with railway safety.

Less than a month after the British Columbia derailment, in which two crew members, unfortunately, were killed as a result of the accident, the minister took it upon himself to issue, for the first time ever, a ministerial order, under section 32, to make CN come into compliance with some of the other.... I think there were something along the lines of 59 enforcement actions.

Of course, there has been an action plan, as Mr. Bell said, put forward, as of October 18. Indeed, you'll see, since some of the actions were taken by this government and the previous government, that industry-wide accidents are down by 14%, and derailments are down by 30%. Obviously the corrective actions did do something.

Notwithstanding all of that, Mr. Bell, with respect—and I was born in British Columbia, and it has a place in my heart and always will—we are a national committee, and we have a responsibility, I think, to all Canadians. Certainly, I think, the people in Alberta who suffered the response from Wabamun would like to be part of any kind of study. As has been said by all members here, rail safety, airline safety, and all safety issues are a number one priority of this committee and a number one priority, quite frankly, of this government.

So I think we're being a little bit premature in doing, first of all, a study just of British Columbia, and I would like to encourage all members of this committee to include all of Canada and all Canadians in any rail safety study that's done by the committee.

Quite frankly, I would invite the members to read what took place and what has happened with this government and the previous government, and then address one particular question: what else could have been done? I don't think anything further could have been done, except to stop all the railroads across Canada. And I don't think anybody wants that to happen. Certainly the minister, within 28 days of the final episode in B.C., issued a ministerial order, and as I said, that has never been done before.

I would invite the members to read this report and come back with any suggestions. But the reality is that we have a very busy agenda. The first thing after Bill C-11 is safety of the transportation sector across Canada.

Quite frankly, I don't want to just study British Columbia. All geographic areas of this country place certain challenges before us, and we have to study rail safety across the board and across Canada to do justice to all Canadians.

I would recommend, though--and I think Mr. Bell has brought up a good point--that the safety study should not just include what we were going to study, but should have a specific emphasis on employees, on people who are users of the rail line, and on the environment. So a particular emphasis on those would be appropriate--not in this particular motion, but certainly, if it be the will of the committee, we should study them at great length, as far as safety goes.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Early on, when we talked in this committee about some of our priorities, one of those was safety--air, water, and rail safety. Going back, we did have CN here, talking about the particular increases they had had in derailments and accidents, particularly in 2005. They indicated that they had taken steps to reduce those in 2006--year to date, so far. Going back and looking at what happened with the number of derailments, particularly in British Columbia--although there were some in Alberta as well--with the change of ownership from BC Rail to CN, there were an inordinate number of derailments, in particular, and accidents in 2005 and in 2006.

One of the notable ones was where a chemical derailment occurred in the Cheakamus River in B.C. and resulted in a substantial negative environmental impact--a huge fish kill, for example, that has affected the run on that river drastically, devastatingly. Subsequently, a locomotive accident resulted in the death of two rail workers in 2006, when the locomotive left the tracks and two rail workers died.

The purpose of this motion is to suggest that we need to have an inquiry that spells this out. We heard they're down. We heard they rose, particularly in 2005. I think if we have a proper inquiry, we would have a baseline in the future to judge the actions of the railways as we go forward. I think we need to have this inquiry that would go back and spell out exactly the increase. Then if there has been a decrease, as they state, we can be aware of that and of what steps are being taken. We have a responsibility for the passengers, we have a responsibility for the public, we have a responsibility for the railway workers, and we have a responsibility for the environment. I think in line with our priority of rail safety, this would be appropriate.

I'm recognizing, in terms of timing, that at a committee meeting I wasn't able to attend, there was a suggestion, when another request for information came up--not on rail safety, but on another matter--that there was the desire for this committee to move ahead with Bill C-11 and to finish Bill C-11 before we moved on to other issues. I'm not suggesting that this jump in priority. Safety, of course, is the top priority, but I'm suggesting that if we start to put the wheels in motion or get this on track--no pun intended--that we at least will have the ball rolling and we can then move into this in a timely manner.

I was provided with some information that you're going to table, Mr. Jean. Perhaps I could make reference to it, Mr. Jean. Can I indirectly...?

[Gary McNeil]

We're looking at a 50% increase in our ridership over the next 10 years, actually. I don't want to put it in the context that if Bill C-11 doesn't get through, it's not going to happen. It's one of those things that will probably happen faster with Bill C-11, but it's going to happen anyhow. The province has recognized the fact that we have to do things on the rail side, so it's going to move ahead. It's just going to cost the taxpayers more if Bill C-11 doesn't go through, that's all.

[Doug Kelsey]

The only thing I might add with respect to Bill C-11, is that if you're talking about federal funding, currently in Vancouver most of the funding—and the relationship would come, of course, from senior levels of government—does or does not get allocated depending on the viability, in this case, of a commuter rail project. So if this were to be enacted in legislation, any contribution by the federal government would benefit, so it's not going to railway margins; it's going to minimize the capital needed and maximize the service output. That's the intent of the framework here, regardless of which level of government—provincial, municipal, federal—would benefit from a better value relationship.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Well, it is, Mr. Chairman, but I think it speaks to whether or not this bill ought to be amended in one way or another to look at this whole question of...because what's gone on here is that there's been a degree of involvement by the federal government in municipal decision-making, which may have to be protected against in Bill C-11. That's why I'm raising the question.

[Doug Kelsey, President and Chief Executive Director, West Coast Express]

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to appear jointly before you today.

With me is Mr. Gary McNeil, executive director of GO Transit in Toronto; and Mr. Raynald Bélanger, the vice-president of commuter trains for Agence métropolitaine de transport. I am Doug Kelsey, president and chief executive officer of West Coast Express and SkyTrain in Vancouver. Together we represent Canada's three largest commuter rail operations.

To provide you with some background, our combined operations carry more than 125 million rides per year and represent more than $4 billion in combined public assets. The areas we represent serve approximately 30% of Canada's population. Canada's commuter rail authorities wish to make Canada's communities more livable.

As part of that, we believe we are an essential part of the solution to gridlock, greenhouse gases, and smog in Canada's urban centres. But to do more as governmental service providers, and to do more to help Canada meet its environmental goals, we require a long-term policy solution based on the principles of better and fairer urban corridor access and services for Canada's urban passenger rail authorities, at competitive rates, and based on reasonable contributions above the host railway's cost structure.

Our decision to make a joint submission to you today is the direct result of our shared interests, challenges, and points of view, as well as our dedication to serve the same ridership base as yours--the taxpaying public.

In our past submissions to the Canadian Transportation Act review commission and to this committee, we outlined the benefits of urban commuter rail service and voiced our concerns on a number of serious issues affecting our operations. We are very pleased to see that these concerns have been reflected in Bill C-11, particularly the ability to gain access to the lines of federally regulated railways by means of the dispute resolution mechanism under proposed section 152.1 of the bill. Second is the ability to have the agency determine the amount to be paid to the host railway for such access under proposed section 152.2 of the bill, should commercial negotiations not prevail successfully. There's also the ability of urban transit authorities such as AMT, GO, and West Coast Express to purchase a railway line or corridor offered for sale at net salvage value under proposed section 145.

Under access for commuter rail organizations, proposed section 152.1 addresses a major concern experienced by commuter rail authorities--our inability to gain access to the lines of federally regulated railways under the Canadian Transportation Act as it now stands. Shippers who may feel they have inadequate service have recourse under the servicer provisions of the Canadian Transportation Act. Commuter rail authorities do not have that same protection because we don't currently have the right to access. Under the proposed section 152.1, if the service being provided to a commuter rail operator is inadequate due to the inability to gain access to the federally regulated railways line, that operator may apply to the agency for specific relief.

It's unfortunate that the environment in which commuter rail service providers operate can be highly impacted by host railways. We can face unreasonably high rates, restrictive covenant provisions, and in some cases controls over the actual service specifications of our rail operations, while at the same time not being properly credited for the extensive taxpayer-funded capital that commuter rail operations provide to the host railways.

These significant contributions benefit both the railways' asset bases and the movement of freight traffic. This has been an ongoing concern recognized recently by the government in two bills that have unfortunately died on the order paper, Bill C-26, and Bill C-44. The concerns have a long history.

Some of you actually may recall that an attempt to provide commuter rail operators with some legislative protection failed some 20 years ago, back in 1986, when Bill C-97 also died on the order table. It is our hope that the outcome will be different this time around and that we will be provided with the protection necessary to allow for future access, for future expansion, and for the viability of commuter rail operations in the metropolitan communities and regions that we serve. Without these protections, our ability to support the livability and mobility of our national and regional goals will be severely limited.

In the past, the railways have advocated setting costs for arrangements with commuter rail operators based on “supply-demand” pricing for commercial negotiations. This approach can have an adverse effect for industry, because there's often no other competition or, in most cases, what is termed no effective competition or true comparatives for similar types of service.

Commuter rail is a unique service, with supply driven by corridor, not price. The current rate structure offered to commuter rail operators reflects a clear example of pricing in an environment of no competition. The economies, in some instances, are so unfortunately unfavourable that, despite public demand for services, expansion may be financially prohibitive where the commercial negotiating environment allows for no equality or checks and balances that ensure a level playing field for establishing rates and services.

However, proposed section 152.2 of the bill would prevent such high rates from being charged. Specifically, proposed subsection 152.2(2) lays out a number of factors that should be considered by the agency in determining a rate for the use of railways, land, equipment, facilities, or services. Of particular assistance to commuter rail operators is proposed paragraph 152.2(2)(b), which stipulates that a railway company's cost of capital is to be determined by a rate that is set by the agency and applied to the important net book value of the assets to be used by the public passenger service provider, minus any amount paid by the commuter rail operator in respect of those assets.

The net book value of the asset is the original cost of the asset to the railway, less depreciation. This method of determination of the cost of capital reflects the real cost that the railway incurred to purchase the asset that is being used by the commuter rail operator.

It is only reasonable and fair that the prices being charged for such use reflect the actual cost paid for the asset. Higher costs incurred by the railway to replace assets can be passed on to the commuter rail operators once the asset has been purchased. The cost of upgrades is also a factor for consideration by the agency in proposed paragraph 152.2(2)(c). Hence, there is no need to use another valuation method such as what is referred to as replacement value. Being charged excessive prices for access to operating services and infrastructure places an excessive cost burden on the Canadian commuter rail industry and the taxpayers we all serve. We are confident that proposed changes to the act will address many of our concerns in relation to service and pricing in the future.

In terms of rail line transfer and discontinuance, clause 39 of Bill C-11 proposes a change to section 145 of the act by including urban transit authorities in the list of entities to whom a rail line must be offered for sale at net salvage in the process to abandon a line. This change reflects the real possibility that a commuter rail service may be provided on a line that a railway company wants to abandon because the line is no longer used for freight traffic. Allowing an urban transit authority to purchase the line for net salvage value reflects the fact that commuter rail service is a beneficial public transportation service. It also reflects the reality, faced by many urban transit authorities, of tight operating budgets within which to provide the services we do provide.

In conclusion, we point out that the provisions of Bill C-11, when enacted, will not cause moneys to be spent from the federal treasury. The provisions of the bill contemplate the payment of fairer rates by commuter rail operators and reasonable contributions over the railway's costs. The only change to the system is that commuter rail authorities will have the right of access, a right that will level the playing field and create much-needed opportunities for commuter rail to benefit the livability of our urban centres, the economy and the environment, all for the greater good of the taxpayer and the numerous federal ministries that will benefit from the passage of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I thank you again for allowing us the opportunity to appear jointly before you today. This will conclude our formal remarks, and we'd be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

With us today we have Raynald Bélanger, Gary McNeil, and Doug Kelsey. It's my understanding that Mr. Kelsey will present on behalf of the three groups before us, but certainly the questioning and the answers can come from all involved.

Without further ado, we'll proceed and ask Mr. Kelsey to make his presentation.

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet, President, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, City of Lévis]

Since my knowledge of English is limited, I will speak to you in French.

To the Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, first we want to thank the members of the committee for allowing us to speak about our experience with noise generated by the Joffre switching yard in Charny. Our comments will pertain to an aspect of rail transportation which bears witness to the problems associated with the co-existence of rail traffic and daily life in an urban environment.

You have received our brief. I want to read you a summary that will be provided to you, if you so wish.

My name is Jean-Pierre Bazinet and I am a municipal councillor for the City of Levis. I am also president, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, which includes the neighbourhood of Charny, Breakeyville, Saint-Jean-Chrysostome and Saint-Romuald.

I am accompanied today by Mr. Alain Lemaire, who is the municipal councillor for Charny and former mayor of the City of Charny, now part of an agglomeration. I am also accompanied by Mr. Alain Blanchette who is chief of staff of the mayor of the City of Levis, Ms. Danielle Roy-Marinelli. Finally Mr. Michel Hallé, a lawyer and legal advisor at the Direction des affaires juridiques for the City of Levis, is also here with me.

First, that current City of Levis is the result of the merger of 10 former municipalities which became neighbourhoods of that city on January 1^st, 2002. This city is home to some 127,000 people, making it the eighth largest city in Quebec.

The history of the railway and Levis heritage are intertwined. The railway was an important leader for economic development throughout the ages, and its rich tradition has grown over the years. Currently we want to maintain rail operations within our area, but in a more harmonious way.

Our brief deals with the following aspects: noise generated by the Joffre switching yard and its effects on public health; Bill C-11 and its amendments; finally suggested additions to the Bill.

As part of its activities, Canadian National operates a switching yard within the boundaries of Charny and Saint-Jean-Chrysostome. Given the elevated noise levels generated by switching operations conducted by Canadian National, numerous complaints have been laid by residents of the three former neighbourhoods that existed prior to the merger in 2000, as well as by residents of the other neighbourhoods that I mentioned earlier.

These residents believe that the noise pollution caused by CN's operations, particularly in the evening and at night, is affecting their health and impedes their peaceful enjoyment of their property. This situation came about in 1998 — and that date is important. Previously, the switching yard and the residents lived in harmony. The new situation coincided with the privatization of the company, which streamlined its operations not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.

In that respect, the problems experienced by the residents of Charny are similar to those encountered in other cities in Canada. The preceding testimonies are compelling.

When CN failed to take action, a large number of affected residents signed a petition that was presented to the council of the former City of Charny in 2000. The municipality also received letters from home owners describing the situation as unacceptable and intolerable.

The former City of Charny decided to support the citizens' committee opposed to the noise from the Joffre switching yard in Charny. It hired an engineering firm Dessau-Soprin to conduct a noise study to measure the effect of CN's operations. The study, tabled in February 2000, copies of which I have, showed that the impulse noise mainly comes from such activities as switching of cars, acceleration and deceleration of locomotives, hooking together of cars, breaking of trains, train whistles, train movement, loaders, tow trucks and other vehicles and back-up beepers.

In 2001, the Public Health Department of the Chaudière-Appalaches Health and Social Services Board conducted an analysis of the situation and produced a report entitled “Assessment of the public health risk associated with environmental noise produced by operations at CN's Joffre switching yard in Charny.”

The study concludes, and I quote:

Based on the available noise measurements the literature review and the specific context, we find that the environmental noise to which many of the people living in the residential area adjacent to CN's Joffre switching yard adversely affects their quality of life and potentially their health. Such noise levels are therefore a nuisance to the peace, comfort and well-being of the residents near the Joffre switching yard in Charny. From a public health stand point, these noise levels are likely to have an adverse affect on health by disturbing sleep, which in turn has a number of side effects. These noise levels are in our view incompatible with residential zoning unless special measures are taken to reduce the noise.

Around the same time, the residents of the City of Oakville, Ontario, filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency under the Canada Transportation Act. In its decision, the agency determined that CN was not doing as little damage as possible in the exercise of its powers. Accordingly, the agency ordered CN to take certain measures, among them preparing a long-noise reduction plan satisfactory to the agency.

This decision was a source of tremendous hope for the residents of Oakville and Charny. In response to the decision, CN decided to challenge the Agency's jurisdiction in the Federal Court of Appeal. In a ruling handed down on December, 2000, the court found that the Canadian Transportation Agency did not have jurisdiction under the Canada Transportation Act to deal with complaints about noise, smoke and vibration from duly authorized railway operations.

In the wake of the decisions in the Oakville matter, the Canadian Transportation Agency decided to offer a mediation service in a bid to resolve disputes similar to those in Oakville and Charny. In March 2001, the former City of Charny and the citizens' committee submitted a request for mediation to the Canadian Transportation Agency. CN agreed to mediation. Unfortunately, after several meeting between the parties, we concluded that the mediation was not going to work. Bound by an undertaking to preserve the confidentiality of the discussions, we are unable to provide further details. We can say, however, that the City of Lévis which succeeded the former City of Charny on January 1^st, 2002, made every effort to find a solution acceptable to its residents and even delegated to the mediation meetings three elected representatives, including two members of the executive committee at the time.

Section 29 of Bill C-11 introduces four new sections dealing specifically with the noise caused by operation of a railway. We are especially pleased that Parliament decided to fill a major void in the process of resolving disputes between the community and the railway company by giving the Canadian Transportation Agency clear authority to make orders to rectify a noise problem.

The new section 95.3 restores the monitoring authority the agency lost as a result of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the Oakville case. This section restores to Canadians a mechanism for control that they had lost for more than six years, and which was causing problems. This would make it possible to turn to a tribunal with jurisdiction in order to condemn situations affecting public health.

Without making any assumptions about the agency's future work, we hope that the attitude the agency showed in the Oakville case will govern its orders. We believe that the wording used in Bill C-26 in 2003 requiring railway companies to make the least possible noise was better than the wording used in the current bill. We believe that the current wording waters down the obligation of railway companies to operate their facilities in a way that respects their neighbours. On the contrary, we want section 29 to be reinforced by adding a clause stating that railway companies are not to harm public health in the course of their operations. We are concerned that the obligation of railway companies to refrain from making unreasonable noise is subject to operational requirements.

Operational requirements should not be allowed to preclude that obligation. It should therefore be made clear that what must be taken into account is the company's essential operational requirements not just any requirements. For example, operational profitability should not be used to relieve a railway company of its obligation to refrain from making noise.

Section 7 of Bill C-11establishes the framework for the mediation process the Canadian Transportation Agency has been using for several years. As a result of our experience in this area, we are very hopeful that the prescribed 60-day mediation period will be reduced to 30 days as proposed in Bill C-26. We believe that 30 days is enough time to try to voluntarily resolve a dispute provided the parties make the necessary effort. More than 18 months should not be allowed to pass between a request for mediation and an outcome as was the case in Charny.

In addition to expressing support for the amendments as indicated above, we would like to take this opportunity to suggest that Bill C-11 be amended to give the Canadian Transportation Agency jurisdiction over the use of train whistles. More specifically, we believe it would be appropriate for every request to prohibit the use of train whistles within municipal boundaries to be reviewed by the CTA in cases where the municipality, the railway company and Transport Canada cannot agree on the requirements for no-whistle regulations.

Furthermore, we support the request from the Union des municipalités du Québec made by its President Jean Perrault in his letter of July 6th, 2006, to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport of Canada, to establish tangible measures for ensuring the rigorous application of Rule 103(c) of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules, which states that “no part of a train or engine may be allowed to stand on any part of a public crossing at grade for a longer period than five minutes”, and to permit the application of Rule 103(c) of the Canada Rail Operating Rules to moving trains. In fact, vehicle and pedestrian traffic blocking a crossing for more than five minutes can lead to public safety problems, especially where the blockage prevents safety services such as firefighters police and ambulance vehicles from providing the required services.

The problem of noise, caused by railway operations is a fundamental priority for the City of Lévis. This situation is causing problems for more than 10,000 people in our area. A great deal of effort has been made in the past to restore the peace and quiet the neighbourhood so amply deserves. Unfortunately, our efforts have been in vain. That is why we support the federal government's desire to give Canadians a forum in which to assert their rights. However, we believe that the wording of section 29 of Bill C-11must be amended to ensure that the objective of the legislation is met.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for your attention.

[François Picard, Second Vice-President of the Executive Committee, City of Quebec]

I am accompanied by Mr. André Demers, alderman for the Sainte-Foy sector, where there is a marshalling yard. Mr. Demers is also President of the Commission aménagement du territoire et transports.

I am also accompanied by Mr. Marc des Rivières, who is a professional director and expert on transportation for the City of Quebec.

First, the City of Quebec would like to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport for the opportunity to present his comments on Bill C-11.

Thank you for listening to us. And of course, my presentation will be in French.

I will begin by talking about noise generated by railway operations, by addressing the legal framework as well as the overall approach that the City of Quebec is proposing. If time allows, although you already have our brief in hand, we will also discuss other nuisances or issues that could be improved in the bill.

First, I will talk about the legal framework with regard to noise generated by railway operations. In the short-term, the City of Quebec recommends that amendments be made to Bill C-11 as follows.

First, we recommend the reintroduction of the wording proposed in the former Bill C-26 so that railway companies are required to produce the least possible noise, replacing the wording of Bill C-11 which states the obligation "not to make unreasonable noise".

In other words, like the mayor of a municipality in British Columbia who spoke before us, we believe that the expression "unreasonable noise" is too vague and leads instead to confrontation with the railway companies. Consequently, we propose amending the wording which, although it is only two words, has vast implications for the City of Quebec.

Second, we recommend adding, in the new section 95.1 under Bill C-11, the following: "that noise levels caused by the railway operations shall not harm public safety or cause negative effects such as disrupted sleep for persons living in residential areas adjacent to switching yards or along railway lines".

Third, we recommend subjecting railway companies under federal jurisdiction to provincial and municipal laws and regulatory provisions concerning public nuisances and nocturnal noise in order to preserve the quality of life of populations living near railway facilities.

Another approach would be to reduce railway noise at the source. Even if the wording that companies make the least possible noise is reintroduced, we could require the companies to reduce noise sources by doing research and development on new technologies that would allow them to directly reduce the amount of noise caused by the cars.

Those are our recommendations with regard to the legal framework.

With regard to adopting a more comprehensive approach, the city proposes as part of a long-term strategy the adoption of a national railway noise reduction policy setting orientations, objectives and the most appropriate action strategies. This policy could be developed by Environment Canada, jointly with Health Canada, since it is part of a public health and noise pollution approach.

We could develop noise maps of areas where residents are subjected to excessive noise levels in order to gradually eliminate black spots. We could also give priority to reviewing the sites causing the greatest harm during the night, when thresholds exceed fixed limits.

We could also give priority to at-source noise reduction measures—such as those I mentioned earlier—by taking into account the three types of noise: rolling noise, locomotive and auxiliary equipment noise and switching noise.

Furthermore, various specific measures, some of which are presented in section 1.6.1, to reduce railway noise gradually through retrofits and better maintenance of rolling stock and railway lines, subject to available funds, could be taken.

A number of European countries have adopted regulations relating to decibel levels. It starts at 55 decibels, which corresponds with normal annoyance caused by noise, and goes up to 65 decibels which, according to the OECD, corresponds to constrained behaviour patterns, symptomatic of serious damage caused by noise. If you wish to take the idea of "least possible noise", you could adopt a targeted strategy in the hope that the noise from switching yards or trains will not exceed 55 to 65 decibels, during the day, when noise could reach as high as 65 decibels, or at night, when noise levels should not exceed 55 decibels.

So, a number of European countries have adopted similar regulations, which exceed what you are proposing, but which could prove interesting in the long-term, particularly if we opt for a comprehensive approach and a national railway noise reduction policy.

Other measures in our brief address other nuisances. Railway companies must be required to comply with local legislation and regulations on environmental protection and the protection of public health and safety, particularly with regard to odours and unhealthy conditions.

We propose that the bill require railway companies to put a communications plan in place aimed at resident populations concerning railway operations involving the transportation of hazardous goods.

With regard to, in particular, the obstruction of public crossings, there must be concrete measures requiring the strict application of paragraph 103(c) of the Canadian Railway Operation Regulations, so that no switching done at crossings can block road and pedestrian traffic for more than the five-minute maximum prescribed by those regulations.

Obviously, the City of Quebec is faced with one last nuisance related to train whistling. Section 11 of the Railway-Highway Crossing at Grade Regulations needs to be reviewed in terms of the allocation of cost for the construction and maintenance of new grade crossings, so that the benefits associated with railway facilities in urban areas can be equally shared by the railway company and the local government.

Currently, the municipality pays 100 per cent of the cost of changes made to grade crossings. We believe that at least 50 per cent of the cost of changes to grade crossings should be paid by the railway companies.

I have used my seven minutes. We are prepared to answer any questions you may have. Once again, I want to thank you for having taken the time to listen to us.

[Jim Lowrie, Director, Engineering Services, City of New Westminster]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Jim Lowrie, and I am director of engineering at the City of New Westminster. My submission is on behalf of Mayor Wayne Wright, and we're pleased to make this submission today.

Incidentally, Mayor Wright does invite members of the committee to the city of New Westminster to experience firsthand the impact of railway operations on the city.

By way of background, the city of New Westminster was the first incorporated city in the province of British Columbia, incorporated in 1860. The city is located on the north shore of the Fraser River and has strong historical ties to the river and to the railway, principally in the later half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today the city of New Westminster is a thriving city with a population of approximately 60,000. The city occupies only 15 square kilometres, making it one of the most densely populated in the greater Vancouver metropolitan region.

The city hosts three major railway companies, each having marshalling yards located in relatively close proximity to residential neighbourhoods. Approximately 40,000 residents--over two-thirds of our population--live within one kilometre of a railway line or marshalling yard.

Historically the cooperation of railway companies in responding to neighbourhood complaints has been inconsistent. While some complaints are addressed, most others are not--complaints relating to shunting railcars, idling engines, squealing wheels on rails, and excessive whistle-blowing. It is the experience of city staff that railway companies have not been highly cooperative in modifying their operation to address the concerns of residents, particularly during the late night hours.

Mr. Chairman, specific comments on proposed Bill C-11, and we're speaking to clause 29 of this legislation, which suggests modifications to section 95 of the Canada Transportation Act. This section talks to the operation of railways, that they must not make unreasonable noise, taking into account various matters, including their own operational requirements.

Our submission would be that the balance here is between making unreasonable noise as it is perceived by residents and the operational requirements of the railway companies. Past experience in New Westminster has shown that railway companies are reluctant to modify their operations in meaningful ways to reduce or eliminate excessive noise, particularly in late night hours. We suggest that the use of language such as “unreasonable” invokes a high degree of subjectivity to the legislation.

With respect to proposed section 95.2, the concern here is the mention that the agency “may issue...guidelines”. We believe it's imperative the agency issue guidelines. That “may issue” should be a “must”, in our view. Perhaps the guidelines should be in the form of regulation. The guidelines are not proposed to be statutory, and we believe the guidelines or regulations must be made to be readily and easily enforceable. Given the geographic variation among municipal jurisdictions across the country, the logical enforcement agency would be local government. The suggestion here is the noise parameters could be nationally legislated, i.e., based on CMHC guidelines or those of some other agency.

With respect to proposed section 95.3, we question what authority the agency has in ordering operational changes of a railway company and what enforcement methods would be used in gaining compliance if the other companies are found to be non-compliant with adopted guidelines and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, we believe the intention of the proposed bill is laudable and commendable. The aforementioned suggestions are provided in the spirit of strengthening, improving, and providing clarity to the proposed legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome.

I'll call the meeting to order of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities. It's meeting 19 and we're studying Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us today, we have from the City of Quebec Monsieur François Picard; from the City of Lévis, Jean-Pierre Bazinet; from the City of New Westminster, through telecommunications, Jim Lowrie; from the City of Langley, Mr. Peter Fassbender; and from the Township of Langley, Mr. Kurt Alberts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're absolutely on time. Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

I would like to thank our guests. We call you witnesses, but I'd like to think you're guests offering advice to government. We appreciate that. And to our long distance guests, thank you very much.

If I may, just with the committee members, we do have one little piece of business to wrap up. We've circulated the budget request for Bill C-11, and what I really need is just an acknowledgment that you've looked at it and it's acceptable to submit. Is everybody comfortable with it?

Mr. Jean.

[Christian Jobin]

The Chaudière-Appalaches Regional Health and Social Services Board conducted a study on the Charny yard and noise zones at night. The noise is so intense that people cannot sleep. They wake up in the middle of the night. People have reported high stress levels. Amongst other things, there are reports of children who are not doing as well in school and senior whose stress levels have gone up, and who even have developed more serious illnesses due to stress. Some of my friends who live near the yard sleep in their basements at night and have to use ear plugs.

Bill C-11 will give the transportation agency the power to issue orders, but is the word “unreasonable ” strong enough to address all the situations I have just described? CN, CP and all the other railway companies will repeat what they did in 1999 when they took their case before the Federal Court in Ontario to challenge the very severe ruling the CTA had made against CN. That is what I fear.

[Christian Jobin]

Based on what we can tell, if bill C-11 is adopted, the Canadian Transportation Agency will recoup the power to issue orders which it lost in 1999 because of CN's litigation before the Federal Court. That is what would change.

As well, we find the word “unreasonable”, which is a qualitative term that will allow, unless I'm mistaken, arbitrators to determine whether or not a noise level is unreasonable or not.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the guests and also those from British Columbia.

Certainly, listening to some of the speakers here and to Mr. Allen and Ms. Fisher parallels my experience when I was the mayor of North Vancouver. We had problems when BC Rail was sold to CN. BC Rail, being a provincial railway, by obligation of the province, had to comply with municipal standards in terms of noise. Our noise bylaws and the issue of non-whistling at crossings applied. Once CN took it over, it no longer applied.

What I've heard you say sounds like a repeat of the things I've heard. I've had complaints from residents who were awakened all night, and I see that some of the submissions here have detailed times going through the entire evening--how many times the whistle blew. As mayor, I had people phoning me at night and playing tape recordings of whistles to let me know they were hearing whistles. Interestingly enough, I lived several miles away and I could hear the shunting.

It seems to boil down, as Ms. Fisher said, to an issue of scheduling and also of logistical changes. The yard was, in this case, close to a residential area. As Mr. Hubbard said earlier, the railways were here before many of these residential areas, but the very nature of the railways attracted workers and business. The very nature that made them thrive is in fact what is the growth of cities, as we've seen, and they have to recognize that. And they have to look at some of their logistical activities, such as shunting and the assembly of trains, in areas that are different from where they were in the past, because the areas they're in have changed. I agree with that.

Mr. Gantous, you referred to the European standards, and I think you made reference to 45 decibels. Was that the WHO standard that you were referring to? If it was, I'd be interested, because municipalities have bylaws that establish decibel ratings. The big problem with the kind of noise you get from shunting is that it's intermittent, whereas if somebody is running a stereo system or go-carts or something, you can stand with a meter and read them; if it's an industrial noise, it's consistent. It's the intermittent noise.... Some of the bylaws refer to it as nuisance noise, which can be intermittent and therefore difficult to measure, but if they have technologies and you can provide any information on that, I would appreciate receiving that.

Mr. Jobin, I heard you say you'd like to see qualitative rather than quantitative...but if I listened to your wording, I think you meant just the opposite, because what you want is some kind of measurable standard rather than one that is more vague, that talks to the qualitative as opposed to the quantitative standard.

Certainly the issues there are ones that we have to find out...and CN cannot simply hide behind the standards or the defence it has had in the past. It has to recognize that they have to work in cooperation with the areas they serve, and that it's a mutual benefit if they do so.

I'm not going to repeat much of what has been said by my colleagues, and I think they've all addressed the issues.

Some of the comments here relate to rail safety. There's an issue in Mr. Allen's presentation from New Westminster talking about the rail yard having had several derailments in the past. Most recently it was the derailment that destroyed part of the Westburne Electric building, and there are other references. This is also a concern.

I know, Mr. Chair, that in a meeting I was not at there was a decision made that rail safety would be considered by this committee once Bill C-11 has been dealt with, that that issue would come forward. I'm concerned particularly because of the recent CN derailments that occurred in the Prairies, Alberta, and also B.C. As you know, we had a toxic spill in the Cheakamus River that wiped out fish populations, that devastated those fish populations. Last June we had two deaths when rail workers were caught on a runaway locomotive.

It would be my intention, in compliance with the suggestion of what would be appropriate for this committee, that once we have gone through these issues and are ready to move on to rail safety...I would like to see us look seriously at the derailment issues and rail safety, particularly with CN. Whether it needs a formal commission or an in-depth study by this committee, I would like to hear a good discussion. It is certainly a concern that's been brought to me by my constituents.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to each of the witnesses. You're coming forward on a very important issue, so we're very happy to have you here, particularly Ms. Fisher and Mr. Allen from British Columbia. We appreciate your participation in the committee hearing today.

I'd like to start with Mr. Allen. You provided very detailed information to the committee on what has happened in the New Westminster area, and we appreciate that.

I would like you to speak for a few moments on the impact on the lives of people in the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster. What does the existing situation create in terms of living conditions in the quay? Second, I'd like you to come back to the issue of mediation, having actively talked to the railway companies. We actually have four, as you detailed in your brief. CP, CN, Burlington Northern, and the Southern Railway of British Columbia run through that area. How effective or ineffective would voluntary compliance remediation be if we don't amend Bill C-11 as you've recommended?

Could you talk to those two points--the impact, and how mediation or voluntary compliance would not be adequate?

[Brian Allen, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present our community's concerns and recommendations regarding the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11. With the support of Mayor Wayne Wright and James Crosty, the president of the Quayside Community Board, I am representing the interests of 2,000 residents in New Westminster who reside within 200 metres of the New Westminster rail yard.

All of us here today recognize rail yard operations can create a significant amount of noise that negatively impacts many tens of thousands of Canadians living in close proximity to rail yards across Canada. The amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11 need to be significantly modified if they are to truly address the concerns Canadians have with railway noise in close proximity to high-density residential areas such as the New Westminster Quay.

We recognize that the amendments in clause 29 of Bill C-11 were formulated in a way that requires the railways and concerned parties to try to resolve the noise problem through mediation. While this may be a desirable approach, it is not one that is realistic. We have supplied the committee with our report on the New Westminster rail yard operations and the efforts made over many years by local residents to try to work with the railways to eliminate or mitigate noise emanating from the rail yards. The bottom line is that they do not see this as their problem, and they see little or no need to do anything about this problem.

We have also supplied the committee with our rationale of why the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11 should be modified to better protect the interests of all residents who reside in low-rise and high-rise apartments in close proximity to rail yards. The following are suggested changes to the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11. These modifications are only suggestions. You may know a better way of wording the amendments to meet our common objective.

We recommend that proposed section 95.1 be changed to read:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise and must comply fully with all agency guidelines issued under subsection 95.2, taking into account a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114 if applicable, b) its operational requirements, and c) the area where the construction or operation takes place.

We also recommend that the following new subsection be added to proposed section 95.1:

Notwithstanding 95.1, where a rail yard or line is within 300 meters of high-density residential housing, railways can only shunt, couple, decouple rail cars and idle engines between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, unless authorized by the Minister of Transportation on a temporary basis during a National Emergency.

Under this proposed section, we would also recommend the following addition: “At no time shall a rail engine be left idling.”

We would like to see proposed section 95.2 changed to reflect the following points:

1) The Agency shall issue and publish for public access, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to a) the elements that the Agency will use to determine whether a railway company is complying with section 95.1, and b) the process of collaborative resolution of noise complaints relating to the construction or operation of railways.

2) The Agency must consult with interested parties including municipalities where there are rail operations before issuing any guideline.

3) The guidelines are not statutory instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

For the balance of the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11, it is not clear what sanctions, if any, would be possible if a railway does not comply fully with an order from the agency. We need to ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency has the authority to levy sanctions. We must also ensure that these sanctions can be enforced. Otherwise, why would the rail companies feel compelled to comply with any order or ruling from the Canadian Transportation Agency?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for taking the time to listen to our concerns and recommendations regarding clause 29 of Bill C-11.

Thank you.

[Paul Gantous, ProPointe]

Hello, my name is Paul Gantous. I represent a small group of residents in Pointe St-Charles, which is in the centre-south district of Montreal. We live very close to the Alstom rail yards.

My brief is pretty much in line with and very similar to the briefs you've already heard. We have the same concerns. In our opinion, the amount of shunting noise that's going on—it's been going on the same amount of time, since 1998-99—in the neighbourhood, close to people's houses, especially at two, three, and four in the morning, has increased exponentially.

I won't repeat some of the points these gentlemen have made already. I'll just point out the three things that are of great concern to us. One, as has already been said, there's no qualification of noise regulation in Bill C-11, and we believe it should be tied to the World Health Organization's community noise guidelines. The numbers are in our brief, but I'll just quickly mention that at night there should be a decibel level of no more than 30 decibels within a bedroom, which corresponds to 45 decibels outside the house.

Something that concerns us in the language of Bill C-11 itself is in the proposed section 95.1 of the Canada Transportation Act. It's just one line, paragraph (b), which says “taking into account...(b) its operational requirements”, referring to the railway company's. We're worried that this can be used to override the intent of the law. If the intent of the law is to protect people from excessive noise in the middle of the night, but the railway company can just come back and say yes, but we have operational requirements, it's equivalent to a “notwithstanding” clause in relation to paragraph (a). We're worried about that and would like to see paragraph (a) take precedence over paragraph (b).

The other thing we're very concerned with is the carrying and the parking of toxic chemicals in these trains, toxic chemicals that are parked in our neighbourhood, toxic chemicals that are carried repeatedly through the heart of Montreal, through residential neighbourhoods that are very close to downtown. To look at the number of derailments, CN reported 70 in 2005, up from 49 derailments in 2004.

Just this past spring, I believe it was, there was a derailment on the Mercier Bridge going from Montreal to the South Shore. If these cars had been carrying toxic chemicals, could we have possibly been in a very dangerous situation? For anyone who lives in the neighbourhood, for anyone who happened to be passing through the neighbourhood.... Considering the proximity to downtown, the number of people this could affect would just be enormous. We're very concerned about that, let alone the fact that toxic chemicals are moving through Montreal when probably their destination is not within the city of Montreal—they could easily be routed around Montreal, but they're not—and that they're parked very often in Montreal, just sitting on the rails overnight.

What happens if there are kids playing around there? There are fences around these rail lines, but we've all been children; we've all hopped fences when we were kids. There are going to be kids getting near these cars, and the cars should not be parked anywhere that anyone can have access to them other than the rail employees. And they shouldn't be in populated centres.

Other than that, the conclusion is that we currently seem to be in a void of regulation in the train industry with respect to noise pollution. As has been said already, the municipalities and provinces are unable to apply their noise regulations where this industry is concerned.

We don't seek to remove the train industry; we seek to live in harmony with it, and we insist that we be able to coexist with them in a way that does not reduce the quality of life because of either noise pollution or fear of toxic chemicals being run through our neighbourhoods, and by an industry that seems to be running without control at this point in time.

Thank you.

[Robert Dalpé, Comité Anti-Bruit]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today to speak to you about Bill C-11.

For the past 10 years I have lived next to the Hochelaga shunting yard. On my own, as well as with some of my neighbours, and more recently, with the support of my member of Parliament, Mr. Réal Ménard, I have made a number of attempts to deal with this issue; since there is no regulatory framework, we were unsuccessful.

We would very much like to see Bill C-11 passed as soon as possible, with the following minor adjustments. In the interest of clarity, I will deal with only two points, which I intend to emphasize.

The first relates to the lack of a regulatory framework to deal with the environmental impact of railway activities. The court decision to amend the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency has left a void when it comes to enforcing environmental standards in this area. Other modes of transportation have environmental standards and mechanisms to enforce them. In the case of the railways, the people in charge of the regulations suggest that we negotiate with the railway company management. As individuals with limited means, we must try to have the standards enforced, standards which, for the time being, are none existent. Moreover, as has already been said, there is no one to arbitrate a disagreement between the two parties. Therefore, I would first emphasize the importance of having a regulatory framework and allowing the Canadian Transportation Agency to enforce environmental standards.

I will now address my second point.

Bill C-11 deals with noise. That is the only concept that is stated exclusively. We would like other aspects to be included, so that things are perfectly clear. The Transportation Agency itself constantly raises the three following points: noise, smoke and vibrations. Let's look at pollution caused by odours and smoke. What we hate even more than noise coming from the Hochelaga shunting yard is smoke pollution. The engines are not well maintained, and there is often a chronic problem with locomotives idling, which is really a euphemism. These engines run for hours but they don't go anywhere.

At the moment, there is no regulation for these companies and nothing that is enforced by any federal government body. So these engines can idle for hours, which causes pollution and—this is something that never ceases to amaze us—a huge waste of fuel.

In closing, I would say that I would like to see a regulatory framework specific to environmental issues applied to rail transportation, something that is similar to the rules for other modes of transport. There should be penalties included, and they should be enforced by a recognized authority. Moreover, the regulations should promote a better protection of the environment. That would include noise, air quality, energy saving and the health of our citizens.

[Christiane Théberge, Vice-President, Public Affairs and GM Eastern Canada for the Association of Canadian Travel agencies (ACTA) , Travellers' Protection Initiative]

The second concern we would like to address is with respect to airfare advertising transparency. We were here earlier on and heard a great deal about the matter. We believe that the proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will only give the minister power to prescribe regulations sometimes in the future. TPI does not believe that the airlines will willingly change their advertising practices. We see every indication that they increasingly tend to break up their airfares and announce one way fares when these are not even available. We have seen cases where consumers, upon completing the transaction, had paid 25%, 50% or even 90% more the amount initially advertised by the airline.

In the past, the airline industry has promised to take voluntary measures, but they never delivered the goods. We are therefore skeptical of arguments put forward by the airlines, in other words that the airline industry can be self-regulating with respect to consumers' interests. Despite years of discussions with the airline industry and a series of false starts, the airline industry has not moved voluntary on this issue.

We believe that the requirement to full disclosure, with details, should be firmly entrenched in the legislation and apply to all airlines which advertise in Canada. After all, air carriers providing services in United States are already subject to these requirements. There is indeed American legislation requiring that air carriers disclose their fares in full. It is stipulated that any advertising or solicitation by an air carrier or by one of its agents or middlemen will be considered an unfair or deceptive practice, unless the price stated is entire price to be paid by the customer to the air carrier, or the agent. In subsequent interpretations of this requirement, the US DOT has issued notices to clarify that the intent of the rule is to ensure that members of the public are given proper fare information on which to base their airline travel purchasing decisions.

It should also be noted that the US DOT just recently refused to change its rule and enforcement policy that have been in place for 21 years. The Department concluded that the current practice protects consumers and helps them compare prices. It also found that the current rule promotes healthy competition while leaving airlines with freedom to innovate.

Because Canadian airlines are not covered by any provincial regulations, they perpetuate a situation where consumers often experience “sticker shock” when they see the final travel bill. As was mentioned earlier by Michael Pepper, several provincial jurisdictions including Quebec and Ontario, already require that travel agents and wholesalers be fully transparent when it comes to their advertising, something which air carriers are not subjected too, I might add. In Ontario, there is the requirement that the advertised price indicates clearly and in an obvious manner to the consumer all additional fees , with the exception of provincial sales taxes and GST. The same applies in Quebec.

It is important to remember, when we refer the healthy competition within this industry that the current situation gives airlines an unfair advantage over , in many cases, largely small businesses, creating an uneven playing field at the expense of travel agents and wholesalers and also consumers.

TPI is therefore of the view that transparency in advertising needs to be entwined in the legislation and not left to the discretion of the Minister of Transport and the agency.

One other issue is with respect to the air travel Complaints Commissioner. TPI members certainly supported the position and role of the airline Complaints Commissioner when it was created. While we believe that the Commissioner was hampered in his/her position by a lack of powers to take substantive action, having a visible place for consumers to voice their concerns and issues, and having the Commissioner annual report, added an element of transparency to the system, that cannot be replaced by the officials at the Canada Transportation Agency. While we have confidence that the CTA can adequately carry out this function, we are concerned that the issues will loose their public focus., through what was referred to earlier as the “embarrassment” that such an annual report could bring about. We do believe that this balance is important to the consumer, in a way, finally giving consumers some power.

For these reasons, we are prepared to take a “wait and see” approach with respect to this new way of dealing with complaints. However, we expect that the CTA will take a proactive role in ensuring that passenger complaints are appropriately addressed, and that this role is well-known to airline passengers,so that they may know where to lodge their complaints.

In closing, we recognize that this bill addresses many important transportation issues. TPI believes that it is in the public interest that these consumers' concerns about air travel have a proper hearing and debate. By adopting our recommendations and amendments to Bill C-11, we believe that it is possible to adopt measures that would booster consumer confidence and promote competition by ensuring a stable market with transparent and measurable standards applicable across the board. We have all seen the statistics with respect to our main air carriers and that the numbers have been rising from month to month. So this is a stable industry, at the moment.

We thank you for your attention.

[Michael Pepper, President and Chief Executive Officer for Travel Industry Council of Ontario, Travellers' Protection Initiative]

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing the Travellers' Protection Initiative the opportunity to make a submission today.

My name is Michael Pepper. I'm the CEO of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, which is known as TICO. We are responsible for regulating travel agents and travel wholesalers in the province of Ontario. There are over 2,500 registered travel agencies, which generate over $7 billion in gross sales per year.

The Travellers' Protection Initiative is an alliance of several organizations. Our goal is to persuade the Minister of Transport to make necessary changes and amendments to Bill C-11. In addition to TICO, our members include the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, represented today by Michael Janigan; Option consommateurs, represented by Marie-Hélène Beaulieu; and the Association of Canadian Travel Agents, represented by Christiane Théberge. Christiane will provide an address following my overview.

These four organizations, together with the Canadian Association of Airline Passengers, represent the interests of consumers, professionals, and small businesses from across Canada. A full list of members can be found in the appendix to our written submission, which I think has been provided to you. The focus of the Travellers' Protection Initiative is consumer protection, and our submission deals not only with what's in the bill, but also with what's not in it.

There are a couple of issues in the bill we want to talk about, but we're also asking the committee to consider making some amendments to include some other things in the bill. We think the bill provides an opportunity for the Government of Canada to take a leadership role in the world by improving consumer protection for its citizens who travel by air. There are a few fundamental issues that we'd like the government to address.

First of all, we would like stronger financial criteria for air carriers, together with published information on airline service and financial performance. The issue of airline advertising has been mentioned. We have experienced full price disclosure in the three major provinces. We are advocating full price disclosure including all of the auxiliary charges, with the exception of the GST and the PST. The final issue is the continuation of the air travel complaints commissioner.

I'd like to outline our biggest concern with the airlines—the financial criteria. My colleague Christiane Théberge will outline our concerns regarding the advertising disclosure and the continuation of the complaints commissioner.

Our first concern is the financial plight of the airline industry. Many airlines in the world today are undercapitalized and unprofitable. A number of factors have contributed to this, including bad management, overcapacity, the cost of fuel, and an ever-increasing overhead cost that airlines have to incur, collect, and pass on to their customers.

In Canada, however, the airline industry is currently stable. Canadian scheduled and chartered carriers are well managed and profitable. But this was not the case in recent years. Two large carriers in Canada failed, namely Canada 3000 and Jetsgo. Both of these airlines provided a mix of scheduled and charter services.

On the scheduled side, neither of these airlines were subject to financial oversight from the government. While we understand and agree that the Canadian government is not in the airline business, and is a strong advocate of free enterprise, it has to take a leadership role in how air carriers are allowed to behave. Scheduled carriers in Canada are not subject to any ongoing financial criteria. There are neither working capital requirements nor any requirement to hold consumers' advance payments in trust.

As an example, I want to go back to Canada 3000, which failed in November 2001, and the Jetsgo failure of March of last year. Both of these carriers were permitted to sell seats in advance in order to generate cash to pay their operating expenses. This was to the detriment of consumers. When these airlines finally ran out of money, it was the unsuspecting consumer who felt the brunt. Thousands of consumers were either left stranded or did not receive the travel services for which they had paid.

Who bailed them out? Not the federal government, and certainly not the bankrupt airlines. The lucky ones received compensation from provincial compensation funds, credit card charge-backs, or insurance companies. Many, however, received nothing at all.

Unlike provincial consumer protection against travel agency failure, there is no federal compensation fund that reimburses consumers. And yes, I understand, and we understand, why the stronger airlines, like Air Canada and WestJet, would not support such a compensation fund scheme. But there is another remedy available, which needs serious consideration, that would go a long way to improving the financial plight of airlines.

Now is an opportune time to at least introduce stronger entry requirements, requiring ongoing financial criteria such as minimum working capital and trust accounting of consumer advance payments until the services are provided. These requirements would go a long way to improving the financial health of the industry. And why now? Because the Canadian airline sector is in good financial health and it should not have difficulty meeting minimum financial criteria. This would in turn benefit existing carriers, because any new entrants would not be able to do as they have done before, which in the past has diluted the marketplace and put consumers at risk, in addition to bringing down the level for the whole sector.

These financial provisions and the ability of the minister to make regulations in respect of a national compensation fund we think need to be firmly entrenched in the act. I'm saying the ability to make regulations for a compensation fund because perhaps down the road things might turn out differently.

Those are my main issues on the financial side. I would now like to ask my colleague, Christiane Théberge, to conclude with regard to advertising and the complaints commissioner.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming and for your presentation. I think we've all heard your comment around ground rents, but I see them as an issue separate from the issue of Bill C-11 itself. But those comments were valuable, and I think that issues is something we, as a transport committee, could certainly look into in the coming weeks.

I'd like to come back to Bill C-11, because, like my colleagues, I have some concerns about your comments both around the issue of the clarity of air fares and the air travel complaints commissioner. You seem to indicate that, within your association, there are two points of view on the regulation of advertising around air fares. Would that be fair to say? Some of the carriers, some of your members, support that idea.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gaspar, it's good to see you. Thanks for coming in and thanks for your concise and on-the-mark presentation. It's always helpful for me and my colleagues, I'm sure, to hear the industry address the most salient parts of a bill that affects their businesses and their concerns.

I want to put to you two questions I put to the Canadian Transportation Agency yesterday. They deal with Bill C-11. In my view, I didn't get a satisfactory answer to either question. I confirmed yesterday with the Transportation Agency that the minister would be empowered under this bill to instruct the CTA to determine airline airfare clarity regulations--clarity regulations I think is the specific wording in the bill--and when they would be deemed to be necessary. I asked the CTA what might constitute necessary. Would it be a certain amount of evidence, a trend, a particular abuse, an incident of some kind? They were not able to answer. So I put that to you, from an airline perspective.

. I know you spoke moments ago about $99 fares and let's work on the sustainability of $99 fares rather than the sustainability and clarity of advertising. For a lot of Canadians, I think they are confused. For a consumer who travels and for my colleagues and their families who travel, we can sometimes be very misled by advertising. Can I put that question to you, first of all, on clarity regulations? In your mind, when might they be deemed to be necessary?

[Fred Gaspar, Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon to speak with you on the matter of Bill C-11.

Let me first take a few moments to familiarize you with our organization. The Air Transport Association of Canada was founded in Ottawa in 1934 as the national voice of Canada's fledgling aerospace and aviation industry. ATAC today is composed of a membership of over 200 companies of all sizes that collectively account for over 95% of commercial aviation revenues in Canada. We would like to address this committee, however, from the passenger's perspective, for it is the passenger's interests that ought to be at the heart of everything we do.

In Bill C-11 we see a bill that ostensibly deals with many issues related to passengers' concerns: air travel complaints, reviewing mergers and acquisitions, airfare advertising, and the use of airline data and passenger information. The sad reality, however, is that none of these measures actually address any of the real issues of concern to our passengers. You know yourselves what those are. You travel by air more than most Canadians. You know that what passengers want more than anything else from their air travel experience is safety, efficiency, and the right balance in the price and service mix. So that is the proper perspective from which to view these measures.

Indeed, it is a perspective that casts this bill in a less than flattering light, not for what it addresses, but for what it does not. It purports to introduce measures that are friendly to consumers, but does not actually help to lower costs, does not help to improve efficiency, and does not help to improve value.

For more than a few years now, ATAC and its members have been pleading with successive governments on behalf of our passengers to reduce the crippling effect of government ground rents due by passengers at airports. Established in the mid-1990s in conjunction with the development of airports, these rents have contributed approximately $300 million annually, and $2 billion since their inception, to general government coffers. The total contribution has already exceeded the net worth of those facilities at the time of their transfer, which was approximately $1.5 billion, a figure, by the way, which in no way accounted for the significant upgrades to those facilities, since most of them were practically falling apart.

Transferring the airports allowed the government to offload that cost to the local authorities, which recouped the investment costs from the users, namely, airlines and passengers. In short, it is a misnomer to label these payments as rent. They are actually a simple but brutal tax on flying, and they make the system about $300 million a year more expensive than it needs to be or ought to be. We respectfully submit that if Parliament is truly interested in pursuing the best interests of passengers, it should first and foremost occupy itself with this pressing matter.

Still, we are presented with a series of measures in this bill that require our scrutiny. It is probably fair to say that the most high profile of these measures is the proposal to fold the activities of the air travel complaints commissioner into those of the broader Canadian Transportation Agency mandate. From our perspective, this is a sensible move, insofar as the existence of that office represented little actual value for taxpayers' money. This has been an institution that stands out from other sectors in its purpose and role. There is no complaints commissioner for other modes of transportation, nor is there such an office for practically any other sector of the economy. The reason is self-evident. Clearly, there can be no better arbiter of the consumer interest than a healthy and highly competitive aviation sector.

Let's recall that when the office was created, it was in an era of much hand-wringing about the future state of competition in this industry. Air Canada had just completed its acquisition of Canadian Airlines in 2000, and many observers, including many parliamentarians at the time, expressed significant concerns about Air Canada's potential dominance in the market.

Despite this industry's assertions at the time that the marketplace would in fact provide the appropriate level of service and competition demanded by consumers, the office was established, among a series of other measures, in an attempt to create by legislation a regulatory framework that would protect consumer interests in the perceived absence of competition. But as we said it would, the marketplace did in fact return to a level of providing competitive service that responded to the demands of consumers. Anyone doubting that assertion need look no further than the fact that WestJet's market share today, for example, is at approximately 40%, higher than any level previously achieved by Canadian Airlines.

While there will always be some level of service disruption in our industry from time to time, we respectfully submit that a careful analysis of the role and value of the complaints commissioner since the position has existed clearly demonstrates that a healthy and competitive marketplace, and not another layer of government bureaucracy, can best respond to the need of consumers.

Similarly, the proposed authority granted to the minister to review mergers and acquisitions in all sectors of transportation is another example of a legislative tool introduced during the hysteria of 1999-2000 that has little, if any, practical value for passengers. Unlike the previous measure, however, this one actually does offer very real harm to the interests of passengers.

Nearly all stakeholders in commercial aviation, from consumer groups to infrastructure service providers to airlines, support lowering the barriers to investment in this sector.

We all recognize that ours is a very highly capital-intensive business, with large start-up and operational costs that are required to support, ultimately, a low-yield business climate. If a healthy, competitive aviation sector is the goal, why put in place regulations that cast doubt on Canada's openness to investment in this sector?

Moreover, this authority vested in the minister runs counter to the stated principles of the CTA, including those that say that “competition and market forces are, whenever possible, the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services”.

As with the previous measure discussed, since this was a tool introduced to deal with a perceived problem that never materialized, parliamentarians should rightly be asking themselves: what is this for and what does it do for consumers?

As to the matter of empowering the minister to regulate airfares, we encourage parliamentarians to remember where this came from and to ask themselves what value it represents to passengers. Indeed, some of our own members may tell you it has some value. Carriers who primarily distribute their tickets through provincially regulated tour operators and travel agencies, for instance, may see some value in a federal standard that would apply throughout Canada, while others who market their services directly to consumers question the need for this measure in the first place.

Certainly we are all united by the common interest of ensuring that consumers are fully and directly informed as to the makeup of their ticket cost. ATAC's concern with this proposal in regulating airfares advertising simply rests with the potential for abuse. As you well know, the final average cost of a discounted airline ticket in this country is comprised of anywhere between 25% and 40% in additional various government and government-created monopolies' taxes, fees, and charges. I don't think it would be fair to consumers in any way to hide information from them as to who is getting their travel dollar. They have a right to know.

While we take no specific view as to the propriety of this measure, we question the focus on disclosing the full price when the real focus should be on helping to reduce it. After all, shouldn't we be more concerned with making a $99 fare to Toronto more sustainable in the long run than wringing our hands about whether or not that $99 fare includes all the various government fees and charges?

In a similar vein, this proposal also purports to empower consumers by giving the CTA the authority to regulate the display of its terms and conditions for international services on the carriers' websites. We would certainly agree with the notion of ensuring that consumers are fully informed of the terms of carriage, which is why we clearly state the restrictions applicable on any ticket prior to the completion of a sale. We would caution the committee, however, to seek clarification on the meaning of this measure.

As some members may know, the full tariff is a legal contract consisting of thousands of lines of detailed text, spelling out every travel eventuality and arrangement known. The full text of a tariff rule can run over a hundred pages. We respectfully submit that it is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation to clarify this clause in order to provide consumers with practical and clear information as to the terms of carriage, rather than a requirement to publish the full text of the tariff itself.

As to the matter of sharing aviation data between government agencies, our industry takes no specific view as to the merits of these provisions. This is a broader social question, which is not limited to the commercial interests of airline service providers. From our members' perspective, our limited concern rests with the integrity of that data, which rightfully belongs to our passengers. We urge government to proceed cautiously when sharing data information and to do so only to the extent necessary, and to ensure the integrity of our databases by limiting any data-fishing exercises.

Finally--and to be fair--this legislation proposes a few housekeeping measures, which the industry can support. It contains clauses to require that persons acquiring an air service from another licensee must themselves hold an unsuspended licence. It exempts operators of seasonal service from the obligations of providing notice when suspending a service, for obvious reasons. And several other sections are also amended to provide the CTA with greater flexibility in making its determinations on a number of regulatory matters. The industry, by and large, supports these measures in principle.

So while this legislation is not entirely without merit, I return to my opening statement about assessing the bill from the passengers' perspective. If we can agree, more than anything, that passengers want safety, efficiency, and value in their travel experience, we have to ask ourselves what, if anything, this bill accomplishes from that perspective. Sadly, the answer is very little.

Ultimately, motherhood statements about airfare advertising rules, air travel complaints, and reviewing mergers and acquisitions do nothing to lower the costs at airports or improve the travel experience for passengers.

As some parliamentarians may recall, this bill is the third incarnation of this legislation. For some strange reason, Transport Canada keeps focusing on these measures that offer words in place of action to actually address the cost structure of this industry and the interests of passengers.

With that, I can only conclude by saying that the aviation industry in Canada is disappointed in this legislation but looks forward to discussing issues of meaningful reform, including those contained in the Canada Airports Act. Also, we hope to finally see some meaningful airport rent reductions for our industry and passengers.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 17 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Our order of reference from September 21 is Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today we're joined by Mr. Fred Gaspar of the Air Transport Association of Canada.

I think we have a quorum. I know we have another set of witnesses coming forward, so I will ask you to proceed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

If we look at this, the additional responsibility, and all of the other additional responsibilities we've discussed for Bill C-11—you mentioned earlier that you deal with about 3,800 cases annually—what would be your forecast in terms of having these new powers? What would be the number of cases that you may handle?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Bill C-11 will create more work for you. Do you think that it will create problems?

[Gilles Dufault, Acting chairman, Canadian Transportation Agency]

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 1^st 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 C-11. 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 Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

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 C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

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.

[Helena Borges]

I am going to answer you in English.

Currently the process applies to the railway discontinuing operations or abandoning the railway line. Once the railway discontinues operations—it will no longer offer a freight service—it has to offer the line up for sale to another private entity, for example, a short line. If there are no takers, it currently has to go through the process of offering the line to the levels of government. The federal government receives an offer if the line crosses municipal jurisdictions or a first nations reserve; then it goes to the provincial government, and subsequently to the municipal government. Each level of government has 30 days to decide whether or not it wishes to acquire that corridor for any purpose that the municipality or the level of government would want.

If there are no takers and the municipality, which has the last offer, does not take the line for urban transit purposes, a bicycle path, or whatever, then the railway has the authority to discontinue it. Then it becomes a piece of property like any other that can be sold, as with any piece of property. It is no longer under the process, because it has already followed the thorough discontinuance process.

What we are adding through Bill C-11 is one intermediate step between the province and the municipalities for urban transit authorities that cross multiple jurisdictions—for example, West Coast Express or TransLink in B.C., AMT in Montreal, GO Transit in Toronto. Where they serve multiple municipalities, they would be dependent on getting all the municipalities together to agree to buy that line for them. This allows them, right after the province—because they are provincial creatures—to put in an offer themselves and buy that whole corridor for their urban transit purposes. It in fact makes the process stronger and preserves more of these corridors for potential urban transit or other community uses.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

My final question is again on Bill C-11.

In the merger review provisions there is an indication that public interest is being considered in the merger reviews, but I have not seen any specific recommendation or specific reference to how the public might be involved in the merger review process. It seems to be set by the minister. What provisions could be made, or what provisions exist--perhaps i've missed them--that actually allow the public to get involved, particularly when we're talking about air traffic in regions of the country where a merger could have fairly significant repercussions?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you.

I have two questions specifically on Bill C-11. You mentioned in your opening remarks that the pilot project around air traffic complaints raised against the airlines has proven successful. How did you determine that success? What level of complaints are we talking about? How were they dealt with? How were the actual passengers themselves who raised the concerns questioned in terms of whether or not they felt the process had been a valid one? What information or documentation is available to us?

This is very relevant given the changes in Bill C-11, and some concerns should have been raised as to whether or not this is the best approach to take in terms of air traffic complaints.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your re-election.

Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee. It's good to see you again. Thank you for coming to speak on Bill C-11.

Let me thank you as well for your generous comments in the House last week, where you admitted that most of the heavy lifting on Bill C-11 and in fact, for that matter, most of your government's transportation agenda was done by the previous government, by the department, and by transportation stakeholders who have been working on this for over a decade. I appreciate your largesse in that regard.

I'd like to ask you two specific questions, and I want to know how the bill deals with both questions, if I could.

The first has to do with the safety of our airports. You've heard about the incident in Montreal earlier this month; a journalist was able to penetrate six or seven times on the periphery of Trudeau airport. Without identification, he was able to gain access without being stopped. With all due respect, Minister, your comments on this matter have been vague. They have been inconclusive. Canadians are very worried about this. It was compounded today by media reports, Mr. Chairman, about members of criminal organizations, including the Hell's Angels, intimidating security officers at our airports in order to operate--we take from the article--their flourishing drug trade.

How is this bill specifically going to deal with this question, in the first instance, of airport security?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

The third component will deal with shipper protection provisions. Consultations are under way with shippers and the railways on potential changes to those provisions. The intent is to table a bill later this fall.

Allow me to highlight some of the amendments contained in Bill C-11.

Section 5 of the act contains the national transportation policy declaration, which provides a general context for the legislation. You will recall that, in its report, the Canada Transportation Act review panel recommended that the policy statement be updated. Although the underlying principles are well accepted, the panel agreed with many stakeholders who said the statement is too long and too confusing. Furthermore, the statement needs to be updated to add principles related to the environment and security.

The act sets out the powers and responsibilities of the Canadian Transportation Agency. Amendments contained in Bill C-11 will affect the agency's role and structure. There will be a reduction in the number of full-time members, from seven to five, and members will be required to reside in the national capital region. This is expected to reduce its administrative costs without affecting the efficiency and the effectiveness of the agency.

Rather than relying solely on regulatory remedies, the CTA review panel supported the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that emphasized negotiated solutions to disputes between carriers and their customers. Such approaches are often quicker, less costly, less confrontational, and more effective than regulatory measures.

In June 2000, the agency launched a pilot project based on mediation. This has proven quite successful. Bill C-11 will give the agency formal authority to engage in mediation on demand with respect to matters under its jurisdiction.

Bill C-11 also introduces a new merger review process that extends to all transportation carriers and service providers under federal jurisdiction, notably in the areas of air, rail, marine, buses, trucks, airports, and marine ports. This process would build on the strengths of the existing merger review process currently in place for the airlines.

Bill C-11 contains a number of important provisions related to air travel. In this regard, I want to emphasize that this government is committed to promoting competition in the air transportation sector and offering increased consumer choice to the travelling public. It is my intention to set out a more comprehensive air policy later on.

The bill contains several measures to enhance consumer protection. Among these is the obligation for carriers to display their terms and conditions of carriage more prominently at their business offices and on their Internet sites. Consumers are entitled to know the terms and conditions of the air service before they book a flight, to help them make informed travel choices. Amendments also help to ensure that consumers obtain fair airfare advertising that is clear, transparent, and not misleading.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to expand briefly on this last element: air fare advertising.

Good information helps Canadians make informed choices. Consumers want to be able to compare different airlines, advertised prices and to know, upfront, how much they will pay for air services when setting out to purchase airline tickets. Carriers are realizing this, and it is reflected in their changing practices today. Consumers are also becoming smarter as evidenced in the increasing use of the Internet for ticket sales.

However, concerns have been raised by some consumers that price advertisements, whether in newspapers or on Internet sites, still do not contain complete or clear pricing information. For that reason, the amendment proposed in the bill would give the minister, where required, the power to authorize the making of regulations respecting transparency in the advertising of prices of air services, regardless of the medium used.

The amendments provide guidance regarding what types of costs should be included in the base price of an airfare and what costs may be advertised separately. The regulations, should they become necessary, would be enforced by the agency and would ensure that the standards would be consistently applied across the industry.

The Office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner was created, you'll recall, in 2000 as part of a specific amendment to the act. It has served a useful function during the transition period of the last few years; however, the complaints function has become integrated into the regular work of the agency. With changes in the marketplace since 2000 and more competition, especially from low-cost carriers, the number of complaints against Air Canada and other carriers has stabilized to what we would call a normal level, approximately consistent with their market share. In addition, complaints now increasingly relate to matters that fall within the core functions of the agency.

Since the fall of 2004 the function of the commissioner has been entrenched in the agency through the implementation of the air travel complaints program. The agency has been able to continue to adequately respond to consumers' complaints in an informal manner and consistent with its ongoing mandate. The proposed amendments would therefore make permanent and transparent the complaints resolution function of the agency by integrating this function into the regular operations of the agency.

Bill C-11 also addresses the need of publicly funded passenger rail services. It will implement a more effective mechanism to resolve disputes during contract negotiations between passenger service providers and the freight railways.

VIA Rail, commuter rail authorities and other publicly funded passenger rail operators prefer to conclude commercial agreements with infrastructure owners. If negotiations prove unsuccessful, publicly funded passenger rail service providers will be allowed to seek adjudication from the agency on the terms and conditions of operations on federal rail lines, including access fees and charges for services provided by the railways. Adjudication will be precluded for existing commercial contracts except for resolving train priority issues under the existing VIA Rail agreements.

In addition, the line transfer and abandonment provisions will be extended to include urban corridors, passenger stations, and urban transit authorities.

I want to emphasize that the proposed improvements to the rail passenger provisions are strongly endorsed by the commuter rail operators in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. They would like to see these changes implemented as soon as possible.

Bill C-11 also addresses the issue of railway noise. The agency used to consider complaints about noise from railway operations. However, in December 2000 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the agency lacked jurisdiction to hear noise complaints. Therefore, no federal regulatory body is presently mandated to regulate railway noise. Bill C-11 will amend the act to require that railways not cause unreasonable noise when constructing or operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operations and the interests of affected communities. As well, the agency would be granted authority to resolve noise complaints if a voluntary settlement cannot be reached between the parties. The noise provisions have strong support from interested parties, including a number of members of Parliament.

Bill C-11 contains a provision that will enable the Minister of Transport to make a one-time-only request to the agency to adjust the revenue caps for grain movements to reflect current maintenance costs of hopper cars. This will provide for an adjustment that is not dependent upon a disposal. This amendment is widely supported by western Canadian grain producers.

Many of you may be curious about how Bill C-11 amends the Railway Safety Act. Let me explain in a couple of seconds. Under Bill C-11 the CTA is being amended to repeal the provisions that grant police powers to railway companies and to incorporate comparable provisions in the Railway Safety Act. In addition, amendments to the Railway Safety Act will require that the railways establish an independent review mechanism for responding to public complaints against railway police. The review mechanism will be filed with the minister for approval.

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I would like to flag one other provision. Bill C-11 introduces a new provision that authorizes the transport minister to enter into an agreement with a provincial authority under which the provincial authority would regulate a railway in the same manner as the minister. This is aimed at facilitating the introduction of expanded O-Train service in Ottawa, which falls under federal jurisdiction and is therefore subject to federal safety regulations.

The city plans to convert the existing rail corridor into a dedicated two-track electrified streetcar-type light-rail train (LRT). However, since LRT typically operates with different control systems and different braking characteristics, LRT equipment and operations do not need the majority of the rules, regulations and standards currently set out pursuant to the Railway Safety Act.

A tentative agreement has been reached with the city and the province under which the city would assume all applicable responsibilities for the Ottawa LRT system.

Mr. Chairman, we believe these amendments will greatly improve the CTA and benefit air travellers and communities across the country, urban transit providers, grain producers, and the environment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back, everybody. I do want to thank you for the opportunity to serve as your chair again, I welcome Mark to our committee, and I look forward to sharing some of the highlights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, we are fortunate today to have the minister joining us. I would ask the minister to take the floor and make his presentation.

Mr. Cannon, please.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I wish to extend my congratulations on the exceptional choice that the members have made to reconfigure, or re-elect, or push you into the position of chair. I want to congratulate also the two vice-chairs.

I'm accompanied by Helena Borges, who is the director general of surface transportation policy, and Brigita Gravitis-Beck, who is director general of air policy.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the members of the committee. I would like to open by reiterating the government's overall approach to amending the Canada Transportation Act. The act is a legislative framework for economic activities related to air and rail transportation in Canada and covers a number of general matters such as the role and responsibility of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The act, which came into effect in 1996, included a requirement for a statutory review. The panel was appointed in June 2000 and undertook extensive consultations across Canada before submitting its report in June 2001.

In the five years since that review, amendments to the legislation have been introduced through bills tabled in Parliament twice: Bill C-26, in 2003; and Bill C-44, in 2005. Both of these bills died on the order paper.

The government recognizes that there have been extensive consultations and consensus-building with stakeholders over this, and that there was considerable support for many of the provisions that were in Bill C-44.

Stakeholders are anxious for the government to move forward with improvements to the CTA. The government wishes to proceed with CTA amendments on which there is consensus using the former Bill C-44 as the base, with appropriate revisions.

In order to expedite passage of the amendments, the government has decided to split C-44 into three more manageable components. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-3, an Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act, is presently before the Senate.

Bill C-11 is the second component and deals with the air provisions, rail passenger provisions, railway noise, the grain revenue cap as well as a number of general provisions.

Canada Transportation Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has a lot in common with a bill introduced by the previous government, but it covers only part of what was in that bill.

However—and I will emphasize this from the very beginning of my presentation—some of the improvements in this bill justify our voting in favour of it.

First of all, it gives mass transit companies the right to use railways when freight transportation networks decide not to use them. Until now, transit companies did not have the right to use these lines to expand public and rail transportation networks, particularly in cities.

I think this major improvement is also an element of the transportation improvement policy we need to develop, especially in our large cities, to improve the environment. This measure would also require fiscal incentives.

This morning, the Standing Committee on Finance heard presentations by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. The association said that the government should make ongoing, long-term commitments and invest in public transit. If the government acts on this recommendation and incorporates it into the bill as it now stands, public transit and commuter rail will expand and ridership will increase. Ultimately, this will mean less pollution.

This is an interesting proposal, particularly since it will also stimulate economic development. When public passenger service providers exercise this right, they will need to purchase locomotives and rail cars. Not only large cities, but rural areas as well can benefit from such investments.

For example, in my riding, the Bombardier plant that will manufacture the cars for the Montreal subway will also be able to manufacture rail cars. This type of action would be part of a structured rather than piecemeal approach. We are glad that the current bill provides for this, but more is needed. That said, this improvement deserves to be supported on balance.

The other worthwhile improvement concerns noise. As a member from a rural area, I have heard many times from small municipalities that have problems with whistles and other noise associated with the rolling stock currently in use, a situation they find both unsatisfactory and extremely frustrating. What the bill proposes is not ideal, but it would achieve a better balance between the interests of the community and those of the carrier.

Let us hope that the Canadian Transportation Agency, with its new mandate, will be able to improve the situation so that people in some communities no longer have to put up with excessive noise.

I hope that when the bill is examined in committee, we will be able to extend the Transportation Agency's decision-making authority to other nuisances such as oil spills and the like. Two significant improvements have been made.

I would have liked to see this government maintain VIA Rail's expanded mandate, as planned by the previous government, for it represented a valuable tool to improve the quality of the environment by offering rapid rail services, for example. This alternative could also contribute to improved air quality, since it pollutes less than cars or planes. Moreover, it would have given VIA Rail the opportunity to diversify its products, which could have been interesting. We are told that the government is still studying this project. Let us hope it comes to fruition.

In addition, offering rail services promotes the use of equipment made in Quebec or in Canada and, at the same time, still contributes to improving the quality of the environment. I see this as another positive aspect.

What this bill is missing, and what especially affects me, is something to address railway accidents and what happened a few years ago in Sainte-Hélène-de-Kamouraska in my riding, and in Montmagny the year before my arrival as the member for this area.

There were some accidents and we realize that the safety network is inadequate, either because there are not enough investigators funded to implement the necessary corrective measures or because there is not enough pressure on the companies who own the networks. We are left to accept a network that has many negative results and risks of accidents that could cause serious environmental damage. In Montmagny, it was very dangerous when a train spilled its chemical load into the river. The same thing happened in Sainte-Hélène and we were just barely able to prevent a serious ecological disaster.

In this bill, I would have liked to have seen some measures to tighten regulations, monitor companies more closely and make it possible to take action when corporate responses are inadequate. Since being privatized, CN has operated within the existing legislative framework and has not adopted safety measures that exceed those imposed by the government. We live in a competitive world. It is government's role to ensure that the company's operations are carried out safely. In this regard, there are some gaps that should have been filled by this bill but have not.

I hope that the government will introduce another bill to remedy this situation. If legislation is not considered, then at least increase the budget for the inspection service so that it will be taken seriously by the major companies that operate the railway network.

Bill C-11 reintroduces certain proposals made by the former government, and some are positive. The bill also touches on various aspects of the air transport sector.

This afternoon, I wish to focus on the railway network. In Quebec and Canada, as we know, the popularity of our railway network has been very cyclical and 20, 15 and even 10 years ago it was not keeping up with the times. With the advent of containers and environmental concerns, it is possible to develop transportation that fulfills the requirements of sustainable development. The measures proposed today, particularly those affecting transportation companies, are interesting and positive.

We are pleased to see that this bill speaks to the noise issue, which is about decreasing one type of pollution. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois intends to support the bill. It also intends to propose amendments pertaining to, among other things, rulings and decisions regarding noise. Local authorities could be given sufficient powers to obtain satisfactory decisions and to provide a better balance of power in those cases where corporations are too powerful.

In view of the overall context, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this legislation and will seek to improve it in committee, in clause by clause study, after witnesses have been heard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, since I have a railroad yard in my riding. It is not surprising, since Montreal was one of the first industrialized cities.

Allow me first to take a couple of minutes, since this is my first speech in the House since our return. First, I want to wish all my colleagues a good return to Parliament and a warm welcome to the pages working with us.

I have sat in this House for 13 years now—less than you, Mr. Speaker—and I believe this is the first time we have had pages who are twins. They are Alain and Joël Dupuis. One is studying management and the other communications and political science. Their parents are Diane and Régent Dupuis from Sudbury.

I thought this was worth mentioning. We have twins in the House of Commons working on the floor at the same time. I am a twin and I thought it worth mentioning. I would like to give them a warm round of applause and I ask all my colleagues to join in. That being said, Alain is here and he would be pleased. Now back to the matter at hand.

I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the Bloc Québécois whip. He was quite eloquent when he spoke of the trade-off between economic imperatives and the reasons we are here in Parliament. Our first loyalty is to the quality of life of our constituents.

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is in eastern Montreal and is a former working-class area. It is therefore not surprising that a railroad was set up there at the end of the 19th century. It was established in relation to the first industrialization.

Industrialization began in my neighbourhood. St. Lawrence Sugar, a refinery still operating on Notre Dame Street, was the first company established in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Back when this company set up shop, the city of Maisonneuve—which was then quite distinct from Montreal—offered tax breaks to attract more industries. We tend to forget that Maisonneuve was a very prosperous city. Some even called it the Pittsburgh of Canada. There were textile and shoe-making industries, as well as the Vickers shipyard. These industries produced a generation of specialized workers who earned a very good living and raised large families in six- or eight- room apartments in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Generations spent their lives there and benefited from local industrialization. Of course, the railway was an important factor in the economic growth of big cities.

The problem with railways and their operators is a lot like the problem with the Port of Montreal. There comes a time to reconcile economic imperatives and quality of life concerns. CN-CP has thought of itself as a city within a city for a long time now. I remember having certain conversations with its senior executives. With all due respect, I did not get the impression that quality of life figured very prominently among their priorities. I know that many of my House colleagues have the same complaints I have raised on behalf of the constituents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

We are under no obligation to accept anything in the name of economic development, jobs in the community, or bringing people in to work where they live. It is not right for railway companies to operate 24/7.

Railway tracks can be found near Moreau, Wurtele, and Lespérance streets and Place De Léry, where up to three trains pass by every day and operations go on 24 hours a day; we can only imagine the situation. We can imagine what it must be like for someone to be awoken from a deep sleep after working all day, after getting up at 6:30, putting in an honest day's work, coming home at 5:00, making supper, giving the children a bath and putting them to bed, but not before their homework—of course the homework must be done—getting ready for bed, and then at 2 a.m., a train goes by or a whistle blows or engines are switched.

I have seen worse in my neighbourhood in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: locomotives sitting idle for two or three hours, like it was nothing. As for pollution and oil, I have been told that the windows in the residential areas are always covered with a thin blackish film that is very difficult to remove.

Things have changed since the days of Émile Zola. It is no longer necessary to completely separate economic needs from quality of life. It makes no difference whether one lives in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve or elsewhere in Canada or Quebec, it is entirely reasonable to ask lawmakers to intervene.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We can most certainly rely on the spirit, determination and wisdom of the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, our transport critic, a man of the law. Although he did not write his bar exams, he is a notary, and therefore has a legal background. He is a former mayor who has experience as a spokesperson for a national association, the Union des municipalités du Québec. This man is very concerned about land use planning and the regulatory powers of municipalities. However, he also shares the same primary concern as every member of this House, that is, the quality of life of our constituents.

I know that there have been many class action suits. I am aware that class action suits were launched by Blainville and the former city of Outremont—no, at the time the city had been incorporated into Montreal but now it is a city again, so I will say the city of Outremont. These two cities were convinced that, as the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, the Canadian Transportation Agency, as a quasi-judicial body with comparable authority to a superior court, could hand down decisions and require the various transportation companies to take mitigation measures.

We were extremely surprised—not to say disappointed—when the Federal Court of Canada declared ultra vires the authority the Canadian Transportation Agency thought it had. If I am not mistaken, this is the third bill we have had about transportation. My colleague from Laval, who has been very involved in transportation issues, will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the third time this bill has been introduced.

I also recall that the leader of the Bloc Québécois sincerely hoped that this bill would be a priority in the previous Parliament. And we would have been happy to make amendments to it. The bill could be greatly improved. We could go much further. At least it was a starting point, and for the first time we had a bill stating that the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body, had conciliation and arbitration authority and could receive complaints from members of the public experiencing all sorts of problems. Obviously, we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, do I have one or two minutes left?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support what my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has said about the problem of the noise caused by the marshalling yards. There is a yard in the district of Sainte-Foy—Sillery, and this problem also exists in Charny, where the citizens are about at the breaking point and say they have had enough of the pollution, as my colleague the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord was saying.

Those citizens were recently the subject of a feature story on Radio-Canada. Bill C-11 is precisely designed to address the noise pollution caused by the marshalling yards. We have a resolution of the Quebec City municipal council. This resolution proceeds from the local council for Sainte-Foy, where the noise is happening. Many citizens from my riding have spoken to me about this problem, because the residents of Quebec City and Sillery are neighbours.

The municipal council has read Bill C-11. Its members say they will come to make presentations to have amendments made to it, for I believe that BillC-11 does not meet all of their expectations. I would like my colleague to tell me whether this bill truly meets the expectations on night noise. Quebec City is asking for a statement that night noise constitutes major pollution that can affect public health and quality of life. In its resolution, it is also asking for a clear and explicit formulation of the responsibilities of the railway companies, to set a framework for this initiative.

We are told that the Canadian Transportation Agency will have all the necessary latitude to meet the needs of the population of Quebec. Can my colleague fromMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord tell us whether this bill will meet the objective we want to achieve, and if it will meet the needs of the population and residents whose quality of life and sleep are being affected by this noise?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in Bill C-11 in the area of air transportation safety. I notice the bill does deal with the complaints division of air transportation issues. I want to know if my colleague has had similar experiences or if he has knowledge of experiences that I have had in being on a do not fly list that is maintained in the United States but which Canadian airlines have to pander to.

In other words, there is a sovereignty issue and a jurisdiction issue that somehow my name is on the United States' do not fly list so I am not allowed to have a boarding pass in my own country to travel from my hometown to Ottawa where I work. I know I am not alone. I know my colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, is also on this ridiculous do not fly list, but there is no way to get off it because we do not control it.

In the context of Bill C-11, could we not have addressed this basic, fundamental sovereignty issue that we have a right to determine in our country who is considered a risk? Canadian members of Parliament who have already cleared basic security checks should not be put on that list and be denied the right to fly on a Canadian airline domestically within our own country. It is absurd.

By way of background so my colleague can answer more thoroughly, I know there is no way to get off the list because I phoned the 1-800 number in the United States and I was told to send my passport, my birth certificate and my marriage licence to them and then six weeks later they will rule on whether my name shall be cleared. I am not prepared to get on my knees and beg the Americans to stop inconveniencing me.

Does the hon. member agree that Bill C-11 or at least the House of Commons should take some steps to protect the interests of Canadians as it pertains to air transportation safety?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising on Bill C-11, which deals with two facets of transportation. The bill has some provisions on railway transport and others on air transport. In view of how little time I have, I decided to focus more on railways. My colleagues will probably have an opportunity, if they have not already, to speak about them as well.

I want to be the advocate in this regard of a resolution stemming from Quebec City. My colleague, the member for Québec, will surely join me in saying that the Bloc Québécois fully supports this resolution from the Quebec city council. I have here a copy of the resolution passed at the city council meeting on May 15, 2006. It deals directly with Bill C-11, which is before us today.

The resolution, introduced by councillor François Picard, seconded by Ms. Francine Bouchard, and passed unanimously by the city council, highlights a problem that has been going on for a good number of years. It has to do with the peace and quiet of people who live in the immediate vicinity of the Sainte-Foy marshalling yard.

Long trains are hard to make completely silent. However, I think that railway companies have a responsibility to be good corporate citizens and show some respect for the peace and quiet of people who live in the immediate vicinity. I know that just-in-time delivery, excuse my Latin, has always existed.

Mr. Speaker, you represent the riding of Winnipeg—Transcona and I know, because I have been there, that it is a major hub in railway transportation in western Canada.

I know that it is impossible to confine railway traffic to nine to five. Trains, by definition, are made to roll on rails and can arrive at any time of the day or night. However, most of our fellow citizens sleep at night. The railway companies should therefore be good corporate citizens and show some respect for the vicinity in which they are operating.

The Quebec city council is literally at wit’s end with a situation that has been going on for years. I am sure that the city council of Sainte-Foy, hometown of the current mayor of Quebec City, Ms. Boucher, has made many representations to the railway companies. Unfortunately, with the economic imperatives being what they are, the companies tend to maximize the return on their investments. I do not want to generalize and say that they always do so, but the financial and economic imperatives sometimes win out over the needs and expectations of citizens.

Unfortunately, it should not always be this way in our society. Companies operate in places where people live—women, men, children, families, senior citizens and people who have insomnia problems or are light sleepers.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to the Quebec City municipal council. In the last election campaign, we said that we, the Bloc Québécois members of this House, would be here in Ottawa to be its spokesperson. That was the purpose of my speech this morning, which was shared by my colleague from Québec City.

Quebec City is asking Parliament to classify night-time noise as a major nuisance that can affect public health and quality of life, in particular by disturbing the sleep of residents living near switching yards. One of the switching yards we are talking about is in Sainte-Foy, as I mentioned earlier.

I should have said, at the outset, that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, which will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Like most of the bills that come before us, it can of course be improved. By that I mean that it can be brought more in line with the public’s actual experience. Unfortunately, the vagueness introduced by clause 29 of the bill, which says, on the question of noise:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise—

By definition, the word “unreasonable” refers to a subjective idea. What is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to one of my colleagues. To another of my colleagues, it may be slightly unreasonable or, by his or her standards, extremely unreasonable. To someone with a more flexible frame of mind, it may be very reasonable.

A bill is composed of clauses that must consist of objective measures. It would be wise for us to improve this bill by rectifying this idea of unreasonable noise.

The Quebec City municipal council is also asking Parliament for clear and express wording to govern railway companies’ performance of their responsibilities in relation to the environment and the quality of life and health of people living in urban areas.

We should perhaps think of other types of nuisances. We are talking about noise, but what about oil and gas fumes? Is a railway car, a locomotive with an oil tank—oil being necessarily extremely polluting—that drips for hours and hours while it is parked and before the train is assembled a nuisance? We should ask ourselves that question.

The bill would benefit from improvements. We should not focus exclusively on noise. Certainly pollution from soil infiltration is as harmful as noise pollution, if not more so. We also have to consider that a locomotive weighing several hundred thousand kilos is pulling a very heavy train. When it rolls down the track, it creates vibrations. A vibration in a house or a bedroom can also be a nuisance, just as ambient noise is. This is therefore another aspect that it would be wise to rectify.

The excellent Quebec City resolution concludes by stating that the mayor or a member of the executive committee will present a brief, in Ottawa, and will ask to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Our transportation critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, is a member of this committee. Before being elected, he had the opportunity to learn about this matter.

I am sure we agree that this problem is not restricted to the Sainte-Foy marshalling yard. I am convinced it is found throughout Quebec and Canada.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the Quebec City municipal council on passing this resolution.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether we are talking about trans fat or Bill C-11 on transportation.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House would agree that the government should bring forward Bill C-11. Dealing with the transportation act and railway safety is an excellent opportunity for the public to engage, through the committee to which the bill will be referred, in a debate on some of the very serious issues that have evolved around railway safety and in fact around the whole matter of transportation planning in Canada.

The comments made by all of the speakers thus far are excellent points and provide guidelines for the committee to look at: matters related to sustainability, environmental planning, working with municipalities, the whole gamut of strategic planning and, most important, engaging Canadians in a major debate with respect to how important all transportation modes are and how the Parliament of Canada views the input from Canadians.

As an example of that, we are involved in the Pacific gateway discussions. Through those discussions, as a sort of strategic overview, to compare it to the present legislation, Parliament is attempting to galvanize the Canadian public to see the opportunities to have a competitive and integrated transportation system that will funnel into the major ports of Canada and revitalize and put a keen edge on our economic competitiveness in a changing global economic environment.

Having said that, I note that the task, the challenge, of Parliament is to shape the issues through this legislation such that the committee in fact can embrace Canadians and involve them in that discussion. There are two issues on which the legislation falls somewhat short, I think, and where the committee could perhaps improve the legislation.

There are two areas. First is the noble challenge and objective that is stated in the bill to achieve that competitive edge and to bring those modes together into an integrated transportation plan. The legislation outlines steps on how that in fact should be achieved. That is the first point. The second is that the bill acknowledges that private-public partnerships are going to be important with respect to the future possibilities of attracting capital to invest in our railways, our airport systems, urban transit and all forms of transportation.

However, I would like to share my experience with the House. A proposal that goes through York South—Weston and in fact goes right through the GTA really represents a case study for comparing what the legislation is saying and whether or not the legislation will improve what is happening in York South—Weston and the greater Toronto area.

For the information of members of the House, York South—Weston presently has a private sector proposal to share the Weston subdivision in Georgetown rail right of way for a Pearson Airport-Union link to operate at the same time as improvements to the GO transit system, which is the major inter-community commuter urban system in the greater Toronto area. At the first meeting, when people were made aware with respect to this proposal, there were over 2,000 people.

I have an invitation for the member of the government who stood up earlier. In answer to a question about how people should be consulted and whether they should be consulted, or whether they should be very happy that they live next to a railway line and should look at any changes as absolutely positive regardless of whether they create noise, environmental emissions and so on, he said we should just remind them that they live close to a railway line. I would invite him to tell that to 2,500 or 3,000 people who felt a little different about the process. I say that to point out that people have a right to have input and can make substantive improvements through that input.

It is against this background that we all agree that a strategic plan with respect to how the modes of transportation are integrated is in the interest of communities and in the interest of the country. I want to point out some shortcomings, though, with respect to how that in fact is supposed to be done.

With respect to the present proposal that is going through the greater Toronto area, as I have described, there was very little initial discussion with the community. There was no talk of how the federal-provincial environmental assessment process should work. There was no notification that there was a private sector proposal and what its advantages were against a public sector proposal that would utilize the railway.

The reason it did not happen is that there was no integrated plan from the municipality or the transportation authority that would act as a guideline for the government to make a decision as to whether there should be a consultation at the beginning of the process. None of that was available.

The onus is on local government to make available what its integrated plan is. That was not there. The government should have insisted that this be presented. Otherwise, we are building roads to everywhere but we are not being tactical or strategic in terms of the utilization of the resources that are being made available or are asked for from the public, in this case the railways, to make their lands available for the use of this private sector proposal. That is the first thing.

When I look at this legislation, I see it as being very loose in terms of the role of municipalities when there is an application for a private sector proposal. There is very little in the way of rules or the availability of an integrated plan that would guide the government or, in the case of the railways, the railways, in deliberating whether that is in their interest or in the national interest.

As for the legislation stating that every three years the minister shall prepare a plan and report reviewing the state of transportation, it is not realistic for the minister responsible to then have another eight years in order to come back and make recommendations and so on. I think the immediacy of this challenge requires much tighter timeframes.

I want to take the balance of my time not only on that requirement to have an integrated plan, but to look at the section that deals with the process of public-private partnerships. Under proposed subsection 53.1(1) “every person is required to notify the Commissioner of Competition” that they intend to present an application for a private sector transaction. In proposed subsections 53.1(4) and 53.1(5), it is stated that if the minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, the minister simply has to notify the company or whatever that such is the minister's opinion. This does not delineate the degree of public consultation that must take place.

To go on to proposed subsection 53.1(5), the bill then states that if the minister is of the opinion that there is public interest involved, “the Minister may direct the Agency to examine those issues under section 49 or appoint and direct any person to examine those issues under section 7.1 of the Department of Transport Act”.

The point that I am making against what is happening in York South—Weston with respect to a private sector initiative, which may or may not be a good initiative, and there are many who feel it is not, is that there is not the same degree of due diligence on the minister to state what the public interest is and whether the private sector is able to meet that public interest requirement.

Those are the points that I believe the committee members should take into consideration. I hope that they will reach out and look at some case studies of private sector applications that are made, so that the legislation could be tightened up, both in terms of the requirement for integrated transportation plans and the process of notifying the public and protecting the public interest.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill provided that it can be improved. I would like to speak about some improvements this morning.

First, I want to point out that there is a marshalling yard in my riding in the town of Farnham. It is a very big yard because all the trains that come from Montreal, from Quebec City and from Toronto are marshalled there before going to the United States, to New Brunswick and to all the other Atlantic provinces. The marshalling takes place at Farnham. So it is a very big yard that has existed for many years and is growing because rail transportation is growing as we have just heard. We therefore have a problem with noise, pollution and vibration. People naturally complain about what they hear the most, that is the noise, and they have been doing so for years.

The previous government did nothing; even though it is a federal line under federal responsibility. Nothing was done. Thanks to this bill, we hope to be able to accomplish something. However, we wonder why the government has not included noise standards in decibels, as is done in England. It is easy to do. With government help, the railway companies could install sound barriers around their facilities, which would greatly reduce the noise and bring about better management of marshalling yards. It would make a tremendous difference in terms of noise.

At present, the locomotives can easily marshal cars to assemble trains at five or six kilometres per hour. However, if they were required to assemble trains at a speed of one kilometre per hour or less that would impose a car-coupling speed limit on the train engineer and the noise would be greatly reduced if not almost eliminated.

So, there are two steps for improvement; the sound barriers to reduce noise and management of the operation. That should be written into the bill because the residents of Farnham have had enough of this situation. They would like to see the railway yard relocated.

As we know, it is not easy to relocate a railway yard. It costs a great deal of money and the company that operates the railway there, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway Limited, may not necessarily have the money to invest $10 million to relocate the yard. We notice as well that the bill does not offer any incentive to railway companies, which we believe should be in the bill.

At Farnham, in addition to reducing the noise, there could be other changes — and I will come back to that — on the noise pollution standards for locomotives that are used in the railway yards to assemble trains.

There are new locomotives that are called Green Goats. These locomotives are around now and are often made from old locomotives. The diesel engines, which are 30, 40 or even 50 years old, are replaced by diesel fuel injection engines. So they are very modern and make amazingly less noise. Actually these engines are recent and newly made. The level of noise and also pollution is limited since they are hybrid. That means they have 500 batteries in them. Every time they brake, they recharge the batteries. Also, since the engines are smaller, there are fewer problems stopping them. They stop immediately, as soon as they are not being used, instead of going on running.

In a railway yard, they say that a Green Goat locomotive uses 57% less diesel fuel. As you can imagine, that is huge. That represents a saving of over half the diesel fuel.

So that is half the pollution and, of course, half the noise too. Locomotives, even when they are idling, make a lot of noise in a railway yard.

These new Green Goat locomotives could therefore be proposed in a bill like this one and be just what is needed in all Canada’s railway yards.

There is something else about such a bill that seems surprising and that is that it does not talk about sustainable development. It does not mention that trains should comply with sustainable development., even though this theory has been developed for train and rail.

I would remind members that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development says the following in her report, which she will submit next week:

For the government, the sustainable development strategies of the federal departments and agencies are important tools which it can use to further sustainable development. We review the progress made by 21 federal departments and agencies to fulfil the commitments made in their sustainable development strategies.

But, as we can see, this bill contains no commitment to sustainable development. This is really very bad. Sustainable development is not just about protection of the environment; it is also concerned with social development. In other words, it takes into consideration the people who live close to railways, it takes account of railway transportation, which uses fewer resources and, obviously, development.

We get the clear impression that Bill C-11 is meant to be a turning point for Canada’s railways. It says that it “enable[s] competitiveness” In clause 2, which replaces section 5 of the previous act, I read that it also supports “economic growth in both urban and rural areas throughout Canada”. But nowhere in the text do we find out how that is going to take place. We are constantly referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency. In fact, five people, who can be easily influenced by the railway companies, are given full powers to develop the regions.

It is well known that regions cannot be developed without major inducements and without help for the railways. There is a railway in the Gaspésie in Quebec that is gradually dying and is being financially supported by the Government of Quebec on a temporary basis. This kind of thing is going to happen over and over because, for the last 50 years, we have only had programs to support truck transport.

Truck transport is highly polluting and dangerous, although fortunately it is finally becoming a little more expensive. It does not pay for the highways; it does not pay for one five-hundredth of the damage trucks do to the roads. It does not even pay for new roads. Trucking companies do not even pay enough to cover the damage for which they are responsible.

Truck transport is heavily subsidized by government. Yet we do not want to subsidize or even talk about incentives for railways, which would be less polluting, more efficient, etc., and do not have to go where the cars are, nor at the same time.

We cannot continue favouring trucks at the expense of trains. Trains are important to Canada and must be developed.

The bill speaks only about competition and market forces. We know very well, though, that they cannot take us very far. That is made crystal clear in a very interesting paper published in the United States by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which examines how trains should be developed in the United States. The government always seems to be looking to the United States, so why did it not look at this paper before introducing the bill? Now we will just have to amend it.

Ensure the level of federal involvement necessary for financing and system integrity,

Provide a stable system for funding rail passenger operating costs; and,

Create a dedicated, sustainable source of funding for intercity rail passenger infrastructure improvements.

It is obvious that in the United States they want to help the railway companies. They even say:

The history of passenger rail service in this country has led some to think of it as essentially different from other modes of transportation that serve the public. As a result, some think that rail service must be profitable to justify its existence. It certainly must be financially viable, but judging passenger rail strictly on its financial performance or its success in minimizing financial demands on the federal government is a test no other mode of transportation is asked to meet, nor can meet.

It is plain for all to see. The subsidies that the federal government is preparing to give to the railways in the United States could not be more evident. They add up to $17 billion over the next six years and $60 billion over the next 20 years—including the first six. People could say that the United States is very large, but it is not a lot larger than our country. It is important, therefore, for us to subsidize the Canadian railway companies if we want to ensure the sustainable development of rail. We cannot, therefore, rely solely on market forces, and it is unfortunate that this bill gives the impression that rail transportation can be developed in this way. That is not the way to succeed.

This bill talks about the “environment” but without ever saying how it could be protected.

This is, however, a very important factor. In a paper written here on the environment and development, it says that the sulphur—or smog—from fuel that accumulates near railways yards and wherever trains go in Canada amounted to 2,184 million litres in 2004, or a 4.9% increase over 2003. We are headed, therefore, toward an increase rather than a decrease in pollution that would enable us to breathe cleaner air.

In Canada, only 37.2% of the locomotives on passenger and freight trains completely meet the Tier 1 and Tier 0 standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, in the United States. The United States government has adopted standards, under the EPA, while in Canada it is the Transportation Agency that protects our environment. If the agency likes an idea, it will do it, and if it does not like the idea, it will not do it.

Why do only 37% of our locomotives in Canada meet the Tier 0 or Tier 1 standard? The answer is simple. Because, since 37% of our locomotives travel to the United States, we are obliged to meet that standard. If they operated only in Canada, it would be 0. Why? Because we have no standards and no commitments, nor are there any commitments in this act that tell us that we have to protect the air we breathe.

“Bringing locomotives in service up to EPA Tier 0 could be achieved in three years, if that were the law.” That is what it says.

Let us consider greenhouse gas emissions, GHG, in CO₂ equivalents. We know that CO₂ is considered to be a major factor in GHG, but methane is 21 times more powerful and NO_x, which comes from diesel fuel, is about 230 times more powerful.

In 2004, trains emitted 6,714 kilotonnes of GHG, of CO₂ an increase of about 1,000 kilotonnes over 2003. That is huge.

I will be told that there are more trains. That is true. As I said earlier, the number of trains has indeed risen. Nonetheless, we are not requiring that trains be more efficient nor that they respect the environment.

The problem does not arise only when the engines are operating at full power to pull the locomotives. For 83% of the time, the locomotives on freight trains are operating at idle or low idle. Why? In fact, they operate 24 hours a day during the winter, because it is too expensive for the companies to put antifreeze in the engines, and so they use water.

Instead of using antifreeze, they leave the diesel motors running, and they can consume up to 110 litres in a single night when they are idling. When a motor is idling is when it pollutes the most, because it is not burning the gases efficiently. When it picks up speed, it burns them, even though the smoke it emits is very black. Locomotive engines are being left idling like this. There is nothing in the act that says that all locomotives must have an automatic shut-off device, a device that is already available. They are already installed on some locomotives.

We have had pollution standards since 1990. Pollution has risen at an unbelievable rate, in all sectors: there have been increases in NO_X, in SO₂—the sulphur I was talking about—and in CO₂.

Here, the discussion is in terms of grams of fuel used. The problem is not that more is being used, but that the engines are less efficient than before. Why? Because they are not being maintained. Maintaining an engine is expensive. Because there are no standards, the preference is to keep them running until they break down. And that is when they pollute.

Anyone who has travelled to countries that do not have standards for truck transportation will have seen just how black the exhaust those trucks produce is. In other countries, the exhaust is cleaner even though they are using the same diesel. Why? Because there are maintenance and pollution standards in place.

Here, goods transportation contributes 94.8% of NO_X emissions produced by railways in Canada. Total NO_X emissions from rail transportation have risen from 109 kilotonnes in 1990 to 111 kilotonnes in 2003 to 117 kilotonnes in 2004.

This increase is constant, and it is due not to an increase in the number of trains, but to the fact that we let companies do whatever they want instead of helping them. Not all of these companies are raking it in. They do not all have CN's means. The company operating in my Montreal riding, the Maine and Atlantic Railway, does not have a lot of extra cash. It is breaking even, working well and hoping to make more money in the future.

I would like to end by talking about greenhouse gases. The transportation industry produces about a quarter of Canada's GHG emissions. Railways account for 4% of these emissions. This is a significant percentage, so we have to have increasingly strict standards for locomotive emissions monitoring—better known as LEM. As I said, emissions are not rising because there are more trains, but because trains are not maintained as well as they used to be. Their CO₂ emissions per revenue tonne-kilometre must be lowered to acceptable levels. Such standards exist. This act has to say that, now that trains will be less polluting, we will develop them more.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address this House since the tragic death of our friend and colleague Benoît Sauvageau. I would therefore like, on my own behalf and that of the people of my riding, to extend my most sincere condolences to his wife, his children and his entire family. I may not know them very well personally, but I know that they are people of great courage and great value. I hope that they will find the comfort they need as they go through this difficult time. For me, as a newcomer who knew him for too short a time unfortunately, Benoît will remain a model, an example of what a parliamentarian should be. In his work, he always showed respect for others. His strength and determination were exemplary. Benoît, you will remain in my heart and thought for a very long time.

I would now like to talk about Bill C-11, specifically the annoyances caused by railways operating in residential areas. I used the term “annoyances” because, unfortunately, this bill refers only to noise. Other annoyances are caused by railway operations, and I am being extremely polite in using the term “annoyances”. I often talk with people in my riding. When I meet with them, they tell me about the horrors and the problems the railways cause them. They often use much less polite, much cruder and more colourful language, which is certainly not appropriate in this House. This problem causes a great deal of frustration.

This is especially true because railway operations take place largely in the middle of residential areas, many of which are highly populated. That is the case in my riding, especially in Pointe-Saint-Charles, but also in Saint-Henri. There are historical reasons for this, since workers would often live near the railways, marshalling yards and companies that were set up in the area.

Today, in these residential areas, obviously fewer and fewer people are employed by the railways or work at related activities, but residents are still faced with these problems, because railways are sometimes just a few metres from their homes.

We must deal with this problem now. I have divided railway annoyances into three main categories. The first is noise, obviously. Vibrations also pose a problem, but I will come back to that. With regard to noise, it is not difficult to imagine the noise a train makes as it passes by just a few metres away. This noise is even worse on curves. In Pointe-Saint-Charles and Saint-Henri, where large curves run through almost the entire area, the metal always squeals. One of my constituents told me that his dog nearly went crazy every time a train passed by. The dog would jump up and down because the sound was so loud and hard to bear, especially since the dog could likely hear sounds humans cannot hear. That proves how serious a problem this is. People are not talking to us about it on a whim.

But that is not the worst of it. There is also the problem of locomotives accelerating. Companies are always looking to improve their profit margins, so the trains are getting longer and longer and heavier and heavier. Trains now need two or even three locomotives to get them moving, and that makes a deafening noise. Some of my constituents invited me to go see a train start up in Pointe-Saint-Charles, and I have to say that the noise those diesel locomotives make is impressive and astonishing. There are no electric locomotives in my riding.

It is astonishing, and much worse than a train moving at a constant speed. But even that is not the worst of it. The clash of cars as the trains are being hooked up in the marshalling yards is even more deafening.

Nowadays, thanks to innovation, this process is automated, so the cars connect more and more violently, making even more noise. This problem is all the more worrisome because the rail yards are continually switching cars night and day. For people who are trying to sleep, this is a much greater inconvenience than a constant noise, such as a highway or a river.

There are problems. A number of rail yards in Montreal have been closed. As a result, this kind of activity is concentrated in a few spots, which aggravates the issue. Railway companies have even been using lines in the middle of residential neighbourhoods to switch cars. This means the noise problem is affecting these neighbourhoods even more.

We hear the same thing everywhere from the oldest residents of the area, those who have been there the longest. They all tell me that the noise problem is getting worse and that it is nowhere near resolved.

There are problems with noise and with vibrations. This bill does not address these problems. Often, a row of attached houses will act as a wall of sorts and block the noise for people who live in the second or third row in the block. The vibrations, however, are felt through the ground and go much further. We know that this can cause all sorts of problems—particularly problems sleeping, when the house suddenly shakes in the middle of the night. This is the first kind of problem or disturbance I have identified among my constituents.

The second kind of problem has to do with health concerns and hazardous materials. Unfortunately, issues in relation to the transport and especially the storage of such materials are not addressed in this bill. Yet, these are a major concern to my constituents.

More and more trains and tanks of hazardous materials are stored right on the tracks, either on the edge of a residential area or, in some cases, right in the middle of the neighbourhood. This is very worrisome. Perhaps the engineer in me wants to conduct a risk analysis. Personally, if I absolutely had to direct hazardous materials through a residential area—and there were no way around it—I would at least ensure that such materials would spend as little time as possible in a residential area and that they would not be stored for several hours, let alone days, on the edge of such neighbourhoods. Children playing told me that they recognized the skull and crossbones and other symbols that identify toxic and hazardous materials, because they see them on tank cars that are practically parked in their yards. This is quite worrisome.

The third group of problems I have identified relates to maintenance of the land and infrastructures owned by the railway companies in local communities. This is of particular concern because a lot of railway companies regard themselves as being above the law.

They are right, in practice, because they do not have to comply with provincial laws and municipal bylaws. However, it seems to me that as good corporate citizens they should feel a moral obligation to abide by them. That is plainly not the case, however.

Let us take ragweed for example, the plant that gives a lot of people hay fever. In Montreal, all residents are asked to remove ragweed plants growing on their property. And so people make an effort to pull out the four or five or six or even ten plants that they have on their property, while across the street or down the block they see kilometres of rail lines, huge expanses of land, with ragweed reproducing at an unbelievable rate and no one doing anything about it, and the railway companies feeling no need to do their job as a good citizen and eradicate these weeds.

There are also examples where trees and shrubs on the edge of a railway company’s property intrude on the public roadway and impede visibility for drivers and pedestrians. People in the neighbourhood ask the company to do something, but plainly no one can find a way to send an employee out for an hour or two to clean it up and solve the problem.

This lack of concern means that the railway companies do not seem to feel a need to contribute to the local community and make the site where they are operating a pleasant and peaceful place for the public as whole.

I will conclude with another example, which I am familiar with because I lived for several years in the Saint-Henri neighbourhood which the rail line crosses. When I went to catch the Metro every day, I walked under the viaduct. I would always feel a little shiver, because there were holes pretty much all over, indicating that concrete had fallen off. I was always a little afraid that a piece would fall on me. The railway company never felt a need to repair its viaduct, to reinforce it, or paint it, or cover up the graffiti.

These companies clearly feel that they are above the law.

And so, in my riding, I decided to get the public involved, the people who were living in the midst of the problem and were affected by the situation. I had an opportunity to consult with the public, sometimes formally, by holding meetings, but sometimes informally, when I went door to door or took part in various activities. Nearly 100 people gave me their formal support and asked the Conservative government to act, to enact legislation that would have teeth and that could be used to solve the problems I have described. In the course of doing this, I also met with members of the Pro-Pointe group, which works to reduce the nuisances associated with railway operations in Pointe Saint-Charles, hence the name Pro-Pointe. I also met with people outside my riding, residents of Outremont, who are having the same problems. It is quite interesting to note that ultimately, everyone is affected by this. Regardless of social class, whether someone is rich or poor, whether they live in a big house beside a railway or a little apartment near a switching yard, noise is a factor that affects everyone, that wakes everyone up, that assails everyone. It is a problem for the public as a whole.

I also discussed this problem with local elected officials in the district. They stated that they feel powerless because it is impossible for them to resolve the matter and force railway companies to observe certain standards, and also because of the lack of response and conciliation which often are required in such matters. This is the attitude of many railway companies and creates a great deal of frustration.

Many people believe that railway companies are very poor corporate citizens.

I do not know if this holds true for all railway companies. I ask for nothing better than for them to prove me wrong. But that is the general perception. For this reason, people want more than just empty words. They want a more binding law, one that has some teeth. Many believe that it is no longer possible to achieve satisfactory results by taking the traditional and simple approach of asking in good faith that railway companies do their part.

In my opinion, there is important work to be done by the committee. I urge all parliamentarians from every party to respond to our constituents' call to do something to strengthen this law. If we do and if all parties work together to improve this law and to solve these problems, the general view of politicians can only be enhanced. We will have truly helped citizens and, as you know, that is our main reason for being in this place.

What exactly should the committee do to improve this legislation? First, we have to add some muscle. I will read an excerpt from clause 95.1, which contains the main anti-noise provisions, stating:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise, taking into account:

It is already a rather loose concept. Nonetheless, this is the first point I will make about this issue. As I was saying earlier, there are other annoyances than noise. There is also the problem of vibration, the problem of hazardous materials being stored or present on the ground. We must also include the entire issue of good corporate citizenship, the proper maintenance of the land and infrastructure in the local communities. We must find a way to include all that.

What aspects should be included to determine whether a company is making unreasonable noise? This is what it says in the subsequent clauses:

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

(b) its operational requirements; and

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place.

I must say, when I consulted the public, this part left them a bit perplexed to say the least. They wondered whether these provisions were for the public's benefit or for the railway companies' benefit.

Paragraph (c) says we must take into account the area where the construction or operation takes place. What conclusions will the Canadian Transportation Agency draw from this? Will it say that if a railway company is operating in a residential area it must be more careful, or will it conclude that if people live near train tracks they should expect to hear more noise, and that under the circumstances it is normal, given where they are located?

The same goes for operational requirements. There could be a potential loophole. From the moment a railway company says there are operational requirements and that it has no choice but to go through these areas in the middle of the night, to make certain manoeuvres or to store its products in a certain location, this would look like a pretext to everyone.

In my opinion, this bill is a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of work to do in committee. I believe that all parties have the political will and I invite everyone to make their contribution in order to make this bill more effective. Will it cover things other than noise and will it really respond to the concerns of the public who expect us to something about this?

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for her comments on Bill C-11.

I would like to ask her a specific question. The minority government has been saying for some months now—in fact, since it was elected—that it intends to present a new environmental plan for Canadians and to share this new approach. Apparently this is “Canada's New Government,” as we now see on the Internet.

The government has also cut funding for the Pacific Gateway in western Canada. The minority government is in the process of compromising our relations with China. It has come to a point where even the Ambassador of China refuses to attend official meetings with the government.

Could the hon. member help us understand the following? How can the government talk about new environmental strategies when there is no reference in the bill to greenhouse gases, no reference to an environmental strategy and no reference to the Kyoto protocol except in the preamble of the bill, which mentions the word “environment” just once?

Yesterday we heard the Minister of Transport tell Canadians that apparently Bill C-11 would have a rather positive impact on protecting the environment. I believe he was referring to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Could the hon. member help us understand how it is possible for us, as parliamentarians, to reconcile what the government is saying with how the bill is currently worded?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want to point out at the outset that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. Naturally, more in-depth consideration is advisable in order to grasp all aspects of the bill. Amendments will likely be necessary to improve it. But on the whole, as I said, the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle.

I want to make clear that my remarks will focus exclusively on the part of this bill dealing with railway noise, specifically clause 29. As we all know, the racket made by trains is a widespread problem. My riding of Drummond is unfortunately faced with such a problem.

Located close to Drummondville, the community of Saint-Germain de Grantham in particular is seriously affected throughout its jurisdiction. This is a rural community of nearly 4,000, with five railway crossings. The railway goes through it over a stretch of 8.5 kilometres, running alongside hundreds of homes.

Train whistles can be heard from one end of Saint-Germain de Grantham to the other at all hours of the day and night. There are engine noises, bells, squealing brakes, vibrations, smells, and the sounds of iron hitting iron. One can easily imagine what residents of that municipality must put up with. And because Saint-Germain de Grantham is in the middle of a boom, the problem is only getting worse. More and more residents are forced to endure this noise pollution.

Everyone recognizes that rail traffic is a necessity and that it contributed to the development of several municipalities. Everyone also acknowledges that rail safety is very important. However, the rights of those residents affected cannot be ignored. Solutions to this noise problem exist and must be brought forward. The quality of life of citizens must be considered in this debate. The interests of rail companies and the pursuit of economic development cannot be the only acceptable arguments. We cannot ask the people of Saint-Germain de Grantham, who are my main concern here, to pay such a high price.

What power do they have against the rail companies? The power to discuss and negotiate, but that may not be enough. When the power to make decisions lies only with the other party, abuses can occur.

Let us review how Saint-Germain de Grantham has attempted to deal with this problem.

In 1993, residents wrote to CN to complain about the noise. They received no response.

In 1994, the municipality requested that train whistling be eliminated, at least at night. In its response, CN said that each level crossing would have to be inspected.

In 1996, three level crossings were inspected, and it was found that constant warning time devices and barriers would have to be installed.

In 1997, these devices were installed at two level crossings.

In 1999, the municipality asked me to intervene on its behalf to have the devices installed on the third level crossing. The minister responsible at the time said that even though the crossing was near Saint-Germain's urban area, it was not considered a priority. At the same time, CN demanded a $2,000 dollar report on the possibility of enacting a regulation to eliminate train whistling.

Work was done on the third level crossing a few years later.

In 2004, at the municipality's request, I wrote to CN asking what more Saint-Germain de Grantham had to do to put a stop to train whistling within municipal boundaries. A stakeholder meeting was arranged, and it turned out that improvements would have to be made to yet another level crossing to fulfill the requirements.

Steps were taken to get this done, but funding was delayed and still has not come through.

So, the municipality is waiting. In the meantime, the train is whistling away, and the people are suffering.

In fact, early in 2006, a citizen wrote the city council, reminding it that the people of Saint-Germain de Grantham have been asking for 13 years that trains stop whistling. We can only sympathize with their frustration and despair. “When can we hope to finally be free of noise pollution from trains when we sleep?”, she asked the council.

In bringing up such representations, we realize that there really is not much the municipality of Saint-Germain de Grantham and its residents can do. What can one do against a giant like the CN?

They are also dependent on government decisions about grants, because this kind of work is very expensive. At the same time, it is important to point out that all this work is designed to enhance public safety, thus improving the railways' quality of service. Following the same logic, this work also has to help ensure that the quality of life of our fellow citizens is respected.

These people need a mechanism through which they can make themselves heard. They need a mechanism to increase their strength and add weight to their legitimate demands.

The provision contained in Bill C-11 which deals with railway noise is giving these people some hope. Clause 29 of the bill gives the Canada Transportation Agency the authority to investigate complaints about unreasonable noise, with a view to forcing railway companies to make changes to prevent unreasonable noise.

This clause gives the Canada Transportation Agency jurisdiction to weigh the need to allow railway companies to operate against the right of those living alongside railroads to quiet enjoyment. The agency will therefore be able to force rail transportation companies to make changes to limit the noise associated with their operations.

The municipality of Saint-Germain de Grantham has carried out all the work requested over the years. Major changes have been ordered over the past 13 years. After the work was completed, more was ordered.

These men and women are right to be angry today. They want their questions answered. This little game of delays and grant requests has to stop. The time has come to show them some respect. I hope that Bill C-11 will make that possible.

They have been patient enough. They have paid enough.

In 2005, l'Union des municipalités du Québec prepared a brief regarding Bill C-44, which was also introduced to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

The Union claimed that:

Railway companies under federal jurisdiction are not subject to any legislation governing damage caused by their activities. They are like aliens in our regions. This situation was confirmed in a December 2000 decision made by the Federal Court of Canada in Oakville, Ontario, which deprived the Canada Transportation Agency (CTA) of its power to make decisions concerning irritants, such as the noise arising from railway activities.

The Union des municipalités du Québec also pointed out the fact that a number of municipalities have failed to reach agreement with the railway companies and Transport Canada on the requirements for a no-whistle by-law. In this respect, the UMQ recommends that the CTA be given authority to examine any request to prohibit the use of train whistles within the limits of a municipality in the event that the municipality, railway company and Transport Canada fail to reach agreement concerning the requirements and conditions of a no-whistle by-law.

I wish to conclude by indicating that I am in favour of the principle of Bill C-11 as it will give citizens of Quebec and Canada some power in dealing with railway companies.

I am in favour of this bill because I want the citizens of Saint-Germain de Grantham, after 13 years of negotiating, searching for solutions and hard work, to be heard and to have their rights acknowledged.

I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to provide such legislation. It is our responsibility to meet the legitimate expectations of the residents in our ridings

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all fully recognize that all of us on this side of the House are very interested in transportation, because transportation is the keystone of our economy. We certainly need changes in terms of the matters that the bill brings forward, but we also have to be concerned about the reviews, which apparently will be a report to Parliament once every three years and, second, a complete review of this change within the transportation system by a commissioner after an eight year period.

In Atlantic Canada, transportation is very, very important. I know that the minister responsible for transportation has to be concerned about some of the factors that have been affecting transportation, especially with the ferry between Digby, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick. For those living there and doing business and wanting to travel to western Nova Scotia, that ferry has operated for many, many years. In fact, it gives our industries and our fishery groups in western Nova Scotia an opportunity to get their goods to the Boston market with efficiency and with the good transportation that people in the New England states would require. I hope we will look at that when this bill gets to committee.

As the previous speaker has indicated, we have to be concerned about air safety and the selling of air tickets and the good air traffic that we need for this country, but railways are important. I believe it is section 53 that talks about relationships with provincial railway companies. I would hope that if the minister is to regulate and bring forward regulations dealing with his connections with our provincial railway companies, the federal standards and the federal methods will be applied to the particular arrangements that might be made.

We want to see good legislation. We will work in committee to improve it. Hopefully, those users of our transportation sectors, those who may complain about being captive shippers or others who are concerned about matters relating to their industry, their region, their city or their province, will make their requests to appear to the committee. I know the committee will work in good faith to make sure that Bill C-11 reflects a high standard of legal documents and will provide a good transportation system to all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-11. This bill is about 60 pages long and is one of those bills that we cannot read in isolation. We have to have the existing legislation there so we can follow the amendments. Unless the House is prepared to give me an extension of about two hours, I am not going to address the whole bill. I will address certain aspects of it.

We are talking about the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. There are certainly many provisions of interest in this bill and they have been debated and discussed by hon. members through this debate, but I would like to look at a couple in particular.

Bill C-11 proposes that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be allowed to regulate the advertised pricing of airfare. This is an issue which is of great interest to Canadians, considering the recent history and volatility within the airline industry. It remains to be heard from the minister what his specific intentions are with regard to future airfare advertising regulations.

The whole question of regulations is kind of interesting to note for all hon. members. When we debate bills and vote at the various stages, we do so without the regulations, which do not come until after the legislation is passed, has gone through the Senate, received royal assent and is proclaimed. Then we get the regulations. There always has been this issue about whether or not there is this creeping problem where we have executive-made law, where the cabinet is enhancing what the insinuation of the legislation is through the regulations. It is the reason why we have the scrutiny of regulations committee, a joint Commons-Senate committee, to look at those regulations as they come through and to ensure that the regulations are authorized by the legislation.

I thought I would put that in because it is a very important aspect as it relates to this bill and it is incumbent upon the committee to do this. I am sure we will see this bill go to committee for review. We have to ensure that we get an indication from the government, from the minister, about the intent. What is the intent here? How can we, from an informed point of view, make decisions with regard to appropriate amendments to the legislation, if necessary?

The bill itself provides hints but no guarantees, and that is the issue. That is the problem with the regulations. Subsection 86.1(1) states:

The Agency may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting advertising in all media, including on the Internet, of prices for air services within, or originating in, Canada.

Subsection 86.1(2) of the same clause suggests that the minister may require that prices should include all costs to the carrier and all charges, but it does so without limiting the generality of the minister's power to regulate under subsection 86.1(1). Again it is this uncertainty, as a consequence of having the details, and the devil always is in the details with regard to regulations.

Members may recall that the issue of airfare pricing attracted a great deal of attention a few years ago when airport improvement fees and security charges became prevalent throughout the airline industry. At that time, the Liberal government recognized that protecting consumers was of utmost importance. Much of the materials we find in Bill C-11 are the provisions of the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, which have been presented in bills in prior Parliaments, but which did not proceed through the full legislative process due to the call of an election.

The provisions that are in question today were inherited from the previous legislation. There are too many situations right now, quite frankly, and what we are trying to address is that every day Canadians are faced with misleading and simply false information. That is the reality that we are faced with when we are trying to decide, as consumers, how to spend our hard-earned dollars.

The wide range of fees and taxes on airfare can be particularly confounding as well. Charges vary depending on which airport one is in, the airport of origin and the destination, then based on whether it is domestic or international. Even then, in some cases when a flight connects through certain particular airports rather than others, there are other complications, so the comparabilities from airline to airline are in some difficulty too.

Then, of course, we cannot forget the taxes. When all the charges, fees and taxes are summed up, the actual price of an airline ticket can be substantially above the base price, which is usually the advertised price. Let me repeat that. The base price, without all those add-ons, is the one that usually appears in the advertising. The consumers really get a surprise when they see the add-ons.

The right to set regulations could simplify these charges into a single tax-inclusive number, which when advertised by one airline would lend itself to comparison with other advertisements by other airlines. It is possible to take for granted the importance of advertising in our society. Market economies depend on competition. The competition itself depends on the ability of purchasers, in this case the Canadian consumers buying airline tickets, to distinguish between prices in a meaningful way.

I would go so far as to say that the efficiency cannot be properly encouraged in a market without clear pricing. That is the issue. We do not really have clear pricing, at least in the eyes of the consumer.

We must see prices clearly in order to choose based on price. Only when we choose based on price do we encourage businesses to offer a better deal. This is competition. That is the purpose of healthy competition. It is to ensure that there is fair pricing. Competitive pricing means that there is a win-win.

Clearly we are supportive of the principle of price advertising clarity. However, we do not know precisely what kind of price advertising regulations the minister intends to undertake. This is a problem and it is something that I encourage the committee to address exhaustively when it looks at this legislation.

Specific types of regulation can certainly have some unintended effects as well. Forcing airlines to disclose a certain amount of information in their advertising may in fact interfere with the message in unproductive ways or confuse the consumer. If we go a little too far we may find that people do not focus in on exactly the key elements of the pricing mechanism.

We have all seen the commercials for automobiles, which contain a great deal of detail. That is an example of listing all these little things. In fact, many Canadians would argue that they contain too much detail to be of much use. Calling on the airlines to display a similar level of detail may in fact not be where we want to go. I think this is another issue that the committee should address very carefully.

As we know, industries are thoroughly interconnected. I am not just talking about the airline industry. When we think about it, even the advertising industry is obviously affected. Depending on what our requirements are, certain modes of advertising are more desirable, more productive or effective than others, so that depending on what we do in this legislation may have some consequential impacts on other industries. We have to ask ourselves whether or not new regulations will cause one type of media to take a greater share of advertising dollars than another type. It could have any number of effects, all of which we can only speculate about.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities began his remarks by outlining some details. We will be required to do our jobs, but full disclosure in any event is certainly essential. We do not know what regulations the minister will be eventually bringing forward. It is going to be difficult for us to assess some of these finer points in terms of the impacts on the industry and related industries or linked industries.

This brings me to another important point. As parliamentarians, we obviously have a duty to consider legislation very carefully, but the government is understandably anxious to more forward with certain priorities. This is one that we cannot rush. This is one that we have to be very careful of. We know it has taken some time to get to this point yet again. When we start the House every day we say prayers and one of our pleas is that we make “good laws and wise decisions”. That is always the case. Certainly we want to make sure that Bill C-11 ultimately makes the necessary amendments to make the Canada Transportation Act a better law.

Whether the bill is the size of Bill C-2, the accountability bill, which is five times the size of a normal piece of legislation, or whether it is like Bill C-3 on international tunnels and bridges, a very few pages, we cannot forget that when we give a bill our approval it eventually becomes law, with consequential effects for Canadians, whether we have had the foresight to see them.

This bill in particular has some potential pitfalls that are going to call on those responsible for scrutinizing the bill at committee to do their very best, to engage the best possible witnesses, to try to foresee, to try to identify some of those pitfalls and to absolutely ensure that the legislation does not have unintended consequences.

In terms of Bill C-11, we are asking the government and the minister in particular to take the time to properly address the many questions that flow from the amendments it proposes. The Minister of Transport spoke about another provision in Bill C-11 that is of interest. He indicated that he intends to amend the Canada Transportation Act to create a mediation process for disputes concerning federal transportation matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

This is very interesting. It is an evolution that was previously found in Bill C-44 in a prior Parliament. Proposed subsection 36.1(1) would require a unanimous agreement of the parties in order to proceed, but in those circumstances it would seem to be a very useful process.

Any time that we can provide for alternatives to litigation in the area of transport, we do a favour to the parties who are looking for win-win solutions. We would like to explore that as fully as possible as well. The process suggests a quicker timeline and would inevitably be cheaper than lawsuits. That usually is the case. Many of our legal friends in the chamber certainly remind us of that from time to time, although for the life of me it really makes me think of the softwood deal and some of the dynamics that have occurred there.

To go back to this bill, in February 2004 CTA chairwoman Marian Robson wrote that 95% of matters that had been referred to mediation by the agency were resolved to mutual satisfaction. We can see that the history is very good in this regard.

Entities that fall under the domain of the Canadian Transportation Agency are more than likely parties that have ongoing contractual relationships. By its very nature transportation infrastructure is not particularly fluid and there may not be many possible alternative commercial relationships. Quick, amicable resolutions free up resources and ultimately lead to better prices and better services for Canadians.

My colleagues and I are supportive of these measures and commend the minister for bringing back these elements of amendments from previous Liberal bills.

Finally, I would like to dwell very briefly on the issue of corporate governance. It is a subject matter that has attracted quite a bit of attention these days and the CTA is a very important agency. The agency is responsible for balancing divergent interests in a fair and open manner. It licenses air and rail carriers and resolves complaints between shippers and railways regarding rates and service. It approves proposed construction of railway lines. It even participates in international bilateral negotiations and administers bilateral agreements.

Eyebrows were raised in the House when the minister asserted that changes to the makeup of the Canadian Transportation Agency will provide for cost savings. I think people's eyebrows usually go up when governments say they are going to save--it is almost like “show me”--but these are initiatives through which, if they are sound in terms of their operational impact, that is possible, and we certainly would like to see that.

It appears that the current board made up of seven part time members will be replaced by a board of five members in the full time employ of the CTA. These five members would be located here in the national capital region. The minister talks about efficiency of centralization, noting that more than one member must sign off on decisions the agency takes, and I would like to hear from the minister about how the agency will do its job better.

As we know, the bill is the third attempt to bring forward legislation on these particular matters. Let me say that Bill C-11 is made up of many, many amendments, some 60 pages of them. It was very difficult. I compliment all hon. members who took the opportunity to do the necessary work, the due diligence, to review the legislation so they could bring an informed debate to the House at second reading and so we could move the bill on through the legislative process with our eyes wide open with regard to the key elements that are of concern to parliamentarians and to consumers and the service providers as well.

An important part of our review was the statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act. I was very interested to hear the Minister of Transport, standing in his place earlier, mention that he would be tabling further amendments addressing the subject of rail shipping disputes. Certainly we have had a great deal of discussion on that. I know that the committee is going to be very cognizant of the concerns raised by all hon. members.

He talked further of consultations that are now complete and new conclusions that the Conservative minority government has drawn. I should note that Bill C-11 requires another statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act, something that makes a lot of sense given its primacy in an area, namely transportation, that is of broad importance to Canada and certainly to all Canadians.

As my hon. colleague from Ottawa South, the opposition critic for transport, has stated, we are looking forward to seeing the bill examined and revised as necessary at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for transport it is enlightening to hear an evolving NDP position on the bill.

I would like to go back to a theme the member raised and put a couple of questions to him. He did raise the question of transparency and accountability and then really took it quite hard to the government in terms of its accountability and appointments process. I have a hard time reconciling those comments with the activities over the past six months of his colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has been in large part the stalking horse and the apologist for this government on its Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

I would like to remind the member about some of the wonderful appointments taken on by the previous government in the past, including the appointment, for example, of Stephen Lewis, for whom we fought tooth and nail to get appointed as Under-Secretary-General to the United Nations. There was the appointment of Ed Broadbent for seven years as the President and CEO of Rights and Democracy in Montreal and, of course, my very good friend Mike Harcourt, the former NDP premier of B.C. who was appointed on three separate occasions by the Liberal government to take on some very important public policy work.

My question for the member, now that he has raised a number of issues which I am looking to discern through to find out how we can improve the bill, is the environmental question. There is no greenhouse gas reference in this bill whatsoever. This is at a time when the government purportedly is in the process of devising some sort of new environmental plan or strategy. I guess it will go along with the theme of a new government, a new environmental policy. I am not sure where it is. It has been seven months, to correct the record. How does the member take the fact that under Bill C-11 there are no environmental measures, no greenhouse gas references and, clearly, no effort to deal with the environmental and climate change challenge?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill, a bill that has captivated the attention of government members who are taking copious notes and paying deep attention to the debate today. By not presenting speakers any more shows the profound lack of commitment the current government has toward a transportation strategy for this country, for the ability to actually address some of the transportation situations that are going on around our nation from coast to coast to coast.

While most of Bill C-11 occupies what we call the administrative side of things, it is a bit of a housekeeping bill, which I am sure the government will call a progressive and aggressive form of legislation because there is nothing else going on when it comes to transportation, particularly when it comes to sustainable transportation.

I represent a riding in the northwest of British Columbia that relies very much on the rail system to move goods in and out of our communities, particularly processed goods and, increasingly, the entire nation relies on the Port of Prince Rupert. It is a terminus that is meant to be an alleviation of the pressures on the other west coast ports, in particular the Vancouver area ports which have been clogged for far too long, mostly due to government neglect and lack of planning both at the provincial legislature with the Liberals in Victoria, the previous government, and the present government seems to be taking up the charge just as slowly.

With no national public transportation strategy or planning of any kind, communities are left to struggle along as best they can attempting to alleviate the congestion in urban and, in many cases, rural communities.

I want to talk about the need for a strategy. If only the bill, in addressing some of the major aspects of transportation, had within it the opportunity to show what this so-called new government might present to Canadians as a vision for our transportation sector. Instead, it chose to allow that opportunity, like so many others to this point in this hopefully short mandate of a minority Parliament, to pass it by, the opportunity to actually invest in the places that the manufacturing sector has been calling out for, for too many years.

I would also like to talk briefly about Transport Canada and the role that it has played in my community and in communities across British Columbia in particular.

The Library of Parliament did a study for us earlier this year to assess what has happened in rail safety just in the province of British Columbia over the last number of years.

We have what some have called the diabolical sale of BC Rail to CN by the Liberals in Victoria, British Columbia, with little public input and few conditions upon that sale. We have now seen an absolutely dramatic increase in sometimes fatal accidents. These are not simply a slowdown of trains or an inability of shippers to get their product to market. Those things were going on and are going on even more so. What is even more drastic is that when a company comes in it is the responsibility of the government to hold that company and the transportation sector to account for its safety practices but the government has neglected its duties, as the previous government did. The present government is continuing that bad practice and it is putting the lives of people working on that rail at stake. We have seen a tragic loss of life in British Columbia.

We have seen increasing numbers of accidents month in and month out with ne'er a word from the transportation minister and not a murmur from the government at all about the concerns for what is happening in British Columbia along our rail system that, as I said, the entire country is now coming to rely upon, certainly if they want to ship anything to the Far East or to other countries and cannot get it through our currently congested ports. This is an absolute shirking of responsibility.

In researching the accidents, we looked at not only the negligence of the companies involved but of the Transportation Safety Board, again filled with appointments by a previous Liberal government who may or may not have had experience in the transportation sector but they all had at least one thing in common and that was a strong allegiance to a formerly misguided Liberal government.

Now we see the current government proposing appointments for this commission which speaks much to transparency but walks in the opposite direction. We have had no assurances to this point of what that process will look like.

Will it be an open and fair transparent process? Will the public have input? Will there be local community involvement in that commission, or will it simply be people who wrote the appropriate cheques prior to the last federal election and made good with the current bastions of power?

It is important to consider that many Canadians watching the debate will not realize that many of the goods being shipped by Canadian rail are somewhat innocuous in nature. There are parts, widgets and various things, but there is an increasing amount of hazardous materials being transported on the rail system as well. When we combine that reality with a deplorable record on safety, we start to create the perfect forum for not only ecological disaster, but also grave consequences for the communities in these regions. They rely on the ability to trust the government to do what it is meant to do, which is to protect the interests of the public, not the narrow interests of a CEO from Texas running a rail line, but the interests of the people who voted all of us into this place. To this point, the government has not shown a commitment to that.

A rail shipment passes through my riding of Skeena once a month. It passes into a community through shipping, lands on our shores at Kitimat and travels up major waterways, which thousands of people rely on for food sustenance. Businesses absolutely depend on these river systems. These rail systems are now carrying some of the most noxious and hazardous goods we have. Has there been an environmental assessment of this process? Has anyone looked at what would happen if yet another CN car tipped off the tracks? Absolutely not. Has there been any public accounting for what it means to destroy a major tributary or to destroy a major river habitat for what could be years?

The substances contained in some of these tankers are used in the oil and gas sector in northern Alberta: condensates and various substances that are far more toxic than any oil spill could really be. Here we have a government that is hoping it can simply slap the blinkers on, as the last government did, and not account for proper protections. It holds the public trust in its hands.

Recently CN sent letters to the various volunteer, I stress the word “volunteer”, fire departments up and down the rail line to notify them that if there were a major spill on this line, if a hazardous material spilled into a river or alongside a river, they were to hold the fort for a minimum of 12 hours. These fire departments survive and subsist on the many thousands of hours put together by these teams of dedicated people and the donations from our communities. After that point, CN might show up with a hazardous materials crew. It is an absolutely deplorable sense of responsibility.

This is a place where clearly, in the interests of the public, the government needs to step in and say, “We have licensed you to operate a rail system in this country, but we have not licensed you to play Russian roulette with the communities and ecosystems through which the rail systems pass”.

Whether it is through a major urban centre or through the ecosystems and the environments upon which we rely, this company has decided, for the interests of profit and the maximization of that profit, to change the length of cars against Transportation Safety Board recommendations and to lower the amount of braking that these cars can do in some of the most mountainous areas of the world and the government has been silent, allowing this to go on and accidents have happened.

The trust that has been eroded has been dramatic. This goes across all partisan lines and interest groups. People no longer trust the regulators to regulate the industry because there have been accidents after accidents, spills into lakes and rivers near communities where people survive on the drinking water into which this toxic sludge is seeping. The government to this point has been quiet.

The bill does not speak to it. It does not address a need for an increased level of assurance and safety and a clamping down on those companies that refuse to listen to their workers and to the communities. They simply fire off missives every once in a while to tell volunteer fire departments that is it their responsibility, departments that do not have the training nor the equipment to handle a major hazardous spill. CN will relegate all of that responsibility to those communities. It is absolutely unacceptable by any standard and any stretch of the imagination.

The investigations that have come from Transport Canada have laid blame. We are still looking for answers, and I am sure the parliamentary secretary can answer this question. To our knowledge it has not levied any serious fines and reprobations for the company even when there has been loss of life and even when negligence has been proven in the maintenance of the rail system on various bridges, on the capacity of engines to break when going down these mountains. When there has been negligence at that level, what has the punishment been? It has been near to nothing.

The commission appointments that are called for in the legislation must be taken into the public realm. They must be given the clear light of day so communities can feel confident with the few people appointed, of which there are only five to my understanding. They are meant to oversee such a broad ranging mandate and must have the confidence of the public, those who use the rail system, work on the rail system or have a rail pass through their community or environment.

A second and critical point, which we are looking to the government to respond to since the last one did not, is on the required infrastructure developments, particularly for rails like the ones that pass through Skeena. After much browbeating, haggling and demanding the last government at the eleventh hour, it decided in its benevolence to fund in some small way the Port of Prince Rupert. Everyone in the industry and across the country who had anything to do with this issue had asked that the Port of Prince Rupert be given the capacity the country needs in order to ship its goods. The government finally showed up.

In showing up, the government neglected to talk about the other aspects of this deal. Overpasses need to be created. Safety regulations do not exist with regard to carrying double stacked cars through some of the most mountainous regions in the world. The government must step up to the plate. It must join with the citizens in the northwest, the people of Prince Rupert, who have staked much on this development. They want to become facilitators for the trade our country needs so much, in light of the disastrous so-called softwood lumber deal negotiated yesterday, which will rob the communities in my area of their ability to attract investment dollars to manufacture wood products any more.

We have a government that has somehow twisted itself into the perverse notion that self-imposing a tax on Canadian industy is the wise way to create wealth and generate prosperity and jobs, Canadian companies that are lawfully transporting materials across a border, which was supposedly open under a previous government's claims of free trade. If only we could have free trade with our American partners, instead of being dragged into court and being punished over and over again with illegal tariffs. At the end of the day, when we are on the edge of winning important court cases that would mean so much to the communities I represent, when victory is within our grasp, defeat is put in its place.

For the communities I represent, a major infusion of economic diversification dollars is needed if these communities will have any hope whatsoever. According to the forestry council of British Columbia, the effects of climate change ravage our forests with fires and pine beetle infestations and it is because of negligence. The previous governments and governments around the world have refused to act while some of the more progressive and noble ones have chosen to do the right thing and make something happen with climate change.

Due to that fact the communities got kicked in the head once. Now, after years of punishing duties and illegal tariffs, they are being kicked in the head again. They are being told that investment dollars have not been secured for the diversification they need. They are being told that companies wish to invest in Canada, to process some of our wood rather than just ship out raw logs and jobs to other countries. I can remember the slogan in the last election, standing up for Canada.

We are lying down in front of our American counterparts and saying, “Please don't kick us, we will kick ourselves”. We'll pound away happily on ourselves for years to come. If you don't like the deal, by a simple whim and demand of your own decision decide that we are falsely supporting our exports again, you can pull out of this absolutely erroneous and silly deal”.

For goodness sake, the communities of this region finally was able to cajole the previous government into supporting proper infrastructure and transportation investment. We need to move it to the second level if these communities have any hope of surviving whatsoever.

We saw it on the east coast when the fish stock started to collapse. There were calls from members of all parties for the government to step in after so much mismanagement and bad decision-making. The communities simply could not survive. It was just not a fair setting of the table. How can they compete? How can they survive if a government is enacting policies that go counter to the interests of the communities? They are not asking for help.

We conducted a study through the Library of Parliament last year and we asked simple questions. With respect to the federal riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a very proud and hard-working riding, we asked people: Of all the tax money collected and then given back through program spending, what has the ratio been over the last decade? They were able to pull up information between 1995 and 2005. Revenue taken from Skeena was close to $1.1 billion. The federal government has done very well off the mining, resource and forestry sectors in my riding. All transfer payments into the riding through the province was one-tenth that figure. It was 10:1 ratio of tax dollars out to tax dollars in.

The provinces are asking for fairness. Fiscal imbalance is an absolute joke with respect to the resource economies of our country. Canadians work hard, earn honest livings and pay their taxes. Industries pay their taxes, some of them better than others, but when the taxes are paid and when it is time to reinvest back into these communities, the federal government says that it has a lot of pressing needs such as a critical highway between Vancouver and Whistler that needs its immediate attention, or a conference centre that needs to be expanded, or a rail line somewhere else.

Communities ask for some sort of basic notion of investment, investment in the truest sense where tax dollars are collected from the public, invested into an area, returned back to the public coffers and increase economic growth. As if there had been a single economic study by the federal government before it started shovelling money into the VANOC. As if there was any concept of what a dollar was given and what dollars would be returned. The government believed the false promises of VANOC and the Gordon Campbell government as to what this thing would actually cost. So much for prudence. So much for true fiscal imbalance.

The government claims to listen to Canadians. The bill talks about noise, traffic congestion and the need to listen to Canadians. Here is an opportunity to listen to Canadians. This is an opportunity to finally get serious about a national public transportation plan, a strategy that would allow the country, as vast and broad as it is, to realize its full economic potential. This would allow those regions that have for so long contributed to the public coffers, that have so long supported the growth of our cities and enabled the folks, who push papers from one desk to another in those cities, to earn a living, the places that the hewers of wooden haulers of water, it has often been called, the places that generate wealth in the truest sense of the wealth of this nation, to receive wealth in return.

Here is an opportunity for the so-called new government to move away from such misaligned and inappropriate actions like those we saw in the former Mulroney government. We now see our current Prime Minister doing his best to emulate what it is to sell out, what it is to lay down. This is an opportunity for our country to grow, to prosper and to achieve the dreams of all Canadians.

The legislation needs a bit of work. We need some answers from the government. We ultimately need a plan and a strategy for the country and for regions like mine to prosper. It needs to come from this Parliament.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture I had the opportunity to have consultations with the farm industry, based with primary producers themselves, looking at the issue of low farm incomes. There is no question that incomes are the lowest they have been in Canadian history.

While there are some who like to blame the farm community for that, our farmers are the most efficient and productive in the world, but the problem is other factors. I entitled my report, “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”, which is what needs to happen to deal with the problem. We need to empower Canadian farmers in the marketplace.

The new government is doing two things that go in the opposite direction. First, it has taken power away from primary producers in terms of dealing with the railways through section 43 of Bill C-11 by cancelling the agreement with the FRCC.

Second, it is taking away the power of western grain farmers by undermining the single desk selling aspect of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister announced a task force yesterday in which the government will try to achieve that objective without first giving farmers, the people who are under the Canadian Wheat Board, their democratic right, as stated under the act, to have a vote to determine which way they want to go.

The government is moving in the opposite direction by taking power away from farmers rather than empowering farmers as should be done.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when we look at the record in terms of support for the farm community, the new government does not have a leg to stand on. It does not compare at all with the previous government in terms of the positive things that we did for the farm community.

When it had the opportunity to do something positive, such as lowering freight costs and giving the farm community more control over transportation, what does it do in Bill C-11? It inserted section 43 which basically destroys the agreement that was established by the previous government and FRCC to give them some control over the transportation sector.

I would ask the member to go back to my remarks. The fact is that the biggest payments in Canadian history to primary producers came from the previous government. Were they enough? No, they were not. However, in its new budget the government did not even meet that standard even though Agriculture Canada's own figures indicated incomes were 16% lower.

I would suggest that perhaps the member from Vegreville should go back and look at his own comments on the Crow benefit and he would find some strange and startling statements by himself in terms of that debate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member opposite asks who was in government. We made an agreement with the FRCC to prevent that gouging and the new government over there broke that agreement, violated that trust with western farmers and basically sold out to the big railways.

I would like to take this opportunity to read from this report, which incidentally would not have become public if it had not been for a reporter with the The Western Producer who obtained and published the report. The following are extracts from the report, sent by Neil Thurston, director of the rail economics directorate of the CTA, to Helena Borges, executive director of rail policy at Transport Canada. The report was in response to a Transport Canada request to the CTA “regarding the Agency staff’s assessment of CN and CP’s expenditures for the maintenance of the Government hopper car fleet in 2004”.

Based on the railway information, the CTA determined that maintenance costs on the hopper car fleet dedicated to grain transportation was $1,686 per car per year. Under the provisions of the revenue cap, the railways had been receiving $4,329 per car per year in maintenance costs.

There are currently more than 12,000 federal government hopper cars in service in western Canada. Members can do the math: 12,000 cars, actual cost $1,686, yet charging $4,329. Western farmers have been overcharged to the tune of over $30 million annually. The new government is going to allow those alleged overcharging costs to continue to go to the railways and continue to basically gouge farmers. The report I have referenced was tabled, reluctantly, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would add that during the course of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on May 16, Mr. Sinclair Harrison, president of the FRCC, told the committee of additional Transport Canada reports, held in confidence, that support the position the FRCC has held for a number of years. Mr. Harrison stated:

At our request, Transport Canada commissioned a company called QGI, a consulting firm specializing in car inspections, to inspect approximately 1,000 of the 12,000 federal government cars, which is a representative sample. In our opinion, the confidential report prepared by QGI confirms FRCC's observation on the extent of programmed maintenance being deferred.

The dollar figure is in the report here and is in the hands of Transport Canada. Again, perhaps it should be released to this committee. The dollar figure put to the deficiencies in the cars, Transport Canada, and the FRCC agreed, was $35 million worth of work that has not been performed on these cars but was paid for.

The service not provided was purchased from the railways.

The facts are that there was an agreement by the previous government that would have benefited the farm community. The new government came to power and broke that agreement, which is what section 43 of Bill C-11 does. The government has sold out western farmers again to the big railway companies. It has a lot to answer for.

As I said, most of the bill is not new. It has the good points brought forward by the previous government but section 43 is doing what--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to speak on Bill C-11. As others have stated, there is a lot in this bill that makes sense. In fact, it is the third time in the House for most of the contents of this bill. However, tucked within the bill is another huge loss, and this is new, a huge loss for the farm community.

The minority government opposite has taken to inserting in a lot of its press releases and so on, when it can, a quote called “the new government”, but like so much of what this minority Conservative Party does, it is all about deception. There is nothing new in the bill except the one section that I mentioned, clause 43. What this does, quite simply, is trample on the rights of farmers. Let me repeat that: clause 43 tramples on the rights of farmers.

The new government, the new Conservative government, has cut a deal with the big railways and the big grain companies to tear down agreements that the previous government had entered into, agreements reached by the previous government that would have given a little bit of leverage to the grain producers and more control over their destiny as grain producers in terms of dealing with the railways. The issue really relates to the transfer of hopper cars to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, a cross-section of groups across the west that would have had those railcars turned over to them to manage in the interests of the transportation system and in the interests of farmers.

The provisions of this bill, then, particularly clause 43, are really symbolic of the government's real priorities. With the implementation of these two provisions, the Conservative government has, along with its decision on May 4, sold out the farmers of western Canada and delivered an asset of incredible value, once again, to the railways.

The two provisions in question come out of the government's betrayal of western farmers and a reneging on an agreement signed in good faith between the Farmer Rail Car Coalition and the Government of Canada. The agreement signed between the FRCC and the federal government in November 2005 would have seen the federal government hopper car fleet transferred to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. The FRCC was committed to a payment of $203 million for the cars and had ensured that the maintaining of the fleet could and would be done at a competitive rate far less than the unaccounted-for costs of the railways.

The third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, on February 14, 2005, provided one of the key reasons why there had been a lengthy delay between the announcement by the previous federal government to dispose of the hopper car fleet in 1996 and the agreement with the FRCC in November 2005. It stated that “the railways had a right of first refusal to acquire the cars that did not expire until the summer of 2002”.

No action was possible until that arrangement lapsed. It was in a matter of months following that period that the federal government, in spite of less than enthusiastic support from within Transport Canada and continued railway opposition, had taken the final decision.

When it comes to Transport Canada, I have had the opportunity, in a previous life as President of the National Farmers Union, to deal with Transport Canada for some 30 years. Transport Canada has never failed in this country's history, in those 30 years at least, but to come down on the side of the railways as opposed to coming down on the side of the farmers. The previous minister of transport was willing to challenge Transport Canada and come up with a deal that worked for primary producers. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities over here in the so-called new government is selling out those primary producers and catering to big rail in the process.

That is not what we expect from a new government. We expect a new government to stand up for those with less power in this country. This new government in that regard has failed miserably and has really betrayed the farm community in terms of that deal that was signed by the previous government.

Before getting into the specifics of the issue, I would like to speak about accountability, something the government pretends is of importance. The railways, since the issue of the possible transfer of the hopper car fleet, have maintained one consistent position: complete and total opposition to any transfer or sale of the cars to the FRCC. Yet, the railways have never once, even to the Canadian Transportation Agency according to testimony before the agriculture committee, provided their costs for maintaining the hopper car fleet which had been in their control since the 1970s.

For the benefit of those who are not knowledgeable about this issue to a great extent, I want people to understand that the past federal government purchased hopper cars for the railways which the Government of Canada owned and controlled to a certain extent to provide the rolling stock in order to provide the capacity to move the grain out of the western prairie region because the railways were not providing the rolling stock in fact to do it. That is why it was necessary. It is the cars we are really talking about in this particular instance. As I said, the railways really did not provide the costs of maintaining that hopper car fleet which had been in their control since the 1970s.

A Canadian Transportation Agency representative at the agriculture committee stated that even though the CTA made serious efforts to work with the railways, the agency found that “--the railways do not collect detailed information with respect to the maintenance of the hopper cars, which made the assignment or study more difficult--”. That was said at the agriculture committee on May 16, 2006.

The members of the new government, specifically those from rural western Canada, have failed to protect the interests of their constituents. At a minimum, they should be able to stand in the House and state that the decision of the government to renege on the deal with the FRCC is supported by one set of simple facts: namely, that the railways can maintain the fleet of hopper cars at a rate which matches that of the FRCC. They have not and they cannot do that.

On May 4 the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stated that the government's decision would allegedly benefit the farmers of western Canada due to the $2 per tonne rate reduction. The news release of course issued by the minister indicated that the rate reduction of $2 per tonne was a potential target. Really then, the $2 per tonne is not real. It is just potential. It may happen. There is no assurance to the western farm community that this reduction will in fact be made.

In an interview, however, with The Western Producer on May 11, the same Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stated that “the reduction in rates would likely fall in the $1.50 to $2 range”. So even the minister himself is not consistent in terms of what he is saying the potential reduction might be.

The claim by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that farmers would realize an annual saving of $50 million is contradicted by his own news release and by his own statement to The Western Producer, but it is not unusual for the new government to be caught in contradictions. We have seen this from members in question period today. We see it every day. In fact, there is no industry which sees the contradictions as often as the agricultural industry.

During the election the Conservative leader left the impression that there was going to be immediate cash for farmers. Remember that last January and last spring? Did they get immediate cash for farmers? The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development says there was. There were moneys announced last November by the previous government and that is what is being paid out. There was less money in the budget than the previous government had paid out. There was no immediate cash for farmers from the government to this day other than what was announced by the previous government.

The minister may be talking about the options program but the options program is a blame the victim kind of program. Instead of compensating producers for low farm prices, Conservatives have come up with an options program for a farmer who has farmed for 40 years. Maybe HRDC is providing the skills development training program for farmers and they thought it was Agriculture Canada, but I can certainly see the bureaucrats of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada training a farmer who has farmed for 40 years to farm better. I can certainly see that because what the government is doing on the options program is blaming the victim. It is saying the farmer is losing money because his skills are poor. That is what the government is really saying.

May I remind the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development that the problem the farm community has is low commodity prices worldwide which are caused by subsidies by other countries around the world. Low commodity prices are what is wrong.

Just to sidetrack for a minute, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had the opportunity to be in Australia today to meet with the Cairns Group, the group that Canada was an original founding member of, at which meeting the United States and the European Union were going to argue the point that we need a WTO agreement in which there would be better market access and reduced export subsidies and to argue the points that would benefit Canadian farmers. Where were these two ministers? Sitting in the House here today and neglecting their responsibility to the farm community of this country.

When it comes to agriculture, I could go through a list of six items, but I want to deal specifically with Bill C-11. The fact is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the new government as a whole have failed miserably when it comes to dealing with the problems in the farm community.

The claim by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that farmers will realize an annual saving of $50 million is contradicted by his own news release. This means that the Government of Canada cannot stand by the figure it initially proclaimed as going to farmers in terms of a rate reduction and for this reason alone, these provisions of the bill do not merit support.

However, the FRCC has been more than forthcoming with respect to its position with respect to the costs of maintaining the fleet for producers, and this position has been supported by the findings of the CTA in a submission to Transport Canada on March 29, 2005. That document makes absolutely clear that the two major railways, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, have been actively and intentionally overcharging, in other words gouging, farmers for more than a decade, and the government continues to support that gouging.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a theme that I have raised now on two or possibly three occasions with the government this afternoon as we pursue the debate of Bill C-11.

The minister spoke this morning very clearly and referenced two or three times that the bill would have environmental implications. My colleague highlighted GO Transit and the notion of public transit support in his riding. We even heard that his wife takes the train, which is a good thing.

I want to raise the fact that there seems to be a disconnect here. On the one hand the government is speaking now about a new environmental platform, apparently rejecting 13 years of our work in this field. This is somewhat exaggerated. There is also a tax deductible transit pass, which does not seem to be supported by the economists.

Where does the bill in any way talk about environmental objectives, including greenhouse gases?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today on the important changes to the Canada Transportation Act in Bill C-11, changes that will help improve the environment for passenger rail services, preserve valuable rail infrastructure in urban areas, and make communities served by railways more livable.

I would like to begin by speaking briefly on the history of CN Rail and the important role it has played in the lives of Canadians for nearly a century. The Canadian National Railway has mirrored the history of Canada for more than eight decades. The company's roots lie in the turmoil and disillusionment that accompanied World War I. In the 1920s and 1930s, CN's fortunes reflected the peaks and valleys of the Canadian economy. During World War II, CN, like Canadians themselves, met challenges that could not have been predicted even a few years earlier.

In the decades after the war, Canada became a supplier of resources to the world, resources such as lumber, which we dealt with earlier today, grain, sulphur, potash and petroleum products, and CN carried them. In the 1990s, when the North American economy became more integrated, CN followed suit as it expanded its U.S. presence and took a north-south orientation.

Because CN was for more than 70 years a government owned railroad, it had a social role in the life of the country as well as an economic one. This role is exemplified by narrow gauge freight and passenger services across Newfoundland, by mixed trains on low density branch lines, and by passenger cars used for schooling and medical services in remote parts of Ontario and Quebec.

There is no doubt that CN and the railways of Canada represent an integral and important part of our history as Canadians. Bill C-11 recognizes the great importance of our railways and focuses on achieving a balance between the modern interests of communities, consumers, commuters and urban transit authorities with those of today's railway carriers.

I would like to highlight the bill's proposed changes in the railway aspects of the bill. The proposed changes to the Canada Transportation Act will help ensure that our railways remain innovative, strong and healthy in the 21st century.

The bill looks at existing policy and regulations from an urban quality of life perspective to see if we can make them work better on behalf of our cities and our communities. At a time when Canadians are increasingly concerned about rising energy prices, particularly prices paid at the gasoline pumps, I am very pleased to be able to say that the proposed amendments will contribute to the well-being of urban transit services as well as intercity passenger rail services like GO Transit and VIA Rail.

Through a number of amendments to the CTA, the government is introducing several measures that will benefit the passenger rail services that are critical for the movement of the growing number of commuters in my community and throughout the GTA with and between our largest urban centres. For example, on the average workday in Burlington alone, between 70 and 80 passenger trains pass through Burlington's three GO stations and one CN station. Nearly 90% of all trains that pass through Burlington carry passengers.

The government recognizes the benefits of providing publicly funded passenger rail services such as those operated by VIA Rail across Canada, the Metro in Montreal, the O-Train here in Ottawa and the GO Train in Burlington through to Toronto and the east side of Toronto.

The government also recognizes that because these services are essentially government mandated, the operating entities may encounter difficulties in negotiating on even terms with the host railways over those infrastructures they operate. To this end, the amendments to the CTA will include new dispute resolution provisions clearly aimed at public passenger services.

Currently, the only recourse available to the CTA for public passenger providers for resolving rate and service disputes with the railways is final offer arbitration. The new provision would replace the existing final offer arbitration provision that became available to commuter and other publicly funded passenger rail operators in 1996. However, passenger rail that is not publicly funded would continue to have no recourse in the final offer arbitration system.

The new recourse will improve access to rail infrastructure for public passenger services, under commercially reasonable terms. The government strongly encourages VIA Rail and commuter rail authorities to conclude commercial agreements with infrastructure owners. However, when commercial negotiations are unsuccessful, which does happen on occasion, these public passenger service providers will be able to seek adjudication from the Canadian Transportation Agency on terms and conditions of operation on federal rail lines, including fees and services charged by that host railway.

Further, since the contracts are entered into by public bodies, in the interest of greater transparency, the amendments of the CTA will require that such agreements are made public for the first time. As such, any future contracts between public passenger service providers and federally regulated railways will be made public. Existing amendments will also be made public unless one of the parties can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the agency, that the contract contains commercially sensitive information and that it would be harmed by its release.

The government also recognizes that preserving surplus rail corridors for subsequent use by urban transit is of growing interest in large urban centres, including my own centre of Burlington. Often these corridors represent the only land available for transportation uses.

Presently a railway can discontinue operations on a surplus rail line only after it has followed the notification and advertisement steps prescribed in the CTA. The objective of these provisions is to promote the takeover of lines of new owners or operators in place of service abandonment.

When a railway is no longer required for freight service, it must first be offered for continued railway operations, then must be offered to federal, provincial and municipal governments for a price that is no greater than the net salvage value. This approach to corridor evaluation will be retained.

However, under the current transfer and discontinuance provisions of the CTA, urban transit authorities, which in some urban areas serve several municipalities, including mine, have no right to receive such offers from railways. In the interest of protecting valuable corridors that may be required for urban transit, the CTA will be amended to require an offer of sale to urban transit authorities before municipal governments.

Also, the current provisions do not apply to railway spurs and sidings, some of which could sufficiently serve the needs of commuter rail services. Nor do the present provisions apply to passenger railway stations. The amendments would require the railways to offer these segments in urban areas and passenger railway stations to governments and urban transit authorities, not for more than the net salvage value, before removing them from service.

As I noted earlier, the CTA currently requires that no interest has been expressed in the purchase of a line for continued rail operation. A railway company must offer to transfer the line to governments for not more than its salvage value. A government interested in purchasing the line must advise the railway company in writing that it accepts the offer. If the government and the railway company cannot agree on the net salvage value of the line, either party can apply to the agency for a determination of such value. In other words, the government is required to accept and bind itself to the purchase offer without knowing the purchase price.

The proposed amendments to these provisions in the bill will improve the notification processes to governments, urban transit authorities and agencies at certain stages of transfer and discontinuance of the process. As well, the amendments will allow a government of an urban transit authority to seek a determination of the net salvage value from an agency when it receives an offer from a railway and before it binds itself to an offer of purchase. Again, this is transparency. This will provide a government and an urban transit authority the necessary information to decide whether it is the right business decision, whether they want to purchase the line or not.

This is one area that is important to me in this bill and important to my area of Burlington and Halton and of the urban transit issues that we face every day.

Another area in the bill that is very important to me, and I have been dealing with on an ongoing basis, particularly this summer, is noise, and noise is addressed for the very first time in the act.

At the outset, I noted these amendments would introduce measures that would make communities such as mine served by railways more livable.

Over the past several years, some members of the House have heard community concerns, and I have heard that from a number of speeches here today, about railway noise and the Federal Court of Appeal decision of December 2000, which ruled that the agency had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to noise from the operating of federally regulated railways, and that is about to change in the act.

A large number of Canadian communities are home to railway operations and disputes can arise from railway noise between residents and communities and railway companies. While citizens adversely affected by noise from railway operations can make a formal complaint to the company through a 1-800 number, which I have received and passed out many times, or seek civil action through the courts, no federal body is mandated to regulate railway noise.

Proposed changes to the bill authorize the Canadian Transportation Agency to review noise complaints for the very first time and, if required, order railway companies to make changes to reduce reasonable noise when constructing or operating railway and railway yards. The agency must be satisfied that the parties were unable to reach a settlement voluntarily of the dispute on their own, which of course is the preference of everyone.

The Railway Association and the CPR have established voluntary mechanisms with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to address noise and other complaints stemming from the proximity to railway operations.

The government applauds and encourages this voluntary approach for resolving these often contentious matters, which I have had this summer in my riding.

However, the government also wants to ensure the agency, and I support this, has the authority to resolve noise complaints if a voluntary settlement is not achievable. The agency is well-positioned to strike a balance between operational needs of the railway, with which I think we all agree, and the expectation of communities and those who live beside the railways not to be subjected to unnecessary and unavoidable inconvenience.

The amendments would require railways not to cause unreasonable noise when constructing and operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of operation, services and interests of affected communities.

I want to pause for a moment and talk about a specific example in my riding. GO Transit is adding a whole new line, a new track through my riding of Burlington to Toronto, to provide us with ongoing, everyday, all-day GO Train service. As a GO Train user this summer and over a number of years my wife has used GO Train to Toronto on a daily basis when she works in downtown Toronto, it is a very important thing. The people who live in Burlington understand the need for an expanded GO Train service to Burlington, but do they need to have the railway constructed in the middle of the night with no notice? That is what has happened over the summer.

This past week I had the fortunate opportunity to meet with railway officials, their communications people, their construction people. They freely admit that there are no rules and regulations, that they are basically able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and that is the way the law is.

The new changes that we are proposing in this bill do make changes on the noise side to give us some authority to ensure that, at the bare minimum, the people who are affected on a daily basis due to the changes, the growth in railway, get an opportunity to comment on it. Whether they get to stop it is a different story, but at least they have the knowledge, they have the right to know what is happening in their backyard. I am looking forward to seeing the bill pass so we can start working on those issues.

The agency has been given the statutory power to provide guidelines for what it will consider in deciding on noise complaints, elaborate measures on the noise resolution and require complaints to demonstrate that all voluntary measures are exhausted.

We first want to ensure that the citizens and the railway contact and communicate with each other to ensure they cannot find a solution on their own. They will investigate noise complaints and order railways to take appropriate action to prevent unreasonable noise, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operation and the interests of affected communities.

The amendments I have outlined today go a long way in improving passenger rail service across the country, preserving valuable railway infrastructure in urban areas such as mine and reducing railway noise and complaints in ridings such as Burlington.

Ultimately these measures will reduce congestion in our urban areas and make our transportation system more environmentally sustainable. Not only are we adding railway lines in our area, but the tax incentive for people to get out of their cars, to use GO Transit and to take the mass transit system to Toronto has been a tremendous support to Burlington and to the people of my riding.

We want to improve the quality of life of those who have to live beside the railway lines. They understand that they are there for a reason, that they do have a good public role. However, they also need to be dealt with respectfully and in a reasonable manner. The changes to the CTA will make that happen.

I have been listening very actively today. All parties seem to indicate that they are willing to send this to committee, which is what I would like to see done, where it will be reviewed and some changes may or may not be made. It has had significant consultation. Our friends from the official opposition have said a number of times today that the bill has come to us a couple of times in different formats.

Let us get on with it. Let us get it passed. Let us get it to the transportation committee. If there are any amendments, let us hear them and deal with them appropriately. Let us start helping those people in the urban areas who are affected by transit needs on an everyday basis.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. Although we support Bill C-11, some elements missing from this bill would be of greater help to our fellow citizens in coping with the overpopulation of the train, which is actually an important ecological means of preventing greenhouse gases. Our fellow citizens often complain about vibrations and blocked intersections. But we do not find these elements in the bill, elements that could have been included.

I would like my colleague to tell me why, in his opinion, this bill did not include these elements, which are of major importance.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his question.

Indeed, Bill C-44 contained a whole chapter on VIA Rail, to facilitate better performance and ensure improved service everywhere. However, as you know, the bill did not reach the second reading stage during the last session, and all of the thoughtful work and careful study of the bill led nowhere.

We regret that this is still not the case, despite the fact that certain elements of Bill C-11 are important and should be passed. Nevertheless, I share the hon. member's concerns regarding the fact that important aspects of Bills C-26 and C-44 are still missing.

In the meantime, the development of our rail system has suffered and been put in danger because more significant decisions and bills are not being adopted to develop this transportation system.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his wonderful address. I have had the opportunity to sit with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. My question for my colleague is simple.

Several members from the Conservative government tell us today that considerable consultation took place and that the proposed bill is a result of that consultation. It is true that considerable consultation took place for Bill C-44, but not for Bill C-11, since consultations are about to begin for this new bill.

In Bill C-44, there was an entire chapter on VIA Rail. I would like my colleague from Alfred-Pellan to describe his experiences in committee during the last Parliament. In fact, Conservative members exerted tremendous pressure to ensure that everything to do with VIA Rail never come to fruition. All of the Conservatives were against developing VIA Rail. This clearly affects Quebec directly, given the rapid rail project for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

I would like my colleague from Alfred-Pellan to explain the situation in relation to Bill C-44 from the previous session.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First of all, I want to tell you how disappointed I am concerning the length of time the Parliament of Canada has taken to bring this bill to fruition. We should recall that earlier versions of this bill have already been presented twice, in the form of Bills C-26 and C-44, introduced on February 25, 2003, and March 24, 2005 respectively. However, the adoption of this bill is of major importance for the people of Quebec and for all of Canada.

This delay reminds me of the saga surrounding repairs to the Quebec bridge. Remember the Conservatives’ election promises from last winter. Then they were promising to settle this issue as quickly as possible.

During the last election campaign, the Conservatives enjoyed repeating that the Bloc Québécois could not solve this problem, being an opposition party. The Conservatives boasted that they could finally provide a solution to something the Liberals had been unable to do anything about.

It was not until the company partially mandated to repair the bridge decided to dismantle the scaffolding that the Conservative government woke up.

A government source said that an additional $69 million to $76 million would be needed to complete the work.

The headline in the July 19 issue of the daily newspaper Le Soleil read: “New hope for the Quebec bridge.” There actually were discussions among spokespersons from Ottawa, Quebec City, Canadian National and the owner of the bridge on July 18. No timetable, however, was put forward and the people in Quebec City are still waiting, and waiting.

It is like this bill that is supposed to amend the Canada Transportation Act. Lots of people have been waiting for it to be adopted for a long time, but it has not yet come to fruition and this may prove to be catastrophic for urban transit, as we will see later.

To begin with, I would like to underscore an amendment that I deem to be important and that was added to the bill’s declaration of principle.

For the first time, respect for the environment is being added to the various obligations of transportation systems. In committee we will see what provisions may be added so that this obligation is really enforced and complies with the Kyoto protocol.

I will give the example of the locomotives. The rate at which the old locomotives are renewed has to be speeded up, since only 29% of all diesel locomotives comply with environmental standards.

Furthermore, we must encourage the use of the Green Goat switchers, a hybrid diesel-electric system tested in 2004. It seems that this hybrid switcher reduces fuel consumption by 60%. These are but a few examples.

There are three measures among the legislative provisions proposed in this bill that particularly attract our attention. They deal with air and rail sectors and concern airline advertising, noise relating to rail operations, and the abandonment of rail lines.

I feel that consumer protection is absolutely vital, and that increasing open competition must not in any way penalize the consumer, who is entitled to greater transparency

In this connection, Bill C-11will amend the Transportation Act in relation to complaints processes, the advertising of prices for air services and the disclosure of terms and conditions of carriage.These new measures will provide for greater control over the sale of airline tickets, among other things by giving the agency jurisdiction over ticket sales advertising.

Licensees must in future display, in a prominent place, the rates for the service offered, including the terms and conditions of carriage. This new condition also applies to services offered on the Internet.

So the terms and conditions of carriage must be made accessible.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will have a new regulatory power allowing it to require, through regulations, that the advertised price of air services indicate the fees, charges and taxes collected on behalf of another person, enabling the consumer to readily determine the cost of the service.

Although it is a step in the right direction, we must ensure that the Transportation Agency exercises this power in a rigorous, proactive way and in the best interests of consumers. Consumer associations have been requesting far more transparent pricing for a very long time.

These new measures to improve transparency will benefit both consumers and the airlines, which will be able to engage in healthier competition.

I would like to raise one point. That is the abolition by the former finance minister of the position of Air Travel Complaints Commissioner in the 2005 budget. The previous government announced at the time that the Canadian Transportation Agency would henceforth assume responsibility for the complaints program.

Bill C-11, as proposed by the Conservatives, no longer provides for the position of Complaints Commissioner and includes this function in the ordinary operations of the Transportation Agency.

We take a positive view of the fact that the Transportation Agency can henceforth order carriers to compensate people for damages caused by a failure to comply with the conditions of carriage. This is a step forward because the previous Complaints Commissioner could only make suggestions.

There are some shortcomings, however. For example, the Transportation Agency no longer has to submit an annual report on the complaints and how they were settled. This report would point the finger at the guilty parties and their failings.

The commissioner was also able under the complaints process to demand a lot of information from carriers, something that the Transportation Agency cannot do. The Bloc Québécois deplores this weakening of the role of the Transportation Agency, which loses its ability to investigate and some of its visibility.

We certainly cannot forget the Jetsgo saga, when hundreds of travellers suffered damages when this airline abruptly ceased operations at the height of the holiday travel season. This must never happen again. The Bloc Québécois severely criticized it at the time.

It is clear that, in the Bloc’s view, the government must assume its responsibilities. In particular, it could help set up a compensation fund which would ensure that tickets are reimbursed when consumers buy them directly from carriers, as happens increasingly often.

Therefore, this bill can be improved considerably in a number of ways.

Besides the legislative changes in connection with air transportation, another very important aspect of Bill C-11 concerns rail transport.

The legislation would amend part III of the Canada Transportation Act by creating a mechanism for dealing with complaints concerning noise and by amending the provisions for dealing with the transfer and discontinuance of operation of railway lines.

For some years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for legislative changes to deal with the serious noise problems faced by many communities. I am referring to the harmful effects of noise resulting from the construction or operation of railways, and the movement of cars in marshalling yards in particular.

In recent years, the public and the railways have often been at loggerheads. The public bothered by noise has no recourse but to complain directly to the railway concerned or to initiate civil proceedings. No federal agency currently has the authority to intervene in such instances.

Hence the importance of legislating in this regard, so that the railway companies feel some pressure and take the initiative to limit the disturbances caused by railway construction or operation.

These legislative changes are a step in the right direction, but I have some amendments to propose. I will try to ensure that the agency's jurisdiction will not be just over noise, but also over emissions or vibrations from rail cars. In this Kyoto protocol era, environmental issues are extremely important.

I realize that rail transport is an excellent alternative to road transport and is key to economic development in Quebec.

However, there must be a balance between such economic objectives and the environment, particularly in terms of respecting the public's quality of life and well-being.

The powers granted to the Canadian Transportation Agency are in no way prejudicial to the railway companies, particularly since the agency will now have the power to issue and publish guidelines, after consulting with interested parties, and to propose a mechanism for the collaborative resolution of noise complaints. Consequently, each party will know the other's limits. The purpose of this is to resolve such conflicts peacefully and without delay.

I am pleased to see that urban transit authorities will now be recognized. A section has been added under which a railway company wishing to sell a railway line shall first offer it to the federal government, the provincial government and the urban transit authorities concerned.

These new provisions are desirable and will provide better protection for the unique transportation network provided by urban railway corridors. I have always considered rail transport to be an excellent alternative to road transport. Such measures, therefore, should be encouraged.

I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation that this bill has been floating about these halls since the 37th Parliament. Not passing it could have irreparable consequences. If things continue as they are, the survival of agencies such as the Agence métropolitaine de transport, which serves greater Montreal, will be threatened. The new act gives them an arbitrator, the Canadian Transportation Agency. They will also benefit from new regulations that will let them negotiate on a more equal footing with bigger players such as CN and CP, which often behave like monopolies in the face of these agencies. The survival of these agencies is important in the context of the Kyoto protocol, and that is why I sincerely hope this bill will finally be passed.

We support this bill in principle, and we will try to improve it by making amendments in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member fo rLévis—Bellechasse will be simple. He talks to us about his good government. I have a question for him about Bill C-44.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities told us today that what was proposed in Bill C-44 has been incorporated virtually word for word. So why does this Bill C-11 not contain the VIA Rail component that was in Bill C-44 and that was the gateway to developing high-speed train service from Quebec City to Montreal and Montreal to Windsor?

I would like the member to explain why his good government, once again, has decided to disregard Quebec’s interests, not to discuss them, not to include in this bill what VIA Rail was asking for—to become a real company that could bring about real development. I would like the member to explain this for me.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-11, introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

This bill would update the Canada Transportation Act of 1996. It is the result of extensive consultations and its basic purpose is to improve the act by enhancing transportation safety and transparency, by reducing inconveniences to users—in terms of noise as we saw earlier—and by protecting the consumer, who uses the modes of transportation.

Today my presentation will focus more on air transportation. There are businesses in Lévis—Bellechasse that regularly ship products manufactured in the area.

There are amendments that would protect the rights and entitlements of the air travelling public by ensuring that air carriers will always represent their products in an open and transparent manner. This afternoon we saw that sometimes there are hidden costs. Air carriers are currently being more transparent on a voluntary basis. The industry is taking steps in the right direction, but this government must not derogate its responsibility to the air travelling public. It therefore proposes to amend the act, to permit its administrator, the Canadian Transportation Agency, to develop, implement and enforce regulations on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, if necessary, to ensure transparency in the pricing of passenger air services.

The amendments in the bill would make clear the government's expectations with regard to the air carrier industry. These amendments would be in keeping with initiatives in the U.S. and Europe that are also designed with transparency in mind.

The proposed approach is also consistent with the broader strategic thrust of this government to legislate only when necessary and to make carriers accountable.

The amendments would also require all operators providing commercial air services in Canada to prominently display their terms of carriage at their business offices and on any Internet site from which they sell these air services. Many travellers buy their tickets on the Internet. It is important to ensure that when a price is posted, it is in fact the price the traveller will pay. That is how this will work.

There is another addition.

There are amendments that would make clear that Canada is wholly committed to all of its trading relationships in international air services. The amendments would ensure that an international agreement or convention respecting air services would have prevalence over the Competition Act in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the two. Canada is a trading nation and so the government believes it is imperative that Canada's partners can rely on their air transport trading relationships with us. These amendments would send that signal.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are amendments that would ensure that air services provided on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces or in the case of a declared emergency are not subject to part II of the Act. Part II of the Act provides the framework for commercial air services. Military aircraft are sometimes used in humanitarian missions and, consequently, should be exempt in such cases.

It is only sensible to distinguish that air services provided for our nation's armed forces, or in the case of a declared emergency, are not regular nor for-profit occurrences. Therefore the provision of these types of air services should not be covered by the act. In that sense these amendments would bring clarity to such situations, and should be considered housekeeping measures that ensure the continued relevance of this act.

We are proposing these amendments because they would ensure a higher degree of transparency and consumer recourse, as well as bring clarity to its application. Also they make the complaints process simpler and more efficient by integrating it into the Canadian Transportation Agency's permanent functions. In this way, the amendments to the air transportation provisions in the act contribute to building a modern, efficient transportation system, which is integral to the well-being of Canada's economy.

At the same time, the amendments would continue to allow air carriers to develop and grow based on the merits of the choices they make in the course of doing business.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments reflect this government's commitment to a competitive air transportation system; one that balances the need to update statutory and regulatory instruments, where necessary, to respond to developments in the air industry marketplace, with the responsibility to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights and entitlements.

A vote was taken in this House today on softwood lumber. Our government is taking action. I believe that Canadian taxpayers, our constituents and parliamentarians want a government that works and that is up to the challenge. This bill will improve the Canada Transportation Act and give results.

Parliamentarians are asked to take concrete action. People expect parliamentarians to be up to the challenge and want them to ensure that our government functions as efficiently as possible with the utmost respect for democracy.

This government believes that these amendments to the Canada Transportation Act are warranted, will give the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to continue to serve the air travelling public, and will ensure that Canada continues to have a viable and competitive air services industry in the years to come.

My speech focused mainly on air transportation, but there are many aspects to this bill. It aims to solve the problem of noise pollution caused by rail, and proposes measures to improve safety and to protect consumers who travel by plane.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-11.

Transportation has been integral to our nation's growth and development. Using transportation as a building block to overcome major challenges, Canada has built a mature and robust transportation system that has enabled our nation to compete with the best in the world.

As our transportation system continues to grow and mature, we must adopt innovative policy approaches to successfully meet new and emerging challenges in this sector. A statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act was completed in 2001 and Bill C-11 is the third attempt to legislate amendments arising from this review. Its two predecessors, Bill C-26 and Bill C-44, both died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament followed by general elections.

Successive governments have appreciated that new policy approaches are required to meet the emerging challenges in the transportation sector and keep them competitive and stable.

Bill C-11, as my hon. colleague from Ottawa South has pointed out, takes most of the good ideas from the previous Liberal bill, Bill C-44 and starts to adjust the framework found in the Canada Transportation Act. This bill would allow Canada to position its transportation system to respond to the needs and expectations of Canadians and address domestic and international pressures to remain competitive.

The bill includes many of the good provisions found in the previous bills that would make rail and air sectors more efficient, enhance competition and environmental protection, and create stable conditions for investment.

I would like to concentrate my remarks on the rail industry, the industry that helped build this country and still links us from sea to sea to sea.

Although railways make a tremendous contribution to Canada's economy, the growth of the industry has also contributed to a significant increase in concerns expressed by those who live or work near railway property.

At present, Transport Canada is responsible for regulating the safety of rail operations, including the transportation of dangerous goods, under the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. However, it is not currently involved in matters involving noise or fumes from railway operations, except train whistling.

The Liberal government recognized the complexity of addressing these kinds of issues and obviously wants the communities and the railway companies to seek solutions through collaborative approaches or mediation.

On December 7, 2000, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Transportation Agency had no jurisdiction to address complaints related to noise, vibration or fumes generated by the operations of railway companies regulated under section 95 of the Canada Transportation Act. Consequently, there are no specific provisions in the act or in any other federal legislation setting out how the agency or any other body can regulate issues concerning railway operations that are not related to railway service or safety.

In this context, in May 2003 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada signed a memorandum of understanding in order to build common approaches pertaining to the prevention and resolution of issues that arise when people live and work in close proximity to rail operations. After May 2003, the Canadian Transportation Agency implemented an improved mediation initiative but it was not enough.

The Liberal government recognized that circumstances exist whereby mutually agreeable salutations may not always be possible. While there have been successful collaborative and mediated solutions to railways' nuisance issues in the past, these solutions are not always sufficient and may not be sufficient in the future given the important role that rail transport may continue to play in Canada's economic future. This being the case, action was required on both the legislative and collaborative fronts.

Following extensive public consultation, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act was first introduced in Parliament in February 2003 that included several provisions related to railway noise and gave jurisdiction to the Canadian Transportation Agency to address noise related complaints. Bill C-26 made it to the transport committee but died when the House prorogued in November 2003, as I previously indicated. In the next session of Parliament, the Liberal government entertained additional representations from the public, members of Parliament and other stakeholders on the proposed legislative amendment. The result was Bill C-44 tabled in March 2005 and now Bill C-11.

The proposed changes to the act authorized the Canadian Transportation Agency to review noise complaints and, if required, order rail companies to make changes to reduce unreasonable noise when constructing or operating a railway or rail yard. The agency must be satisfied that the parties were unable to reach a voluntary settlement of this dispute on their own.

Residents and municipal leaders in the city of Thorold in my riding of Welland have been very supportive of the changes to these sections to all incarnations of this bill. Excessive noise and emissions emanating from a rail yard in Thorold have significantly concerned citizens residing in the close proximity for many years. While prolonged noise like this could be irritating enough during the day, it is far worse to have it going throughout the night and into the early morning hours.

I personally visited adjacent homes and heard and saw how serious the problem is. All night idling and shunting of rail cars force some residents to go to sleep using ear plugs. The vibrations are so severe at times that household furniture shakes. Some have complained of air emissions with a soot like material landing on their cars and residences. We all can appreciate that such fine particles will move inside by numerous ways thereby constituting even more significant health concerns. Outdoor pollutants become indoor pollutants. Such particulate matter can adversely affect human health. The very young, the genetically predisposed, the elderly and those with pre-existing heart or lung disease are more susceptible to the adverse effects of this particulate matter.

It is well-documented that long term effects of noise exposure can cause a myriad of health problems. According to the World Health Organization, people may feel a variety of negative emotions when exposed to community noise and may report anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, withdrawal, helplessness, depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation or exhaustion.

Noise can produce a number of social and behavioural effects in residents, besides annoyance, that include changes in overt everyday behaviour patterns. Residents close windows, do not use balconies or decks, turn TV and radio volume up louder or write letters to elected officials. It can also change their social behaviour for the worse. People affected by noise may experience aggression, unfriendliness, disengagement and non-participation. There can be adverse changes in social indicators such as residential mobility, hospital admissions, drug consumption and accident rates. Finally, their mood or mental health can be affected. They may be less happy and more depressed.

The research of the World Health Organization also states that stronger adverse reactions have been observed when noise is accompanied by vibrations. It is no wonder that these residents want to see a better way of dealing with this noise problem.

This community wants to deal with those noise complaints through the Canadian Transportation Agency. They believe in mediated solutions that are reached through fair and non-confrontational ways. As has been mentioned, this approach is less litigious, quicker, cheaper and a more friendly resolution but they can only stand the aggravation for so long.

We tried working with the rail company to come to some kind of solution, such as allowing the trains to idle in a more rural area. We inquired about technologies so that the diesel engines could be shut off rather than idling for hours on end. However, we met with no willingness to compromise and the rail company hid behind the position that a caveat about the noise had been written into the municipal subdivision agreement that is registered on the titles of the affected homes. Admittedly, a caveat on the titles of their property should constitute notice of many of the concerns expressed. However, the reality is that few are made aware of such notices and no one appreciates their full implications. It also is cold comfort to the residents who have invested their life savings in properties that they cannot enjoy to their full benefit. Caveats on titles to properties must not mitigate or be an unequivocal response to noise pollution or air pollution.

In the rail company's defence one must concede that the changes required may affect their operating efficiencies and most certainly the cost of relocation to a more appropriate location. However, in such situations one must consider the greater good. My support is for the constituents in my riding and in communities in ridings throughout country.

The Thorold community knew the benefits of Bill C-44 and was disappointed when it died on the order paper and can now be hopeful that it is included in Bill C-11.

Another area I would like to address very briefly is the abolition of the Air Travel Complaints Commission. It does concern me. This commission was there to assist consumers with complaints on air travel. The government takes the position now that competition is an informal way of utilizing a complaints process. One can choose another airline. This might be fine for the frequent flyer travelling between major cities who can choose another airline but in many rural areas there is not the luxury of service by more than one airline. Retention of the Air Travel Complaints Commission is most important to service these communities and these flyers.

In addition, clarity in air fare advertising is a very positive initiative. The Canadian Transportation Agency would have the authority to make and enforce regulations to require that the advertising price includes all costs to the airline for providing the air service.

Advertisements would also indicate fees, charges and taxes collected by the airline on behalf of a government body or airport authority. In addition to the prices of airline tickets for both domestic and international travel, the travelling public is often literally shocked when actual ticket costs are far in excess of the advertised costs of the flights.

I am also concerned about the reduction in the membership of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven part time to five full time centred in Ottawa. With all their increased responsibilities I am sincerely concerned that they will have insufficient manpower to undertake their current responsibilities and the new responsibilities that the act would give them. That would be a travesty if they certainly do not have the tools to deal with the situation presented to them.

In conclusion, I look forward to a full review of Bill C-11 at committee and listening to the comments and concerns of the transportation industry and the public.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to put to my colleague is simple.

Bill C-11 is supposed to amend the Railway Safety Act. But the only amendment is that it allows the presence of police officers to supervise the railway companies’ property. So there really is not anything in this bill to make poorly maintained tracks more secure or to increase security.

So I ask my colleague to confirm what I am advancing.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-11. The NDP finds that there are some aspects of this bill that are worthy of consideration. I will address the aspects that Canadians might consider less interesting a little later.

The principle set out in this bill is that this is a government that listens. However, given the vote that has just taken place and the pressure that was brought to bear in all the proceedings surrounding the softwood lumber agreement, I am not convinced of this. In this corner of the House, we are in fact not convinced that this government is capable of listening to people.

An agreement has been made on softwood lumber that is in almost all respects bad for the Canadian softwood lumber industry. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding all the consultations that were held this summer at the Standing Committee on International Trade, it is clear that the government has not listened to people’s concerns and worries.

With respect to the question of Bill C-11, the same problems arise again, the same questions that arose in relation to transportation. For some months now, we have seen that the government is trying to weaken the regulations governing transportation, whether in relation to railways, aviation or marine transport.

This is what concerns the NDP. What we have is a government that does not listen and that does things backwards. We saw this when it came to the softwood lumber agreement. In fact, we have just had the first of several votes that will take place in the next few weeks. The Senate will then of course have to consider these questions. We are seeing the same thing in relation to transportation.

We therefore have concerns. Even though we are supporting Bill C-11 at second reading, we shall see, in committee, whether the government is capable of listening or whether, after only seven months in power, it is leading us back into the same situation as we had under the former Liberal government: no listening, no genuine consultation, no ability to understand its mistakes. Even though we are supporting the bill now, we are giving notice that our support is conditional on the improvements that we hope will be made to this bill at the next stage.

I would like to speak more specifically about some of the aspects of this bill that we support and some of the aspects of the bill that we are concerned about.

I will start with the issue of railway noise complaints. The legislation provides a mechanism, finally, for individuals and communities to make complaints about railway noise.

I come from the community of Burnaby—New Westminster. There are railway yards around the Westminster Quay area of downtown New Westminster. Many constituents have approached me, including Brian Allen and others, to raise very serious and very legitimate concerns about railway noise in their neighbourhood. They have tried to deal directly with the railways, as have I as their member of parliament, but there has not been a formal, structured mechanism in place to deal with the railway noise complaints.

In urban areas this is a matter of grave concern, when people cannot get the sleep they need. Families are working harder and harder in Canada now for less and less. Most Canadian families have seen their real income decline over the last 15 years and they have seen the hours of work per week increase. Now it is even more important in an urban setting that our constituents from coast to coast get the opportunity to have legitimate sleep when they need it.

Bill C-11 has a section that deals with railway noise complaints. It provides a mechanism for citizens who live in the Westminster Quay area or in South Burnaby who are near railway yards, particularly with railway shunting back and forth. They and their members of parliament will have a mechanism to try to resolve those noise complaints. This is welcomed and is one of the most positive aspects of Bill C-11.

A second element deals with mergers and acquisitions and provides for a public interest review process. This is important as well. We need to have much more public consultation, particularly when we talk about the transportation industry. Canada is a vast land, the world's largest democracy. We are linked together by our transportation modes. If there is any area of interest that unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast, it is in maintaining the safest and best possible transportation facilities in all areas of transport.

It is an important step forward to have the protection of a valid review process and public consultations when there are mergers or acquisitions in the transportation industry. That is also an element which we support, although in committee we will perhaps be looking at tightening what is currently stated in the legislation.

Another important component is a framework for passenger rail services. I come from an area which is served through TransLink by the West Coast Express. The West Coast Express is a very well run commuter railway operation that runs from Mission through to Vancouver. However, the West Coast Express has had some real difficulty having the kind of arrangement with the rail operators that allows access to the rail lines that it needs.

Bill C-11 provides a better framework for the kind of negotiations that sometimes take place between commuter rail services in our larger cities and the rail operators themselves. This is important. It is a benefit and an improvement. We would like to see this go further. We need that mechanism to allow the commuter rail services to negotiate directly with the rail lines, but we have to be aware that the public good has to be served as well.

There are cases where rail lines will be discontinued. We have to make sure that there is a public good, a public benefit, for example, urban bicycle paths.

My colleague, the member for Victoria, has raised the issue of ensuring that further to providing access to commuter rail when we are talking about discontinued rail lines, there should also be access to the public in general as another alternative through various facilities, bicycle paths or rail paths themselves. The member for Victoria has been effective in articulating this.

We would like to see something in the legislation to advance that right, that if the rail line is not being used for rail purposes, not being used for commuter rail, there are other alternatives for the public good that must come first. The improved framework is a good first step for that, and another element why at this stage, in any event, we will be looking at supporting the legislation so it moves forward.

In terms of the advantages, the bill itself speaks to greater transparency in advertising airfares. This is an important component. Consumers need to be aware of how much they are paying for tickets. We do not want to see hidden costs. Greater transparency undoubtedly would be an advantage. However, I say that this is an advantage if we are looking at the type of regulation that provides greater transparency.

The unfortunate aspect, something that the transport committee will have to look at in much more detail, is the idea of integrating the complaints function of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner into the Canadian Transportation Agency. I am not convinced that this provides for the transparency of which the government is speaking. I have some concerns. At committee we will be expressing those concerns, bringing the appropriate witnesses forward to examine whether that is the best mechanism, whether expanding the office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner, expanding those powers or providing for other methods of dealing with the same transparency better serves the travelling public.

The principle is there. We in all four corners of the House want to see transparency on airfares so that members of the public know what they are paying when it is being advertised that there are no hidden fees. I should add that hidden fees include the fees that Canadian passengers are paying on airlines for things like headsets, to eat, to get a glass of water, to get a pillow or a blanket. Increasingly there are fees for the simple fact of travelling on that transport and those are fees that need to be taken into consideration.

I was on a flight from Quebec City to Vancouver, back to my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. One gentleman joked that he was being asked to pay for his pillow and blanket and soon passengers would be asked to bring their own chairs. This is a good point. The situation now is that members of the travelling public are being asked to pay fees that they should not have to pay once they have purchased their tickets. They should not have to pay for a pillow or a blanket. They should not have to pay to get some chips or some water. They should not have to pay these small costs. If the air transporters want the consumers to pay those fees, they have to be front and centre.

One can imagine that with completely transparent advertising it would be very difficult for an airline to say that passengers will have to pay $2 for this, $3 for that and $5 for something else. Those hidden fees would be forced away by having that transparency because it would not be to the competitive advantage of the airline to gouge members of the travelling public once they were on board.

Greater transparency in advertising is a component that we support. We do question whether the best method is through the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner through the Canadian Transportation Agency. Hopefully this will be sorted out during the committee process. We look forward to participating in that.

We have concerns about other areas. We will raise questions and possibly amendments as well.

On the grain revenue cap adjustment, we have concerns about how that might be dealt with. As I expressed at the beginning, we have concerns about the government's ability to listen. Certainly with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management there have been major concerns about how the government deals with the preoccupations and concerns of rural Canada. Though in principle having that adjustment is important to us, we want to see in very strict details how that would work in practice and whether there would be honest public consultation around it.

I mentioned the question around advertising airfares and the air complaints function. Again the same question is raised, whether the best mechanism for air complaints is through the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. It is something that will come out through the committee hearing process in which we will be very pleased to participate.

Finally, in terms of the exact details of Bill C-11, the details that we have concerns about are around the national transportation policy statement, which was very specific on the private sector's contribution to transport policy and mum on the whole impact and the importance of the public sector.

We in this corner of the House are not caught up in the ideology, that it has to be the private sector. There are many things the private sector cannot do as well as an efficiently run, effective public sector. That is why over a 20 year period, the best financial managers in Canada were NDP administrations. Despite the flop of the Bob Rae government in Ontario, which was due a lack of leadership, when we take the actual fiscal period returns of all the NDP administrations from 1981 to 2001, we see that Liberal governments across the country were in deficit 85% of the time. The Conservative governments over that period of time were in deficit 66% of the time. They did not balance the books. NDP administrations, most of the time, balanced the books.

We have the best track record in financial administration and we are proud of that, but we also believe in a very prudently run, effective public sector. Our concern around the national transportation policy statement is that it does not reflect the importance of the public sector working with the private sector to ensure that we have the kind of safe, effective and accessible transportation system that should exist for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

In no country on this planet is transportation as important as it is in Canada. We are a vast land. We are the largest democracy. Throughout that vast land, transportation infrastructure is of primary importance. We profoundly believe that we need a national transportation policy statement that actually reflects the importance of the private and public sectors working together and that there has to be an effective public sector to ensure that we do get the kind of effective transportation infrastructure that we need to have. That is something we will be looking at as well in committee and it is something about which we are concerned.

I want to say a few words about the general direction. I talked about Bill C-11 and I have talked about some of the elements we support, some of the elements to which we will be looking at providing changes and improvements. Our role in this Parliament is to ensure that we get the best possible policy. New Democrats are not ashamed to work very hard to ensure that we get the best policy process.

Despite Bill C-11, we have concerns over the general transportation thrust of the government. I will raise some concerns that we have raised in the House and that we continue to raise. To date we have not received the response that we believe a prudent and responsible government should give.

The first is the issue of railway safety. Because of self-managed railway systems and a cutting back of that important public sector role to watch over our transportation sector and ensure that it is as safe as possible, what we have seen is railway accidents are on the rise. In 2005 we saw the highest number of railway accidents in nearly a decade, much higher than the 10 year rolling average that existed before.

We have seen an increase in railway accidents. We have seen, tragically, deaths in the Fraser Canyon this summer. We have seen environmental damage such as the Cheakamus Lake in the Squamish Estuary and Lake Wabamun in Alberta. We have seen consistently a greater number of railway accidents over the last few years. This is a matter of some concern.

We have called for an inquiry. The government has not responded. We have called for the tightening of railway regulations and we have seen very little response and activity from the government. That is a matter of very real concern because people's lives are at stake. The well-being of communities is at stake when we see the kind of environmental damage, when we see the lives lost most recently.

It is a tragedy and we need to deal with it. We will be repeating the call for a public inquiry because we do not believe the existing lack of regulations in rail transport is to the public advantage. Obviously, if the number of accidents are on the rise, the number of fatalities are on the rise and environmental damage is on the rise, there is a problem. A responsible government deals with the issue. We certainly hope the government will deal with this issue, and quickly.

Second, there is the entire question of regulating air transportation. We talked about precisely that last June at the Standing Committee on Transport. We talked about the government’s plan, or objective, of reducing the number of flight attendants on Canadian aircraft. This is a major concern. We know very well that a large majority of Canadians are opposed to this measure.

A survey was done on these questions in June 2006. Respondents were asked whether they wanted to keep the existing Canadian regulations or wanted regulations similar to the ones in the United States. And 69% of Canadians wanted to keep the existing regulations in relation to flight attendants. Only 19% of Canadians wanted regulations like the ones in the United States.

When we consider all these questions, that is, whether safety standards have to be lowered so that airlines can continue to be competitive, 72% of Canadians are opposed to it.

Because of how this government seems to do things, we are indeed hoping to be able to change its perspective. We support Bill C-11, but it remains to be seen whether the government will listen to our concerns and make the changes that are called for.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that Bill C-11 deals with the air transportation sector and complaints process. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on the idea that Canada needs its own do not fly list.

I filed numerous complaints because somehow my name is on the do not fly list which will not allow me to get a boarding pass on a flight from my hometown to Ottawa within my own country. I do not know if it has anything to do with the revisions or the hearings leading up to this comprehensive bill which amends rail and air transportation, if any of that analysis dealt with the do not fly list, but it is crazy that a Canadian member of Parliament cannot get a boarding pass on a domestic flight within his own country because his name is on an American do not fly list.

What is the government doing about the do not fly list so that we can fly again in our own country?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is of great interest to hear the parliamentary secretary pick up on some of the themes mentioned by the minister just one hour ago.

I would like to focus on the question of transparency and openness. For most Canadians, if they had a problem with the airlines and the airline system previously, they would go to the position then filled by Mr. Bruce Hood as was created in 2000, the air travel complaints commissioner. I understand that position is being folded into the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

I would like to put to the parliamentary secretary and to the government a couple of comments made by some important actors around that move. Bruce Hood himself, the former commissioner, in May of this year expressed his concern that the proposed elimination of the position would make it increasingly difficult for Canadians to resolve problems with airlines. Furthermore, a Canadian Transportation Agency spokesperson went on to say that these changes would reduce the Canadian Transportation Agency's role in dealing with airline complaints on a case by case basis as opposed to being able to tackle larger ongoing problems with airline service or quality.

Could the parliamentary secretary help illuminate and explain for Canadians when the average citizen may have a problem with an airline and is seeking transparency, is seeking recourse, just how Bill C-11 in transferring this commissioner's office to the CTA is going to ensure that the same kind of function--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to provide information on the provisions relating to air transportation in the proposed Bill C-11, the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. First, I can assure the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that this government does stand up for the people of Quebec. We listen to the people of Quebec and this is an example that we listen and will make changes.

In fact, these are common issues across Canada. I had the opportunity to put some 3,000 kilometres on rental cars this summer travelling around the lower mainland of British Columbia and Alberta. I visited many of the members of Parliament from British Columbia, for instance, the members for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Kelowna—Lake Country and Abbotsford. All of these members had issues that were very similar to the issues that the member raised. I can assure him that our caucus as well as many other members of other caucuses come to me with these issues and we will act on them for the betterment of the people of Canada.

One of the driving reasons for the introduction of this bill is that this government sees and believes that a modern, effective transportation system is integral to the well-being of Canada's economy. A proper and well planned out transportation initiative across the country, a hub system, as well as a system that has adequate highways and rail will be only good for the people of Canada and we understand that. It contributes to the air industry in Canada that is competitive as well as continental and global markets.

Canada's air industry is a vibrant and dynamic one, as the member knows. It contributes to a prosperous and innovative economy which benefits all Canadians. The air industry in Canada helps drive economic development in all sectors of our society. The Conservative government and the Prime Minister is committed to promoting competition in the air transportation sector because this increases consumer choice to the travelling public and provides better service and pricing.

The government is also committed to regulating only where deemed necessary and advantageous to the Canadian public. The objectives of the proposed air transportation amendments meet this government's commitments to Canadians. This bill provides for technical and housekeeping amendments necessary to modernize the act since it was last amended in 1996. As all members of the House know, the transportation industry is integral to Canada's economy. It is an ever changing environment and we need to stay as good stewards on that, making changes as necessary.

The proposed amendments will also provide a clear role in how the Canadian Transportation Agency will continue to exercise its functions in the future, which is also very important. The proposed legislation offers additional consumer protection to assist Canadian travellers as they continue to make choices respecting travel in Canada and abroad.

I will now speak to the proposed amendments that would enhance the protection of Canadian consumers. Although there were concerns regarding some potential abuses that may have taken place when Air Canada acquired Canadian Airlines in 2000 due to the resulting market dominance of Air Canada, this is no longer the case. In fact, we have seen dynamic changes in the Canadian domestic industry over the last few years, as most Canadians recognize.

The proposed amendments would actually reflect the reality of today's Canadian air industry by returning the agency to its well established regulatory and complaints based function and structure which was in place prior to 2000. The government is committed to regulating only where necessary and where the Canadian public would be best served.

Today I am proud to say that Canada has a world class air system and boasts several well established airlines providing international, national, regional and charter airline services. Airlines such as Air Canada, WestJet, CanJet, First Air, Air North, Air Transat, Air Mikisew, which is actually located in my constituency of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and many others. All of these companies are providing increased competition and consumer choice in all areas of the country and indeed on the global stage.

I also wish to recognize that new carriers are seeking to enter the Canadian air industry because it is so healthy. These industry carriers propose to offer Canadian consumers additional choice in air travel. This government listens.

The proposed amendments would continue to allow our new and expanding airlines to make their decisions based on private sector commercial realities free of unnecessary legislation that is not providing any benefit to Canadians. The government is committed to letting Canadian air carriers develop and grow based on the merits of the business choices they make.

The Office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner was created in 2000 to review complaints and attempt to resolve the issues informally on behalf of air travellers. The commissioner served as a useful tool during this transition period only to assist consumers with their complaints following Air Canada's merger with Canadian Airlines.

The Canadian air transportation market has dramatically changed even since then. Today the complaints received by the airline agency are distributed more proportionately across Canada's air carriers, including even low cost carriers. Competition in the marketplace is one of the most effective mechanisms to ensure service quality. The government encourages competition for the betterment of Canadians.

Complaints now increasingly relate to matters that fall within the ongoing jurisdiction and mandate of the agency itself. The government recognizes the importance of an ongoing informal complaints process to get results for Canadians. The proposed amendments would therefore make transparent and permanent, like this government, the air travel complaints function. The informal complaints resolution function launched so effectively by the commissioner would be made permanent and would be integrated into the regular operations of the agency. This would be supplemented by the agency's ongoing regulatory responsibilities.

Since the fall of 2004, the agency has demonstrated its continued effectiveness in its ability to handle consumer complaints. Canadians have received results, the same as this government is dedicated to doing. It has consolidated its ongoing informal processes in an air travel complaints program. With this step and the legislative measures proposed, the Canadian public can be reassured that the agency will continue to respond to travellers' complaints in an informal manner and consistent with its ongoing mandate.

The government wishes to ensure that Canadian consumers are offered clear choices in air travel. Where necessary, the government will take on the responsibility of protecting consumers in exercising these choices. The government is aware of consumers' concerns that airfare advertising be clear, transparent and not misleading. Consumers have told us that they want to be able to compare different airline advertised pricing and to know up front how much they will pay for these air services.

Canadian carriers have heard the message. Canadian airlines have taken important steps to respond to consumer demands even so far. However, some consumers remain concerned that price advertisements prepared by air carriers, either in the newspaper or on the Internet or other methods, do not always contain complete or clear price information. This government is listening to Canadians.

Other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have implemented policies, legislation or voluntary mechanisms with the cooperation of the airline industries in order that consumers have sufficient pricing information regarding air travel ads that display their prices. Some provinces such as Quebec and Ontario require transparent advertising of air travel by travel agents and other provincially regulated operators. Canadian consumers have told us that they want a similar level of transparency for advertising by airlines across Canada, and the government intends to do that with the cooperation, of course, of the other parties.

As already noted, Canadian airlines are moving toward improving advertising transparency with the encouragement of the government. These decisions are prompted by past year demands and respond to other dynamic changes in the industry. The government recognizes that market forces will maintain the pressure on air carriers to take further steps to ensure clear and transparent advertising.

It is for this reason that the proposed amendments provide the minister with the ability to authorize the development of regulations for transparency in airfare advertising in all media. These regulations, should they become necessary only, would be enforced by the agency. This would ensure that these standards are consistently applied across the industry by all domestic and foreign carriers and their agents for flights operating within or originating within Canada.

These provisions clearly signal the government's expectations in this regard and put the industry on notice, that notice being to further modify their practices voluntarily as required by Canadian consumers or be regulated by the government.

In addition, consumers are entitled to know the terms and conditions of the air service before they book a flight. Consumers want that and this government is responding. This is consistent with the government's commitment to ensure the transparency of information to allow consumers to make informed travel choices.

The proposed amendments would require all commercial air operators, both domestic and foreign carriers, operating air services in Canada to promptly display their terms of carriage. That will be necessary at their places of business and on any Internet site, or from wherever else they sell these air services.

These proposed amendments would ensure that Canadian consumers are adequately informed of their rights and the obligations of the air carrier for flights offered as they make choices regarding their travel arrangements. It gives them choices because they know what decisions they need to make.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments reflect the Government of Canada's commitment to a liberalized and competitive air transportation system for the betterment of Canadians wanting to make choices, a system that balances the need to update statutory and regulatory instruments, where necessary, to respond to developments in the air industry marketplace, with the responsibility as well to ensure that consumers, as I have said a few times, are offered choices and options consistent with a fully deregulated market so they know what they are going to buy before they buy it.

We firmly believe that these changes to the Canada Transportation Act are warranted, that they will give the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to continue to serve the travelling Canadian public well, and will ensure that Canada continues to have a viable and competitive air service industry in the many years to come.

This government listens to Canadians and will act on their priorities.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Before getting right into Bill C-11, I will provide some background on this bill so that our colleagues in this House, those who are newly elected, and Quebeckers and Canadians watching us, can understand how we ended up today with such a bill that is an amalgamation of parts of other bills.

Bill C-11 originated in Bills C-26 and C-44, which were introduced in the last two Parliaments. Bill C-26 was introduced on February 25, 2003, and Bill C-44 on March 24, 2005. The Conservative government decided not to use the entire content of all these bills.

The minister did in fact say that what is being introduced today is essentially identical to what has been introduced before. However, he failed to say that the bills that were introduced by previous governments and received the support of the Bloc Québécois were much more consistent, especially in matters relating to the railway.

Let us not forget that Bill C-44, among others, had the advantage of resolving the VIA Rail situation. Everyone knows why the Conservative Party decided to split Bill C-44 and not present the same bill: because it was always annoyed with the part of the bill affecting VIA Rail. It was always against allowing VIA Rail to develop so that we could finally have a rail line between Montreal and Windsor, between Quebec City and Montreal, and even between Montreal and Boston. To the Conservative Party, developing transportation does not mean the railway. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi is absolutely right: this is more than a refusal to subsidize; they do not want to allow VIA Rail to be a corporate entity.

In fact, Bill C-44 would have enabled VIA Rail to become an entity capable of taking charge of its own rail development and of arranging its own borrowing. That did not suit the Conservative Party. We have to look at the context. Today, it is a good thing that we are presented with a bill on railway transportation, but we have already gone beyond Bill C-44. Indeed, we are now involved in some major amendments. However, we have put aside the question of VIA Rail and railway development in such major corridors as Quebec City and Montreal, Montreal and Windsor, and even Montreal and Boston.

It has been very difficult for us to understand that position. It is important that Quebeckers understand the values that the Conservative party is defending. They are values that are completely different from the values that we proclaim. Clearly, rail transport is more environmentally friendly. We should be tabling bills that recognize that fact and allow rail transportation to develop to its full potential. The Conservative party refuses to do this, as I have explained, in the Montreal to Windsor corridor, between Quebec City and Montréal, and between Montreal and Boston.

Thus, they developed Bill C-11, based on Bill C-44, which had been introduced by the previous governments, by the Liberals, and out of which they retained one part dealing with railways.

I do not have time to talk about the entire bill, because it also deals with air transport. I will concentrate on several important matters. If I had the unanimous consent of the House to use the entire afternoon, I would be pleased to discuss it all. However, I will not even make that request because I would be surprised if my colleagues were to give consent.

Nevertheless, there are some important points concerning railway transportation. I will go directly to one issue that in many Quebec ridings has always been an environmental concern, that is, noise pollution.

Pollution cannot always be felt or touched. However, it can be heard. Thanks to new technology, we have replaced humans with mechanical devices and machinery. When trains are being assembled in the marshalling yards, the shunting of cars makes a devilish noise. Many communities have spoken out against these operating companies. The echo has reached as far as the federal government.

I will cite a few examples. Hochelaga has the Moreau yard; Brome—Missisquoi has the Farnham yard; and Jeanne-Le Ber and Lévis—Bellechasse also have yards. They all have problems linked to noise pollution caused by the work carried out in a marshalling yard.

We might all think that new technology allows everything to be done quietly, as circumstances evolve, and that noise pollution is now at the safest possible levels. On the contrary, decreased manual handling actually means mechanical switching that is less effective and very noisy. Neighbouring communities have every reason to complain. Thus, such complaints led to the change proposed in this bill.

I would like to assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill, especially those sections, which I will summarize here, that address noise pollution.

We would have liked to see even stricter provisions, but we are willing to give this system a chance, a system that involves mediation, cooperation and, finally, decisions taken by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Earlier, I asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities this question. Although the municipal level has tried to resolve the issue of noise pollution with decibel standards, as custom dictates, we face a simple problem: federal laws override all other laws, including provincial and municipal. In other words, even if cities want to adopt regulations regarding decibels or noise pollution, the entire federal sector does not have to comply with municipal standards. We should therefore support the content of the bill as tabled today.

I would reiterate to all Quebeckers who endure the problems caused by these yards: we accept this approach to resolving the problem. This is evolution, after all, and the reason for it is understandable.

Clause 29 reads as follows:

The Act is amended by adding the following after section 95:

95.1 When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise, taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

(b) its operational requirements; and

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place.

These are the obligations “when constructing or operating a railway”.

As such, the standards do not set out a specific limit on decibel levels. Rather, this bill says that you are not allowed to operate unreasonably or to create unreasonable noise pollution. We are setting a standard based on what is unreasonable.

What impact would that have? It would be an improvement over the status quo, which does not touch on this. Any complaints would be addressed as follows:

The Agency may issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to

(a) the elements that the Agency will use to determine whether a railway company is complying with section 95.1 [which I just read to you]; and

(b) the collaborative resolution of noise complaints relating to the construction or operation of railways.

Thus the idea is to promote cooperative measures: sitting all the parties down together and finding the best way to solve the problem. Before establishing guidelines, the agency consults the stakeholders. Nothing would be imposed; instead, there would be discussions and negotiations.

I would point out that in certain locations, including the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, despite ten years of negotiations between citizens' committees and the company that operates the yard, they still have not managed to reach an agreement on possible measures to please the majority. We would like to see that happen, but the only thing now permitted by law is direct intervention by the agency. It can then act once a complaint is received.

Under section 95.3, the agency:

on receipt of a complaint, may order a railway company to undertake any changes in its railway construction or operation that the Agency considers reasonable in order to prevent unreasonable noise.

This is the first time a bill has stipulated that the agency can oblige an operator to resolve the problem based on cooperative measures negotiated between the various stakeholders. This is more or less the case.

This is not the cure-all. We are not yet at the stage of obliging companies to comply with a standard regarding a certain number of decibels. Yet my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is our expert on the environment, knows very well that international standards regarding noise pollution now exist. It becomes dangerous to human health when certain levels are exceeded. However, we are not quite there yet.

In short, whether the government is Conservative or Liberal, it is often said that one is the same as the other.

There has been a slight change, a slight movement in the direction of change, but we are not yet ready to adopt international standards for noise pollution. We could set the number of decibels that companies must not exceed and we could monitor the noise levels with decibel meters now that this equipment is available. However, we are not quite there yet. Nevertheless, there has been change. We are giving authority and some teeth to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Since it appears that the government, whether Conservative or Liberal, has not wanted to go any further, we will see what happens, and we may be able to exert some pressure in the committee. Nevertheless, it is better than what we had before. Quebeckers will always be able to rely on the Bloc Québécois to represent their interests. If they are not properly represented, we will demand legislative amendments. That represents the first, important part of this bill.

The second part concerns the obligation of airline companies to publish in all media, including on the Internet, their prices for air services in Canada. This is dealt with in clause 27 of the bill. The regulations may require that an advertised price for air services include all costs to the carrier of providing the service, and that the advertisement indicate all fees, charges and taxes collected by the carrier on behalf of another person so as to enable a purchaser to readily determine the total amount to be paid for the service. This has been called for by the Bloc Québécois for a long time.

Families put money aside. We work 50 weeks in a year in order to pay for one or two weeks of vacation. We read the advertising and think we have enough money to cover all costs. When we make the reservation we realize that the price does not include charges and taxes.

For some time now the Bloc Québécois has been asking for this situation to be clarified, so that Quebeckers, who work hard to earn a living and pay their taxes to the governments, can treat themselves to vacations without having any surprises when they make their reservations. It is understandable for the Bloc Québécois to be in favour of the amendment proposed in this bill. So when the airlines post a price, it will be the full price. We are not demanding that hotel expenses be included, although now the all-inclusive package exists. All expenses will be included once this bill has been passed. The Bloc Québécois is pleased to give its consent to this part of the bill.

The third part I would like to discuss concerns the section of clause 39 and following, respecting the abandonment of railway lines and sidings. It was time the government cleared up this situation so that, when a railway company gets rid of a railway line, it can be obliged to offer it before selling it to private enterprise or doing whatever it wants with it.

The obligations contained in the bill seem clear: the railway line is offered first to the passenger service provider. Let us say that VIA Rail operates a passenger train and decides to stop running it. Via Rail must first offer it to the local transit authority, which can then decide to operate it.

As for all the rest, that is, sidings and other tracks that would not be used for passenger transportation, the provision is to offer them to the province, then the transit authority and finally the cities.

I know that the Union des municipalités du Québec has already asked to appear before the committee. In committee we will see what the cities think. We will see whether it is still necessary to make an offer to the transit authority before offering it to the cities. There is still this dilemma, given that the operating budgets of the transit authorities often come in large part from users. Often the transit authorities have grants to purchase equipment, but operations are often subsidized by cities. We will see what the municipal unions ask for in this file.

For us it seems very important that we have a policy respecting the transfer of railway lines, that is, of those that are or will be dismantled. It seems important too that we can offer them and use them appropriately, especially for the transportation of passengers. The future in transportation lies in maritime and rail transportation, more ecological ways of transporting freight and people.

Since the Bloc Québécois is still defending the Kyoto objectives, we seem to be increasingly isolated in this House.

The Conservative Party wants to have its own green program, its own green plan. It seems to be more in agreement with the positions taken by the United States and other countries that are not abiding by the Kyoto protocol, rather than the large majority of countries that have signed the protocol.

Obviously, in our view, railway transportation is a very worthwhile and important way of looking at development. That is why we could never stress enough the importance of VIA Rail’s mission. I will repeat what I said at the very beginning. Sometimes, it is important to state the message that one wants to convey more than once. In Bills C-44 and C-26, there was an entire part dealing with VIA Rail, which enabled it to develop and to adopt a plan that would, in particular, have enabled Quebec to open itself up in terms of the railway. Quebec could then have turned its gaze to the rest of the world, for example to Boston, the United States and Ontario. The Conservative Party has decided to settle the VIA Rail issue. We had been told that one day, perhaps, we might come back to it. I think that what is happening here is that the entire development of VIA Rail is being buried, but that is the choice made by the Conservative Party and it is not adopted by the Bloc Québécois.

The aim of this bill is to solve the various safety-related problems involved in transportation. The minister told us earlier that this bill has set us on the green path. I have taken a few minutes to explain that what eliminating VIA Rail actually did was throw a big lead weight, a big rock, into the canoe the Minister of the Environmentis paddling toward a green development plan using rail transportation.

Earlier, I sensed that the minister was quite uncomfortable when he was asked a question about transportation safety. The title of this bill is, in fact, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. We might then think that this bill is going to solve safety problems. Far from it. There is not one cent for safety. Thanks to what the Journal de Montréal has revealed concerning Dorval airport, we have seen how the minister, the government and Transport Canada manage safety. Plainly Canada is just putting out fires.

Money was put into resolving the passenger problem because at one point passengers had taken control of planes. We also experienced the events of September 11. Then the government decided to focus on passenger safety. However, we can make ourselves at home in the rest of the terminal. As we saw in the Journal de Montréal report, nothing has changed. The more things change, the more they stay the same. There is no culture of safety in Canada. We can forget that.

To have a culture of safety is to ensure at all times, when there is an objective, that absolutely nothing is forgotten and that we are capable of analyzing every plan. That is not what Canada does. Canada has a piecemeal approach. When something happens then we try to address it.

I will close on this idea of the culture of safety that Canada is lacking. They preferred putting our money in provincial jurisdictions. They preferred engaging in regional development, which is a responsibility of the Government of Quebec, instead of taking care of security at the borders. The problem is that the Government of Canada was unable to secure funding for its own mandates. There is no culture of safety. That is what the Journal de Montréal showed in Dorval. And it was just a year later when the same thing happened at Toronto's Pearson airport.

Will the Conservative Party be able to resolve the security problems? Forget about it. It has neither the will nor the means. It wants yet again to interfere in the provinces' responsibilities and it chooses to spend outside its own jurisdiction. This just further proves that the Canadian government does not defend the interests of Quebeckers, since it is unable to take care of its own security.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

He is perfectly right. He misunderstood what I said. At no time did I say that the railway subsidies in Canada should cease. To the contrary, what I would have liked to raise with the minister, if I had had a little more time, is the fact that he mentioned three or four times in his presentation that Bill C-11 would apparently have a positive effect on environmental protection.

What I find a little frustrating when I read the bill is the fact that the words “greenhouse gases” do not even appear in it. At a time when this minority government seems to be saying that it will propose a new environmental strategy for the country, the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the minister do not mention the greenhouse gas issue at all in the bill. My hon. colleague is quite right when he speaks about the positive effects of using the railway system in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases.

However the government, which is supposed to be formulating a new environmental policy, misses this very opportunity at a time when we need it.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member who did a good job describing what Bill C-44 was and what he sees now in Bill C-11. However, I have the feeling that I understood something that I hope I failed to understand. The hon. member said that the train subsidies were eliminated in Bill C-44 and that is continued.

I have the feeling that I must have misunderstood because trains are the future, the future of our country, and not the past. They are the method of transportation that will be the greenest and the most economical and that will support all our industries and jobs.

Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the government should encourage a transportation system that will both protect the ozone layer from greenhouse gases and do miracles in regard to energy expenditures?

All countries now help their railways. The leader is the government of the United States, right next door to us. Although the United States favours private enterprise, it provides generous assistance to railway companies because otherwise they would not exist. I ask the hon. member, therefore, why he thinks the subsidies for railway companies should be eliminated when we provide lots of them for roads.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to respond to the minister and to speak to Bill C-11.

Today we begin debating Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I am pleased that this debate is taking place as it will enable us to help Canadians understand the path that this project has taken.

Amendments to the Canada Transportation Act were introduced for the first time in Bill C-26 during the second session of the 37th Parliament.

Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister and the rest of the Canadian Alliance at the time were opposed to these measures and voted against them at second reading.

We reintroduced these amendments in Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. Once again the opposition at that time felt that the bill presented to the House was not good legislation. It decided to bring down the government and at the same time to drop the bill for a second time.

If this sounds familiar, let me assure the House that it is not déjà vu. One of the last debates that was held before the House rose this past spring concerned Bill C-3, the first bill brought to our consideration by the Minister of Transport in the 39th Parliament. During the debate on the bill, I welcomed the minister's decision to bring important legislation, which had died on the order paper, back to the floor of the House.

Bill C-11 is the second bill that the Minister of Transport has introduced in this session, which relies on the heavy lifting of a previous Liberal government, and it will not be the last.

We are happy to see the minority government again endorsing solid Liberal legislation in actions rather than words, by pushing for Bill C-11's quick adoption in the House. While we agree in principle with much of what is being presented, there have been substantial changes to the workings of the bill. My colleagues and I will address some of these and outline our concerns today and in the days ahead. In turn, though, the onus remains on the government to convince us and Canadians that the legislation is still well-founded.

The parliamentary history of the bill is important at the outset for our context and so too is the wider history of the two bills that Bill C-11 aims to amend.

Back in 1996, a decade ago, the first of the two, the Canada Transportation Act, laid out our national transport policy. It was really a vision to modernize and deregulate rail and airline traffic. It consolidated the 1987 National Transportation Act, which itself had roots in a 1967 predecessor, and the venerable Railway Act into one unified law. At the same time the new Canada Transportation Act took steps to reduce or eliminate subsidies for transport, costs that were borne by all Canadians.

The second act to be amended by Bill C-11 is the Railway Safety Act. The act allows Transport Canada to review and upgrade the regulations, the standards and rules for rail safety oversight. It is precautionary legislation and should be the home of our attempts to improve the safety for the millions and millions of children and pedestrians, motorists, travellers and workers who come into contact with trains every day across our country.

A thorough statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act was completed again by our government in 2001 and it was very important in forming Bill C-11 by way of its earlier incarnations. The bill we debate today is the third attempt to legislate following that review.

Let me begin our consideration with provisions that are similar in principle to the most recent version that we presented, Bill C-44.

I would like to review some of the provisions of this bill beginning with those concerning noise caused by railway operations.

My riding, like a good number of Canadian communities, is home to railway activities and I am fully aware of the disputes arising between residents of the communities and the railway companies because of noise.

I am pleased to see that proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act empower the Canadian Transportation Agency to deal with noise complaints and, if necessary, to order railway companies to make changes in order to reduce unreasonable noise.

This is an important matter, one aspect of the problem that my colleagues and I look forward to examining in greater detail.

Also on the subject of rail, proposed amendments in Bill C-11 involve the expansion of the provisions on railway line transfers and discontinuances to cover rail corridors, such as spurs and sidings, in urban areas that could be used for urban transit purposes.

As members may know, I have long been a strong proponent and advocate of public urban transit. In fact , right here in the city of Ottawa I was pleased to help deliver $200 million of federal funding to expand our own O-Train.

Steps that we can take to improve public transit and advance the use of rail in Canadian cities are worthwhile undertakings. Giving a right of refusal for urban transit authorities to purchase rail that would otherwise be abandoned is very good public policy. That is why two previous Liberal ministers of transport have tried to pass the legislation through the House.

On a related subject, I am also frustrated with the government's ill-informed tax break on public transit passes.

Many riders, as we know, do not have monthly or yearly passes to use public transit. In fact, many users forgo passes for the flexibility of tickets. The most needy riders simply do not have the wherewithal to buy an annual pass. Studies that were shown to the Minister of Finance before he took his decision to make transit passes tax deductible, and brought to his attention by his own officials, demonstrated that tax deductible transit passes did not encourage increasing ridership and did not have the corollary intended effect of substantial greenhouse gas reductions that the government purported they should have. The cost per tonne of GHG reduction through these transit passes is exorbitantly high. This again speaks to the pattern of the government of never letting the evidence get in the way of governing by tax credit.

The Conservatives should have spent the budget money on better infrastructure and lower rates for all users.

However, getting back to Bill C-11, if these amendments mean more urban rail, then I say that we should take a look.

The minister has asserted that Bill C-11 would bring clarity in airfare advertising by giving the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to regulate advertised pricing of airfares. The goal, of course, is to indicate all fees, all charges and all taxes collected by the airline on behalf of a government body or an airport authority. It must also disclose the price of an airline ticket for both domestic and international travel.

If these provisions, which are also inherited from our Bill C-44, ultimately help everyday Canadians to more readily understand and determine the total cost of a travelling ticket and the terms and conditions that apply to its purchase, then I will welcome them on behalf of my constituents who, as consumers, face a barrage of misleading information, often from the travel sector.

Bill C-11 would create a mediation process for disputes concerning federal transportation matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Agency.

The member for Outremont, as Minister of Transport, delivered legislative language to this House on this for us because mediation is less litigious and therefore quicker and cheaper and ultimately leads to friendlier resolutions in transportation disagreements.

Bill C-11 would add security to the list of purposes for which transportation data can be collected by the minister. This is an expansion of the minister's powers that was fiercely resisted by the Canadian Alliance the last time it was debated and fiercely by the Prime Minister the last time it was debated.

As someone who witnessed the events of 9/11 as a visitor in Washington D.C. on the morning that those awful events occurred, I am open to considering such measures. We need to give our government the tools to protect us in the event of threats to Canadian life that are meticulously planned and malicious.

However, I recognize that this provision sets off alarm bells for many actors in Canadian society, not least because it would allow the minister to set administrative monetary penalties for individuals or companies that do not supply data that the minister might request.

As I indicated earlier, the onus is on the minister to justify this expansion of his powers to all Canadians. I look forward to the explanations from the minister about the import of certain other provisions as well. Let me briefly outline some of them.

Bill C-11 would reduce the number of members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five. We just heard the minister state that this would lead to cost savings. I would be looking for the numbers. If we move from seven part time members to five full time members now resident in the Ottawa area, I would like to see the numbers to substantiate this claim that it will amount to cost savings while at the same time the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency is being seriously expanded.

Our proposal was to streamline the agency in Bill C-44 and it could have been law by now. The minister will have to explain to Canadians why fewer members can do the job better than the seven who are currently endorsed, while the mandate of the agency is being expanded in the act.

Bill C-11 would allow Transport Canada to review mergers and acquisitions in all federal transportation sectors, not just airlines as our Bill C-44 planned in the last Parliament. This is a very large discretionary power, a power that is being invested in the minister and in the government. I imagine that the government would say that it is necessary to protect the national interest. However, it is a provision with economic consequences. I would ask the minister to outline his rationale for this incursion, for this disturbance, for this fettering of the market. It is unusual to hear a Conservative government speak of fettering the marketplace, particularly as it expands into the precious area of mergers and acquisitions.

Bill C-11 would require companies to set a process for complaints against their railway police constables under the Railway Safety Act. This too was part of our inspirational predecessor Bill C-44. It refers to the creation of an internal complaints process rather than a government process or board of some sort. Is an internal process up to the job? The minister has not addressed the question at all. By demanding that records be kept it should permit us to retrace the facts and timeline of any complaints.

One area that has attracted public attention and will inevitably require the government's thorough explanation is the elimination of the post of Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Many Canadians will recall that this position was introduced by the Liberal government in 2000 with the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

Bill C-11 would officially merge the complaints process into the mainstream of the Canadian Transportation Agency dropping the more autonomous ombudsman-like position which heretofore found its way into the office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Why? We have supported this position in the past and we may be prepared to do so again but not without a full and frank examination of the point.

Bill C-11 is composed of amendments that are the fruit of extensive consultations that our government conducted to update the legislative framework of our national transportation system. The way that Bill C-11 is currently written, the minister would be required to report on the state of Canadian transportation every three years and carry out a new statutory review of the Canadian Transportation Act eight years after Bill C-11 enters into force.

All of this being said, I must wrap up on a note of disappointment. Section 43 of Bill C-11 alludes to a major reversal in policy, a decision taken early on by the minister that has rightly upset farmers right across our Canadian western provinces.

The Government of Canada made a commitment in 1996 to transfer the federal fleet of hopper cars to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. The final commitment was signed in the fall of 2005 but the Conservative government has now reneged. We have no explanation and no understanding. The minister spoke moments ago about cost savings and about a net saving of $2 per tonne of material shipped. No evidence has been presented to the House and I see no evidence at committee. I am looking forward to hearing why it is the government has reneged and why farmers continue to pay more than is necessary to ship their product.

My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, has mounted a passionate opposition. We will hear from him again on this subject in due course.

I do commend the government for reintroducing many of our forward looking transport measures in this 39th parliament. For the most part, with Bill C-11 the minister has again lent credence to that old literary maxim that goes something like this, “sometimes good writers borrow, but great writers steal”.

I wish to be clear that there are significant new provisions in the bill. As such, I look forward to working with hon. colleagues from all parties to properly and thoroughly examine and revise Bill C-11 in committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the minister on his presentation about Bill C-11.

Perhaps I could ask the transport minister to think back to his career in the municipal arena. I say this because clause 29 refers to noise. I would just like to explain to the minister that whole communities are experiencing serious problems with marshalling yards.

In reality, as we know, federal law takes precedence over provincial law and even municipal laws. As the clause is written, when determining whether a company is making excessive noise, the Transportation Agency is limited by the company's obligations and operational requirements. This is therefore related to how the company operates and what constitutes reasonable noise. Municipalities do not work in this way. A municipality would have set standards to obey, with decibel levels.

I would simply like the minister to send an important message, especially to the Transportation Agency, to avoid the tendency to target industry practices and instead make sure the industry can adapt to the surrounding area. Clearly, it is important to ensure that the Transportation Agency plays more than just a mediation role. Cooperation has to be facilitated, and in the end it has to be possible to impose standards when the industry does not want to listen. In many places, mitigation measures have been taken and discussions have been held with the companies in operation. But the parties do not reach an agreement, because there is too much noise for the surrounding area.

I would therefore like the minister to tell us that he will keep abreast of this situation and will make it clear to the Transportation Agency that steps must be taken to solve the noise problem.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for appearing this morning and sharing with us the salient features of Bill C-11. There are obviously many questions from members here that run through the essential elements of the bill.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister on being here this morning. We have not seen him for a few weeks, even though the important issue of security at the Montreal airport has been under discussion. This is a rather disturbing issue for Canadians.

It is important to raise a couple of core points before responding officially to the government's bill.

I have a couple of pointed questions for the minister that deal with what is not in the bill as opposed to what is in the bill. I do also at the same time congratulate the minister for his candour in reminding the House of Commons that the vast majority of this legislation is in fact legislation from our previous government. There was an awful lot of heavy lifting done by government officials and all members of the House, but I do want to give him those kudos because it does take great big shoulders to admit that the lion's share of the work here was accomplished by previous governments.

There are two pointed questions I want to put to him. First, if I understand the bill correctly, this bill provides new powers to the minister and the government to devolve further the responsibility for federally regulated railways, and this at a time when the government represents a government which strictly interprets the Constitution and responsibilities. Is that the case?

Second, there is no talk at all in the bill about final offer arbitration, a very contentious issue. I would like to ask the minister for his views in this regard. Why is final offer arbitration not addressed in the bill?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-11 which contains proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. Many of the clauses in Bill C-11 are taken from omnibus legislation tabled by previous governments which never passed despite repeated attempts. Bill C-11 is strategic in selecting high priority items, like powers to address railway noise, ensure proper advertisement of airfares and facilitating commuter rail for quick passage.

Bill C-11 is the second transport bill I have selected for second reading because it addresses high priority issues that were not addressed by previous governments. The current bill contains amendments to the Canada Transportation Act related to the general provisions, air provisions, rail passenger provisions, railway noise and grain revenue cap. Some of these issues were raised by members in the House during the second reading debate on Bill C-3. I am sure those members will be pleased that we are proceeding with the proposed amendments.

The government plans to table a third bill soon on amendments to the rail freight provisions of the act. These amendments will reflect the views heard during a final round of consultations with shippers to develop as much consensus as possible. The government has assured shippers that it takes their concerns very seriously and will be proceeding with a third bill on a priority basis.

I would now like to focus on Bill C-11, which aims to strike a balance between the interests of communities, consumers, commuters, public transit companies, and air and rail carriers.

We believe that these changes will translate into a better strategic framework, which will help Canada achieve its economic and environmental objectives, increase the efficiency of its transportation system and improve the quality of life of Canadians, especially those living in urban areas.

The proposed amendments include a modernized and simplified national transportation policy statement, which sets out the guiding principles in a way that is simpler and clearer than in the past.

The statement provides direction and guidelines for possible action plans, along with information on how to process complaints and arbitration applications submitted to the Canadian Transportation Agency. The improvements made to this statement are intended to address the concerns expressed by shippers.

Bill C-11 contains a number of provisions related to the role and structure of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The number of full time members of the agency would be reduced from seven to five, all of whom would be located at the agency in the National Capital Region. I believe that the efficiency of the agency would be increased if all members were located at the agency on a full time basis. This would be more consistent with the nature of the agency's decision making processes, which normally require more than one member to sign off on decisions, orders and findings.

At the same time, the concentration of members at the agency office in the same location makes it possible to reduce the number of members to five. This is not only an efficient measure; it would bring financial savings as well.

The proposed amendments would give the agency the statutory authority to engage in mediation upon request on matters within its jurisdiction. The amendments would ensure the adequate safeguards are in place to maintain its quasi-judicial role.

Mediation solutions can be simpler, quicker and less litigious and costly than other options. The lines of communication between parties during mediation typically contribute to a healthy commercial relationship after disputes are resolved. In addition, mediated agreements have higher commitment levels as parties jointly craft solutions and the process can assist in narrowing the gaps on disputed issues if brought before the agency at a later date.

Bill C-11 also provides for new measures designed to protect air passengers.

The government realizes that Canadians want to know the real price of a plane ticket in airline advertising. It would like the prices advertised for air transportation to be clear and transparent, and not misleading. The airlines have listened to consumers and taken major steps to guarantee greater transparency in their advertising. At the same time, consumers wish to make sure that the industry will continue on the right track.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-11authorize the minister to make regulations that would apply to all media, as necessary. The Air Travel Complaints Commissioner’s Office was created as a temporary, transitional measure in 2000, following the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International. Bill C-11 would replace the temporary function of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner with a permanent, transparent function imposed by the law for handling complaints about air transportation. This activity would be part of the regular activities of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The government recognizes the importance of the air travel complaints program for Canadians. Thanks to the amendments under study, Canadians will still be able to address their air travel complaints to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will improve the framework for passenger rail service in Canada by allowing commuter rail operators and VIA Rail Canada to seek adjudication from the agency if they are unable to reach agreement with the railways on access to track and other services when new agreements are negotiated or existing agreements renegotiated.

In addition the line transfer and abandonment provisions will be extended to include urban corridor and urban transit authorities. Bill C-11 will give the agency the authority to settle noise disputes if voluntary efforts are not successful. The agency will be able to order a railway to make the necessary changes in order to reduce unreasonable noise levels associated with railway operation or construction.

Governments need access to good data to help develop and assess transportation policies and programs. The existing data provisions in the Canada Transportation Act will improve to add security as a purpose for which I can collect data. The amendments will also expand the list of stakeholders from whom data can be gathered and improve on the administrative penalties that can be applied if reporting requirements are not met.

The amendments in Bill C-11would introduce a new merger review procedure, which would apply to all carriers and service providers under federal jurisdiction, for example, air, rail and maritime transport, bus and truck transportation, and airports and seaports.

This approach would build on the strong points of the merger review process now in place for airline companies.

This process was put in place with the amendments made to the Canada Transportation Act in 2000 as a result of the issues of public interest raised by the acquisition of Canadian Airlines International by Air Canada. This new mechanism replaced the requirements of the Competition Act respecting merger reviews.

Here are the chief elements of the proposed provision respecting mergers:

Merger applicants must address specific issues in the new merger review guidelines.

I will be authorized to appoint someone to review the proposed transaction if the proposal raises enough issues with respect to the public interest as it relates to national transportation.

The provision provides for a single government decision to be made so as to avoid duplication. I will handle public interest concerns, and the competition commissioner will look at competition concerns.

The proposed amendments include a new provision that authorizes me to enter into an agreement with a provincial authority under which the provincial authority would regulate a federal railway.

One other main element of the previous Bill C-44 that I would like to explain is a proposed new provision on the grain revenue cap, which limits the amount of revenue that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway can earn from regulated grain movements in western Canada. The provision is linked to the costs of maintaining hopper cars for such movements. On May 4, I announced that the government would retain its fleet of 12,100 grain hopper cars in order to maximize benefits for farmers and taxpayers.

There is a provision in Bill C-11 that would enable me to make a one time only request to the agency to adjust the revenue caps to reflect the current maintenance costs for all hopper cars used in regulated grain movements. This will more closely align the costs in the revenue caps with the actual costs of maintaining the hopper cars in revenue cap service. Estimates show potential savings for farmers of approximately $2 per tonne or about $50 million per year based on an average movement of about 25 million tonnes.

I also want to explain the proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act. They are fairly straightforward. The Canada Transportation Act authorizes federally regulated railways to establish and operate their own police forces. CNR and CPR maintain police forces as do provincial railways and transit authorities. The duties of railway police constables relate to the protection of property owned or administered by the company, and of the persons and equipment on that property. Only a judge of a superior court, upon the application of a railway, is allowed to appoint, dismiss or discharge railway police constables. The power to appoint police constables is being moved from the CTA to the Railway Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act deals with matters pertaining to the safety and security of railways, making it a more appropriate statutory authority to deal with railway police.

In addition, amendments to the Railway Safety Act will require that the railways establish an independent review mechanism for responding to public complaints against railway police. The review mechanism will be filed with me for approval.

In closing, I want to reiterate that Bill C-11 is consistent with the government's legislative strategy for amending the Canada Transportation Act. The strategy is to proceed with amendments that stakeholders are already demanding, have awaited for several years, and that reflect extensive consultations and consensus building.

I believe that the proposals contained in this bill will have strong support from stakeholders and that they look forward to early passage of the bill. I encourage all members to give Bill C-11 their full endorsement.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)