Bill C-26 (Historical)

Transportation Amendment Act

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Canada Transportation Act

[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]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot more than 15 seconds. I am glad to see that the hon. member has a good sense of humour as well. I guess it is about 8:15 p.m. and if the hon. member did have a sense of humour it must have run down a track at an awfully fast rate.

At any rate, the hon. member would know of course that we had the bill before. What we have been talking about are amendments to the bill, of course, in terms of substance for railway safety, railway efficiency, and talking about the way to move forward in terms of building an infrastructure that is consistent with Canada's needs not only for today but for tomorrow and to ensure that the mechanisms and the technology that is in place is consistent with the expectations of the Canadian public.

There is a lot more than the member would be able to understand in the few short seconds that she felt she needed to express her disappointment that she did not get everything that she wanted to get tonight.

The member might have followed the debate when it was held in the House at second reading, when it went through report stage and when it went into third reading. She might even have expressed an interest during committee.

It only lasted about six months, so in 15 seconds I would say that we never have to apologize for having taken care of the people's needs, people's safety, people's future and people's sense of progress and forward looking.

That is why we introduced Bill C-26 and that is why we were pleased to support this bill. That is why the members in the other place made the amendments they made consistent with all of those ideals to move this forward.

Some would say some of those people are unelected, but there was cooperation between Conservatives and Liberals. Even though they were upset, they were outnumbered two to one, they agreed that this was something that should happen.

The parliamentary secretary reflected the support that Conservative members gave to this amendment. Therefore I thank them all.

The hon. member wants to have a lesson on what is in the bill, no problem. She can call my staff and we will give her a seminar.

[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.

[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.

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech today with a brief outline of the legislative history of Bill C-3, a very important bill to Canadians regarding the safety and security of this nation and the transportation of goods across our borders. This includes the developments while the bill was considered in the Senate.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities introduced the bill to the House of Commons on April 24, 2006. Members may remember that at that time the bill borrowed heavily from two predecessor bills, Bill C-26 and Bill C-44, both of which were put forward by the previous Liberal government but both of which actually died on the order paper. Those previous bills dealt with amendments to the Canadian Transportation Act and included the addition of new provisions for international bridges and tunnels, which are very important to our nation.

The House Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities discussed Bill C-3 at five of its meetings. An amendment to the bill was made by the committee concerning the minister's powers with respect to the setting of toll rates. During the third reading stage, further amendments were made to the bill adding clauses dealing with consultations with other levels of government, especially municipalities.

All members of the House are aware that the government is concerned about stakeholders and listens to stakeholders, especially those stakeholders, such as municipalities, and those levels of government. The bill was then passed in the House on June 22, 2006. Bill C-3 was read for the first time in the Senate on that very same day. Again in the Senate, the second reading debate was completed on October 24 2006, and the bill was referred to the Senate standing committee on transport and communications for considerations.

The Senate committee met a total of seven times to study the bill and it heard a lot of testimony. It heard testimony from the Minister of Transport and Transport Canada officials. As well, it heard testimony from four stakeholders in particular: the Bridge and Tunnels Operators Association; the City of Windsor, to which this bill is very important as it is important to its citizens; the Canadian Transit Company, the owner and operator of the Ambassador Bridge; and the teamsters union. These are the same stakeholders who appeared before the House Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities when we were studying the bill. They were very informative and provided us with a lot of very valuable information.

The Minister of Transport told the Senate how supportive the majority of the stakeholders were with this initiative and how important this bill was to Canadians regarding safety, security and transportation of goods. He indicated that the government had demonstrated its willingness to consider stakeholder input at all times and that it was very important for the government to listen to stakeholders and implement their needs if they meet the needs and priorities of Canadians.

The House of Commons did amend the bill in response to concerns raised by a municipal government.

During its clause by clause review of the bill, the Senate standing committee on transport and communications made five technical amendments. The amendments were to ensure consistency between the English and French versions of certain sections that had been previously amended by the House at third reading. Another important thing that the government does is it listens to the communication issues that we have in our great country.

The bill was passed in the Senate on December 12, 2006. In Canada there are 24 vehicle and 9 railway bridges and tunnels that link our country to the United States. No one needs to hear how important our trade with the United States is to Canadians and how important it is to have a border that our citizens can cross back and forth to encourage trade between our nations and the relationship of our nation.

Of the bridges that carry vehicle traffic, 14 of them are located in Ontario, 9 in New Brunswick and 1 in Quebec. The rail bridges and tunnels are all located in Ontario except for one which is located in New Brunswick.

The bill, when enacted, will be the very first law to apply to all of Canada's international bridges and tunnels. It took the Conservative government to take this initiative and follow it through.

Bill C-3 contains several themes. First, the bill declares that these bridges and tunnels “to be works for the general advantage of Canada”. Therefore, it reinforces the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to these structures as stipulated in the Constitution and reinforces the government's priority on the safety and security of Canadians.

Second, the proposed act would also require governmental approval for construction or alteration of new and existing bridges and tunnels, which is because it is so important. It would also require governmental approval for all sales or transfers affecting the ownership and control of these international bridges and tunnels, another important first by the government.

Finally, the bill would authorize the government to make regulations regarding bridge maintenance and repair, safety and security, and operation and use. These regulations are very important to those people using the bridges and tunnels.

Passage of this bill would not be the end but simply the beginning of more work in this area. It marks the first step that a Conservative government had to take the initiative on to actually implement.

Government officials would also need to develop guidelines for the approval or alteration of international bridges and tunnels. They would need to begin the regulatory process and consultations with stakeholders would again take place so that these regulations reflect the intention of the bill and the intention of we in the House of Commons and the Senate.

During the debate on this bill we often heard that the development of regulations was a lengthy process. I and Canadians would urge departmental officials to begin work immediately so that we do not leave these bridges and tunnel structures vulnerable to the safety and security matters that are so important in this post-9/11 world.

I would like to thank all members of the House and of the Senate for their great work on this bill. I would also like to thank the members of the transport committee, with which I was personally involved, for all their work in getting it through so quickly.

I would like to especially thank Madam Bacon, chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, for her leadership during the Senate standing committee meetings. The discussions in this committee were very candid and thought provoking and helped us push this agenda through. I appreciate the committee's diligence in making several technical amendments so that the French and English text better reflect each other and the consistency of what we in the House of Commons intended.

I would also like to thank the stakeholders who appeared before both the House and the Senate committees: the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association, the City of Windsor, the Canadian Transit Company and the teamsters, all members of which are very important. The contribution of stakeholders who are directly on the ground, who would be tremendously impacted by this legislation, is very important for all bills that we pass through the House. The significance of their contribution highlights how this bill would affect them and their membership.

I believe the passage of this bill will serve Canadians and our international visitors well by ensuring that our international bridges and tunnels remain safe and secure.

I would encourage my colleagues to pass this bill, as amended by the Senate, so that the government can proceed with drafting the guidelines and regulations authorized by it.

As everyone in the House and most people who are listening today know, sections 92.10 and 91 of the Constitution give exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government for international bridges and tunnels. Despite this exclusive legislative authority, no law up to now in the history of Canada has ever been adopted that applies to international bridges and tunnels. It took this Conservative government, this Prime Minister and this minister to get it to the point that it is at today. I am proud to be a part of a government that gets so much work done for Canadians.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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, 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, 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.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois. This motion simply asks the Prime Minister to leave office as soon as possible after November 14, 2003, for the good of the government.

I would like to give a very striking example. I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport. This committee has felt the impact of a change in direction by the members of the party in power, the Liberal Party. In effect, the Liberals on the committee were mostly pro-Prime Minister, that is pro member from Shawinigan. Obviously, after we returned from the break last January, there had been a change. Those who favoured the member for LaSalle—Émard had taken control.

The Transport Committee actually did some work then, because there was the airline crisis to deal with. It submitted a unanimous report, agreed to by all members of the committee. Finally, the report was flatly rejected by the government. None of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport were retained by the government.

The recommendations were intended to help the industry. They included reducing airport rents. They included lowering the tax on aviation fuel in order to help the industries. They also included completely abolishing the airport security tax. It was a unanimous report. It was completely rejected by the Department of Transport. It is well known that the Minister of Transport is a supporter of the member for Shawinigan. That is recognized here in the House. In fact, he is the person whom the Prime Minister trusts to lead the Department of Transport.

But now, since the month of September, since we returned to the House, nothing at all is happening in the Transport Committee. There are two bills, C-26 and C-27. I predict that they will not be passed by this House because the committee and the Liberal committee members who support the member for LaSalle—Émard have decided that these bills are not to their liking.

So, discussions will go on. We have more than 60 witnesses to hear on Bill C-26. I am giving this example and I believe the hon. members know why. In Bill C-26 there is one part, part 3 of the bill, which establishes the new VIA Rail company.

For example, the Minister of Transport announced several times officially a new rapid rail service along the Quebec City-Montreal-Windsor corridor. Obviously, it was his baby. He wanted this to happen. Since the team headed by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard came to the Standing Committee on Transport, it is clear that the members of this team are opposed to any investments in rail transportation. They do not want this project to happen. Obviously, they are using all the means at their disposal so this bill will not be adopted.

The Minister of Transport announced that this bill was on hold. This morning, against all expectations, the Minister of Transport appeared before our committee. We expected instead to hear from government officials about budget increases. The minister arrived. He was nice enough to answer all our questions, like any other minister at the end of his mandate, meaning a minister who knows he will not be Minister of Transport much longer, in a new government.

He quite openly answered all our questions. As for VIA Rail and the Quebec City-Montreal, Montreal-Windsor rapid rail service, I want to quote him to make sure that his words are understood, “I am keeping this option for the next government”.

That was what he said. That is what the Minister of Transport said about a matter concerning Quebec and also, no doubt, Ontario. It concerned the implementation of this important corridor and rapid rail service between Quebec City-Montreal-Windsor. This is important to Quebec. Why? Because Quebec City and Montreal are tourist destinations, as are the other destinations along the corridor, including Trois-Rivières. It is important so that we can attract tourists, particularly Americans. It is important so that they can travel quickly by train so we can try to promote tourism. This is an important project.

In response to my questions, the minister said that cabinet did not support him and added that the current government—and he said the name of the current Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice—could not afford to invest several hundreds of millions of dollars, that we would have to wait for the next government.

Why would there not be a motion in this House today dealing with this current issue, when even the Minister of Transport tells us to wait for the next government for major investments? I am saying this because the journalists are asking for the minutes. There will be talk about it tomorrow. That is the reality. The reality is that the government is paralyzed. We are waiting for the next government.

What should we tell our constituents in Quebec, those who are hoping for a Quebec City-Montreal-Windsor rapid rail service? What do we say to those who would also like there to be a Montreal-Boston corridor to attract American tourists to enjoy the sights of Quebec and the rest of Canada? What do we say to them? We are waiting for the next government.

The point we are trying to make in this House is that we want to see the next government as soon as possible. We want the current leader of the government, the member for Saint-Maurice, to step down after November 14, and no longer be the leader of the government. It is as simple as that. We should not have to go through what we went through today, where government decisions are blocked and delayed because we are waiting for a new government.

It is not just any member who made that statement. I am not quoting Liberal backbenchers. It was the Minister of Transport talking about a current issue, and what he said was “I am keeping this option for the next government”.

Again, this is unacceptable to us. Quebec needs as much investment as possible to develop tourism, among other things. I need hardly tell you how difficult this past year was for the tourism industry. We all know it.

After the war in Iraq, the number of American tourists decreased. And SARS also had a negative impact on the number of foreign tourists. We need to do everything we can to create projects that will attract tourists. For example, we could reduce the waiting time to travel to Quebec City, Montreal, Trois-Rivières, the Drummondville area and all the most beautiful places in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. This is a current issue that needs to be discussed.

Today, in the Standing Committee on Transport, this issue was totally swept aside for the simple reason that the present government is unable to commit funds. We have to wait for the new government, or at least that is what the transport minister said.

It is just as if we were waiting for the next election. It makes no sense. It makes no sense that we do not even have the support of Liberal members. When they hear that, they should understand very quickly that the point is not to have a new government. If they want a new government, they just have to call an election immediately after November 14. Otherwise, nothing will get done until next spring, until the member for LaSalle—Émard takes over as head of the government. That is the reality.

I am aware that, like my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, some committees can go about their work. They scrutinize the former administration. But as far as I know, the sponsorship program has been put forward by the former finance minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. They would have us believe that he will do away with the sponsorship program, but he is the one who set it up.

We should be consistent. I hope a few Liberal members, at least in Quebec, will demonstrate some consistency. And I hope they listen to what their constituents have to say.

The federal government has a lot of money, as we saw again yesterday. The news has been repeated today. The budget surplus stands at $7 billion instead of the forecast $3 billion. Important decisions should be made. If all the ministers say the present government cannot make commitments of millions of dollars because they have to wait for another government, it means the government will stay put until next spring, and that the economy in Quebec and the rest of Canada will be paralyzed.

I am not surprised that the unemployment rate is rising, for the simple reason that Liberal members are unable to take their responsibilities. Otherwise they would vote with us for this motion so that we would have a new leader, so that the government would keep doing its work, and so that the present Prime Minister would leave office after November 14.

Main Estimates 2003-04

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of the $9 million going back into VIA Rail. I will acknowledge that one of the few times I made the mistake of not going to a committee meeting, the committee made what I saw as a horrendous mistake in suggesting that VIA Rail have its $9 million cut, and for a variety of reasons.

My colleague from the Conservatives has asked why VIA Rail needs this money and said it will possibly be giving some competition to a private company. He asked why, if passenger numbers are up and revenues are up, it needs the dollars. He does not have the advantage of having been on the transportation committee for the number of years that I have been there, and he probably does not have the advantage of having VIA Rail service in his riding like I do in one of what I consider probably the few remote areas that VIA Rail still serves. It is an absolute need that VIA Rail passenger service is there because there is no other land access into these communities.

I live in the Churchill riding in Manitoba. We have rail service from Winnipeg all the way up to Churchill and along that way we do not have a tourism train on the line. There is great tourism all along the way and up to Churchill, but the bottom line is that along that route are communities that do not have any access other than rail. It brings us back to the early days of the nation, when the train was there to bring the nation together. Over time we have had roads put in place so people maybe do not see the same need for rail service. Quite frankly, I think that because we have coast to coast rail service, although we do not have it in as many areas as we used to, we have an advantage going into the future, the advantage of a nation that already has those tracks in place. When we are trying to put in place good environmental transportation processes we have the rail service and I think we have to maintain it.

VIA Rail still operates much along the lines of a crown corporation. In Bill C-26, an act that was to come before Parliament, which our transportation committee wanted to travel on but was not able to, there were going to be some changes to VIA. The bottom line is there is a real need for VIA Rail. There is a need throughout the country, but especially in communities in which it is the only access.

Like a lot of services, when there are not huge populations travelling on that service it is more costly to operate, but quite frankly I think the people in those remote communities deserve that right of access, the same way those who got the additional highway right of access throughout the country have it, paid for by taxpayers' dollars in a good many instances. I believe that Canadians are willing to support VIA Rail passenger service into those areas and also to continue supporting VIA Rail service throughout the country.

I just want to mention one of the other issues that I think was important in restoring this funding to VIA Rail. A number of cars were purchased from the U.K. to be used by VIA Rail. It seemed like a steal of a deal, but they did not meet the same safety standards and the same stress and strength requirements for the cars. They did not meet the needs of accessibility for the disabled. Some changes had to be made to the cars as a result of security and the placement of certain facilities within the cars. As a result, it has become an endeavour that is a bit more costly than was intended and that is part of the cost, I believe, for this need for the additional dollars for VIA Rail. Quite frankly I am willing to put additional dollars into VIA Rail if it means accessibility for the disabled, if it means safe cars on the tracks and if it means improved security. I think there is a need to do this.

Throughout the VIA Rail system there is a variety of different cars, some old, some new, and some quite old. Some of the quite old ones end up going into those remote communities. It would be great to have even newer cars and better service in those areas, but what has had to happen is a decrease in that service as dollars became tight and companies were not able to continue there. There have been cuts. I want to see those cuts end and I want more improved service.

My colleague from the Alliance mentioned the Rocky Mountaineer, a privatized company. I have had the pleasure of riding on the Rocky Mountaineer and it is a great service. It is a great service, but it is also not the most cost affordable service if one has to travel by train on a regular basis. If people are on holiday and it is a tourism type of thing where they are going to get on the train and enjoy the mountains, it is great, there is no question about it, but it certainly is not accessible to people on an everyday basis. It is not affordable. I appreciated the service and thought it was great, but for the most part it is a tourism service.

If Rocky Mountaineer or another private company were to expand and go into purely tourism areas along the passenger rail line, I would see it like taking the cream off the milk. They will take the cream and that is all they are going to look after. They will leave the rest. Then someone else has to figure out how we are going to support the rest of the system. In my riding, the rest of the system is the communities for which that is their only land access. It is their only affordable access to get out of those communities and to get supplies for our fishermen in the area: by getting access to the trains going along there. Sometimes there is cargo aligned with the passenger train just to have the accessibility for the fishermen to get their fish stocks out to market. That is the reality of what happens in other parts of Canada when we get outside the urban areas.

It is extremely important that as a nation we continue to support VIA Rail and we continue to be willing to put the additional dollars into areas of remote access service. Quite frankly, there are areas of Atlantic Canada that lost rail service.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain acts of Canada and to enact measures for implementing the biological and toxin weapons convention, in order to enhance public safety, otherwise known as the public safety act.

Our party will be reluctantly supporting Bill C-17 for two reasons. First, the events of September 11, 2001, have made legislation like Bill C-17 necessary. The United States, western Europe and most, if not all, of our major allies have adopted similar legislation as modern democracies attempt to deal with the terrorist threat from faceless cowards. To the extent that this type of legislation is necessary, I will support it.

Second, even as I support it, I must call on the government to adopt a higher standard both in the quality of legislation that it puts forward and in its willingness to be accountable to Parliament. In fact, it could be said that Bill C-17 and its predecessors are symptoms of what is wrong with the way Liberals govern our country.

If the true measure of a man is what he does rather than what he says, then the measure of a country must be in part its reaction to times of trial and stress. In the United States, 10 days after the September 11 attack, Senator Fritz Hollings was on his feet to introduce America's response, S.1447, a bill to improve aviation security, and for other purposes. With lightning speed, and despite an anthrax scare on Capitol Hill, both the house of congress and the senate quickly passed the legislation and President Bush signed it on November 19, 2001.

Members should think about this. Capitol Hill was under fire from all sides, yet dialogue happened. Politicians of different parties built a consensus on how a superpower would respond to a terrorist threat on its own soil and make its citizens feel safe.

In 1968, in his book Toward a Psychology of Being , Abraham Maslow identified his famous hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, love, esteem and self actualization. The second of these is safety, otherwise known as security needs, and it is one of the few that the state can provide in a concrete way. United States governments of all political stripes have long understood that their first duty is to protect the safety security of their citizens and so when September 11 happened, Capitol Hill acted with a speed that was nearly dizzying.

A bill was proposed and amended. The house of representatives and the senate concurred and the President signed his approval. The whole process lasted a mere 10 weeks. During that same 10 weeks the Liberal government slept. In fact, it was a full three days after President Bush signed the U.S. law that the Liberal government tabled the first version of the public safety act, then called Bill C-42, on November 22.

Bill C-42 immediately drew fire from all sides. However, rather than seeking to build the kind of consensus that would allow a nation to respond quickly to a new threat, the government hid. The bill never went to any committee and was withdrawn April 24, 2002. Then, five days later, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-42's replacement, Bill C-55.

I have long believed that people in government should learn from their mistakes. One of Bill C-42's problems had been its complexity. It would have amended or introduced legislation affecting 10 federal departments. It was so complex that the portion giving airlines the legal authority to share reservations information with foreign governments had to be hived off into another bill, Bill C-44, so that some of the more useful clauses could get quick passage.

Bill C-55 showed that the Liberal government had learned little. It would have amended or introduced 19 federal statutes affecting some nine federal departments. In fact, Bill C-55 was so complex that a special committee was struck on May 9, 2002, solely for the purpose of studying it. That committee never met. Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper on September 16, 2002, when Parliament prorogued.

Given the speed with which the U.S. passed its legislation and given that most, if not all, of our major allies had similar legislation, one would think that passing Bill C-55 would have been a priority.

Certainly if we listen to the Minister of Transport he will tell us that Bill C-26, the transportation amendment act, is high priority. In fact, it is so high priority that he does not want the transport committee to travel when it studies that bill. The transportation amendment act is high priority, but on September 16, 2002 when Parliament prorogued, the public safety act was not.

Let me refer back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Safety is number two. Transport is not on the list, but transport rather than safety is a higher priority for the government.

The fact that Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper on September 16, 2002, almost a year to the day of the crises that spawned its creation, one gets a clear sense that while America was implementing tough new legislation to make its skies safer, Canada's Liberal government not only did not know what it was doing, but it had no idea of where to start.

In fact, the current legislation, Bill C-17, was not tabled in the House until some six weeks later, on October 31, 2002, fully 13 months after the September 11 attacks, and nearly 11 months after President Bush signed America's aviation and transportation security act into legislation as public law 107-71.

It is now May 27, 2003 and this bill is at third reading. Two things become evident very quickly. The first is that the government is under increasing pressure to be seen to be doing something, or in some case to be acting. The other is that it is terrified of real consultation and only accepts amendments when it has no other choice.

We see an example of the pressure that the government faced in the way it handled the sharing of airline passenger reservations systems information with various government agencies.

We are aware that part 1 of Bill C-17 introduces new clauses into the Aeronautics Act allowing the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the persons they designate, to require certain passenger information from air carriers and operators of aviation reservation systems, to be used and disclosed for transportation security purposes; national security investigations relating to terrorism; situations of immediate threat to the life or safety of a person; the enforcement of arrest warrants for offences punishable by five years or more of imprisonment and that are specified in the regulations; and arrest warrants under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Extradition Act.

The government has argued forcefully for these powers, yet it has dragged its feet in passing Bill C-17. In fact, the government has delayed for so long in passing the bill that some of the information-sharing clauses are now essentially moot.

Those clauses that would allow Canadian carriers to share information with foreign governments were contained in Bill C-44 which was introduced on November 28, 2001 and received royal assent three weeks later on December 18, 2001.

This timing was fortunate because one of the clauses of the U.S. law which was so quickly passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress in the aftermath of September 11 said that airlines would not be able to fly into the United States after January 18 unless they provided passenger reservations information to the U.S. customs service.

In Canada on October 7, 2002 the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency implemented its advance passenger information/passenger name record program that authorized airlines and passenger reservation systems to share information with various government agencies.

In the U.S. the government set an arbitrary deadline that this Liberal government had to scramble to meet. At the same time in Canada, a government department, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, essentially gave up on waiting for the government to act and used its existing and residual powers to implement its advance passenger information/passenger name record program three weeks before the government reintroduced Bill C-42 for the second time as Bill C-17.

If the passenger information issue shows the need for the government to act, the inexplosive ammunition component issue shows the need for the government to listen. The words “inexplosive ammunition component” first appeared in part 5 of Bill C-42, the first predecessor of Bill C-17, on November 22, 2001.

Within two months the Library of Parliament prepared a research paper pointing out the potential problems of regulating inexplosive ammunition components. Essentially as witnesses ultimately told the legislative committee on Bill C-17, regulating inexplosive ammunition components was tantamount to criminalizing brass and lead, or regulating little bits of margarine containers, little bits of cotton fabric and fishing sinkers.

Naturally our party hoped when the Liberals brought back Bill C-42 as Bill C-55 on April 29, 2002, that they had read the Library of Parliament report. They had not. On May 9, 2002, roughly a year ago today, the member for Yorkton--Melville told the House that the definition would potentially criminalize tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens who load their own ammunition for their legal pastime sports.

When Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper and was revived in slightly modified form as Bill C-17 on October 31, there were some who hoped that the Liberals had listened. They had not. On Monday, November 18, 2002 the member for Yorkton--Melville spoke to Bill C-17 at second reading and essentially repeated verbatim his May 9, 2002 comments on inexplosive ammunition components.

It might make it easier on the translators or perhaps those who maintain the Hansard if a member repeats a speech, but for me it is a way of underlining the complete lack of attention on the other side of the House to the opposition members and indeed the concerns that average everyday Canadians face from time to time. Even after having given the same speech twice, there was some doubt as to whether the Liberals had received the message about inexplosive ammunition components. The only thing I can confirm is that the term was deleted from Bill C-17 by the legislative committee studying the bill.

To the extent that the term “inexplosive ammunition component” was of considerable concern to many Canadians, the fact that the legislative committee deleted it makes Bill C-17 much more palatable to Canadians. However the fact that such a controversial and frankly unnecessary clause could have been in Bill C-17 and its predecessors from November 22, 2001 until May 7, 2003 shows Canadians a government whose ears and eyes are welded shut.

Another area where the government has shown no willingness to listen or to be accountable is interim orders. A very significant portion of Bill C-17 deals with interim orders. Ten parts of the bill amend various statutes to provide a new or expanded power permitting the responsible minister to make interim orders in situations where immediate action is required. Essentially the thinking behind interim orders is “trust me”, in other words “give me various undefined powers and when there is an emergency trust me to do the right thing”.

First, we cannot forget that the very same government that has taken more than 19 months to react to September 11 is the one now saying “trust me”. Second, we should not overlook the fact that if the government really knew what it was doing, it would define both its responsibilities and its powers in very clear language.

In the United States the U.S. aviation and transportation security act was drafted just in 10 days after September 11. Even then, while a shocked America pondered the unthinkable crisis that had just happened, American legislators knew that “trust me” was not going to cut it with the American public.

The U.S. aviation and transportation security act is specific. It delegates powers but it also assigns responsibilities. It contains deadlines. It specifies the amount of money that may be spent on particular initiatives. It sets management objectives and requires regular evaluations as well as audits. There is a clear understanding of who does what, why, when and with what authority. Checks and balances are present.

The U.S.aviation and transportation security act is a planned strategic response by a superpower to a defined threat. Canada in Bill C-17 uses interim orders while the U.S. uses specifics. The interim orders all follow a similar pattern. They allow a minister under certain circumstances to make an order that would normally have to be made by the governor in council. Thus, when the chips are down and cabinet cannot meet, an interim order lets a cabinet minister take actions that would normally need cabinet approval.

In most cases, in Bill C-17 the interim order has to be published in the Canada Gazette within 23 days, has to be approved by cabinet within 14 days, and expires at the end of the year. Similarly an interim order must be tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days after it has been made.

Before the special legislative committee on Bill C-17, members from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all tried to propose constructive amendments to the clauses of Bill C-17 dealing with interim orders. In the case of the 14 Canadian Alliance amendments, each was motivated by the spirit of the Emergencies Act. Its preamble reads in part:

Whereas the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;

And whereas the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times--

We therefore thought the standard of parliamentary scrutiny laid down in the Emergencies Act might be applicable to the type of situations in which interim orders might be made under Bill C-17.

Section 61 of the Emergencies Act reads:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), every order or regulation made by the Governor in Council pursuant to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament within two sitting days after it is made.

(2) Where an order or regulation made pursuant to this Act is exempted from publication in the Canada Gazette by regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act, the order or regulation, in lieu of being laid before each House of Parliament as required by subsection (1), shall be referred to the Parliamentary Review Committee within two days after it is made or, if the Committee is not then designated or established, within the first two days after it is designated or established.

Each of our 14 amendments was motivated by the same philosophy. If during an emergency the government can subject orders and regulations to parliamentary scrutiny within two sitting days after they are made, there is no reason that a lower standard should apply to Bill C-17.

The Canadian Alliance was not alone in this thinking. Both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois advanced a similar philosophy. It is my hope that the three parties might be able to agree on a common approach so that the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny may be offered to interim orders made by a government that wants us to trust it 18 months after September 11.

However, the Liberal desire to escape parliamentary scrutiny appears intractable. Rather than agree to any new restrictions on interim orders, the only interim orders amendment that the Liberal members proposed at committee was one adding new clause 111.1 to Bill C-17 so that interim orders would be included in the Pest Control Products Act in the event that the act would receive royal assent before Bill C-17.

Other countries use clear language to define its government's responsibilities and its powers. The Liberal government uses interim orders. Previous governments believed that the standards of the Emergencies Act applied when Canada was threatened by a national emergency. The Liberal government believes in a dramatically lower standard of parliamentary accountability.

I conclude that the government's continued use of interim orders instead of defining its roles and responsibilities in a very clear language shows its unwillingness to either propose better legislation or to be more accountable to Parliament. Even if Bill C-17 passes third reading, it is possible that it will not receive royal assent before October. Members should think about this carefully.

September 11 happened and the U.S. had a law signed by the president and in place on November 18, roughly two months later. Canada will not have its law in place until nearly two years have passed, which is simply unacceptable. If it takes a Liberal-dominated Parliament two years to react to a major crisis, that is a very strong argument for a change of government.

It is quite clear that the committee state version of Bill C-17 is a definite improvement over Bill C-42 as first presented 17 months ago. It is also clear that Bill C-17 type legislation is necessary today. We will therefore be supporting the bill while calling upon the government to hold itself to a higher standard, particularly when asked to show leadership in times of crisis.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I will not speak immediately on the social union, but I recognize its relevance. I have some ideas along those lines, but it she will permit, I will not talk about that right away.

When I was talking about an ombudsman, I was referring to Bill C-26, with which the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is very familiar. He did me the honour of coming to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve during the Easter break to meet the people who live on Moreau, Préfontaine and Wurtele streets. Part of that neighbourhood is in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, as well.

Bill C-26 will make it possible for the Canadian Transportation Agency to accept complaints from citizens who live in extremely worrisome situations with respect to noise that interferes with their quality of life.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will create a mediation process. This may not be enough. We would have liked to see something stronger, something more coercive. But since there was nothing before, I do not need to tell the House that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and myself, along with our constituents, were pleased to get this news, although that will not prevent us from suggesting amendments to Bill C-26, in order to go farther.

The member for Terrebonne—Blainville is correct in reminding us that Bill C-9 would create the position of Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator. This worries us, just as the amendment in clause 22 worries us, because it would give somewhat discretionary power to the Minister of the Environment.

I would like to read clause 22 of the bill to you, so there is no misunderstanding. No one will be able to accuse me of not quoting my sources properly.

Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5 is to be exercised or performed by a federal authority in relation to a project that is to be carried out in a province... the Minister may refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29—

—which will become section 46—

—for an assessment of the environmental effects of the project—

Therefore, in this clause, the federal government says that even in a province such as Quebec, for example, where there has been environmental assessment legislation for years, it could—exercising its own discretion—choose to duplicate that which already exists. That is the reason successive governments in the National Assembly—I mentioned Robert Bourassa's government earlier—have been opposed to this legislation.

As to the very sophisticated question of my very dear colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville on the social union, I sensed the influence of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who presented a motion on this very subject. Members are aware that the former Quebec premier, Lucien Bouchard, the founding president of our great political party, rejected the social union proposal because it set a very wide framework in which nothing would prevent the federal government from intruding into economic development, relations with natives and, of course, health, and seizing control of all there areas. That is precisely what is going on.

Again, I thank the hon. member for her question. The throne speech, coupled with the social union issue, opens the door to the government federal's poking its nose into just about everything.

I will give just one example, family law. Do members know that my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier has to fight tooth and nail in committee because, on the issue of divorce, they want to intrude in family law and gut the jurisdiction of the Quebec courts? I could go on and on giving examples that show that the social union agreement has set all the conditions for the federal government to intefere in all areas of jurisdiction.

In the case of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, where medical procedures happen in private clinics or health institutions, the federal government has found a way to intrude. How? Through the Criminal Code.

Once again, my colleague was quite right to make the link. That is why the social union agreement is totally unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières will fight to the end, and let me tell you that we will not just roll over.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank that the chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I will have to check on all that. I will certainly be nice to see that Canadian Pacific will have to comply with the provisions of Bill C-26. This bill would give more power to the Transportation Agency to offer a mediation service in the case of complaints from citizens. If, on top of that, Bill C-9 subjects Canadian Pacific to the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and to the related review mechanism, it is excellent news. This, however, does not make the bill any more acceptable.

I thank the office of the Bloc Quebecois House leader for giving me a very good advance notice that I would be speaking to this bill. I would like to remind the House that for Quebec, environmental assessment is a very important matter. Why? It is of course because Quebec adopted its own legislation back in the early 1990s. I will come back to thislater.

It is perfectly legitimate for the Bloc Quebecois and the various successive governments of Quebec to ensure that Bill C-9 and the previous legislation do not tread upon Quebec's jurisdiction, as so often happens with this government, unfortunately.

Canada has had its Environmental Assessment Act since 1995, while Quebec has had one since 1992. Of course, this act stipulates that when various kinds of projects are not covered by an exception, it is possible to carry out studies either screening reports or comprehensive studies regarding the impact of any work and construction, on the environment. That is what an environmental assessment law does.

What was unusual until just recently was that, before the parliamentary committee began examining the bill, the mechanisms for impact, evaluation and analysis under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act only came into play if the federal government itself were involved. Therefore, members can see that there was a problem. It was the federal government that ordered the inquiry and also received the results of the inquiry. Thus, the federal government was both judge and defendant.

If there is one thing we can be proud of as parliamentarians, it is our societies' continuing awareness of environmental assessment. We are not ready to accept development at any price.

Let us take the example of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. As members know, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is an old working-class neighbourhood, which was first industrialized in the late 19th century, and was known for its labour-intensive industries. That was an era when our fellow citizens wanted to live where they worked. They worked and lived in their neighbourhood. They were not worried by the modern issues of urban planning. Until 20 or 30 years ago, there was mixed use, with heavy industry and residential neighbourhoods together.

Today, of course, that would not be acceptable. No one would want to live next door to a business that employs 300 or 400 people and pollutes heavily.

Then there was this awareness that not only land-use has to be planned carefully, but also that one cannot have economic development regardless of the cost. People want to have guarantees when new businesses are created or old ones expanded. If they are subsidized, and even when they are not, people are not ready to put up with just any kind of behaviour from corporations even if they create jobs.

On the contrary, there is a new environmental awareness that makes it possible to introduce a piece of legislation such as the one before us today.

However, there is a real problem as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned. We want environmental assessment mechanisms. We believe this is the responsibility of the government. We believe reports must be as binding as possible and that there must be corrective action. We are just as committed to the polluter pay principle as we were a few years back. We know what a vigilant environmental conscience the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has been for the Bloc Quebecois, and I can tell you that the values he has been promoting are shared broadly by the Bloc Quebecois' members.

As the Bloc Quebecois leader knows, Bill C-9 is aimed at amending section 2 of the Act, and it will allow—at least this is what it sets out to do—better cooperation between the provincial governments and the federal government when an environmental assessment is needed.

As the member for Davenport said, the bill provides—and this is good news—that Crown corporations will be subject to the investigation mechanisms linked to an environmental assessment. Even the Canadian International Development Agency, will be subject to the process.

Where things start to fall apart—and the Bloc Quebecois will show extreme vigilance here—is when the government proposes creating a federal environmental assessment coordinator for projects involving several federal authorities. Where things start to fall apart is when there is increasingly less respect for the demands made by every Quebec government, including the Robert Bourassa government which, if I may say, did not have much backbone or fire. Each Quebec government has demanded that Quebec's environmental assessment legislation be respected.

I am not saying that this legislation does not need to be reviewed and updated. Nonetheless, one of the demands of each successive government in the national assembly has been for Quebec's environmental assessment legislation to be respected.

I would remind the hon. members—and those who are familiar with Quebec know this—that when environmental assessment legislation is mentioned, one thing and one thing alone comes to mind and that is the BAPE. People know the BAPE and they know its strength.

For example, in east Montreal for many years now there has been talk of modernizing Notre-Dame street. I do not know if any hon. members have driven on Notre-Dame. This street is an extremely important thoroughfare for Montreal and all of Quebec, because if it is important to Montreal, it is important elsewhere. One of the factors influencing where businesses and individuals decide to settle, is, of course, traffic flow.

Notre-Dame is the old King's Highway that General de Gaulle took when he came to Montreal. General Charles-Émile de Gaulle, clearly, is a very positive reference in Quebec history. So, Notre-Dame street must be modernized.

It is in our interest to have a fast thoroughfare because people end up sitting in traffic on Notre-Dame. What does it mean when traffic on the major thoroughfares does not flow well? It means that people use smaller neighbourhood streets, such as Saint-Clément, Théodore, William-David and Viau. But people cut through our residential neighbourhoods, rather than taking a direct route from east to west.

Thus, concerning the previous Quebec government—it is too early to express an opinion on the current government's intentions—we knew that it was very important to modernize Notre-Dame Street. Public consultations were held under the auspices of the BAPE. Our fellow citizens expressed their views on the type of projects that they wanted. They were against a highway and in favour of a urban boulevard. They wanted certain parameters to be met to ensure that the residential component of the neighbourhood of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and, more generally, of the east end of Montreal, would be protected.

All this to say that, in Quebec, the environmental assessment act is working extremely well, that we know it, and that it is the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement that leads consultations.

Let me talk about the major characteristics of the Quebec environmental assessment act. The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept certain things on its territory. I am not talking about the CP, for example. We agree that it is under federal jurisdiction. When a railway runs through several provinces, we are dealing with interprovincial, not intraprovincial, trade. We understand that it is the role of the federal government to proceed with an environmental impact analysis. But on its own territory, domestically, when there are no interprovincinal issues, Robert Bourassa, René Lévesque, Daniel Johnson, Jacques Parizeau, all the premiers, and of course Lucien Bouchard as well as Mr. Landry, said--and I am convinced that this will be the Charest government's position—that all projects on the Quebec government's territory must be subject to one single environmental assessment, that is the one resulting from the act passed by the national assembly a few years ago.

Why is this act better? Why does this act deserve to be more complied with? First, because it is more transparent. From the beginning to the end, it associates the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement with our fellow citizens, who can be heard and who can file submissions. A tabled report is made public. A whole influence process is possible with the BAPE.

Second, it is independent. It is not a matter of self-assessment. The Government of Quebec is not acting as judge and jury. I indicated earlier how surprised I was, a few years ago, when I got interested in this legislation, to see that there is no investigation unless the federal government requests one. The federal government not only commissions the investigation; it also receives the findings. There is no doubt that, in terms of practices and approaches, the process is such that the federal government is both judge and jury.

In Quebec, the legislation passed by the National Assembly is more inclusive. It does not exclude outright and therefore provides more adequate protection, because of its broader scope. This is the most appropriate term to describe it. The federal legislation has a narrower scope, as it applies only to work contracted by the federal government.

The legislation in Quebec is more complex, which makes it more uniform and predictable. This is not insignificant. The problem with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is that there is no single centre of authority. All federal departments are affected. There is no timetable. This means that whenever an investigation is ordered, we cannot tell when it will end; we do not know under whose authority it is conducted; and we do not know who is in charge of conducting it. Under the legislation passed by the National Assembly, all this is much clearer.

As hon. members can see, the legislation in Quebec is better in many regards. Our colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie has put forward an amendment. I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will unfortunately have to oppose this bill, because it interferes in an area in which Quebec has already legislated and where its legislation should take precedence.

Understandably, the impact is clearer for Quebec because the law clearly names the authority centres. There is thus a potential for duplication of power that we cannot accept. The bill gives the federal minister discretionary powers. These were not in the old act, but clause 22 of the bill allows the federal government and the Minister of the Environment to amend section 46, thus giving them discretionary powers. This is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois which is why we are again going to defend the interests of Quebec and ensure that Quebec retains its full power.

Once again, there is nothing partisan about this. It is hard for us to be partisan. We always try to rise above partisan considerations and focus on higher interests. The government of Robert Bourassa had made representations to the former minister of the environment, so obviously it is not just a sovereignty issue.

Moreover, this leads me to speak to the motion passed by the national assembly. I believe I even have it with me, and I would be remiss if I did not share it with members. Was Robert Bourassa the member for Saint-Laurent at that time?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for bringing the issue forward. I think that Canadian Pacific is included in the crown corporations that are mentioned in the bill that was amended in committee.

If there is an exception, it should be eliminated. I do not know the exact wording of Bill C-26. I would appreciate it if the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve could give us more specific information to help us establish if there is really a problem as he just said.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to clarify something. I am very happy, of course, concerning crown corporations and government agencies; and I heard someone talk about CIDA.

However, am I mistaken in thinking that Via Rail will be considered as a crown corporation in Bill C-26 that is now before the House, but not Canadian Pacific? I hope I am mistaken, but I do not believe Canadian Pacific will be subjected to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to put a question to the hon. member for Davenport, because I know he has been interested in the environment for many years.

I would like to describe a situation in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the eastern part of Montreal, near the Olympic stadium, and more precisely between the St. Lawrence River and the Olympic stadium, two well known landmarks.

In this riding, a Canadian Pacific track runs through a residential district. Like those who were members for this riding before me, I have been trying for several years to find a way with CP to make the right-of-way less objectionable for the surrounding area. If a railway track has to run through a residential district, what can we do to provide a better quality of life to those living there?

My colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and Bloc Quebecois transportation critic, suggested I read the new Bill C-26, which I did. During the last recess, he even came to my riding to meet with a group of my constituents. I set up an anti-noise committee to liaise with CP.

I was extremely surprised that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to the company. It can make as much noise as it pleases. It does not have to respect any noise reduction standard. It can operate day and night and make noise coupling cars.

I would like my colleague to comment on such situations in our communities and the negative impact for our citizens. Would it not have been desirable, in this legislative review, to give more teeth to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act while respecting the different jurisdictions? CP is clearly under federal jurisdiction.

Canada Airports Act

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-27, the Canada airports act, introduced in the House on March 20. It is part of the vision for our transportation system policy framework embodied in “Straight Ahead - A Vision for Transportation in Canada” that was released in February by the Minister of Transport.

The Canada airports act would be part of moving this vision forward and would guide the continued development of a sustainable airport system. This is a piece of legislation that has been developed for the longer term. Its purpose is not to address the short term challenges facing the entire air industry sector at this time.

These more immediate concerns have the full attention of the government. Let me assure the House that the government is actively monitoring the current situation in the airline industry. As we all know, the air industry is facing challenges, such as the SARS health issue, the war in Iraq, and fluctuating fuel costs.

The government remains fully committed in reviewing its policy on rents collected at the airports that it leases. The minister hopes to be able to announce shortly the direction the government intends to take on this matter.

The Canada airports act would provide a legislated economic policy framework for the only part of our transportation infrastructure that is lacking one, namely airports. Canada's transportation policy has evolved over the years in response to changing times and conditions. Today, we need to modernize and reform Canada's airports policy by enshrining some key obligations and governance principles in legislation. In doing so, we are contributing to the governance agenda as set out in the most recent Speech from the Throne.

The act responds in a positive manner to the recommendations in the government mandated local airport authority review report of 1999 and the Auditor General's report of October 2000. It conveys the governance response to the recommendations on airport governance in the Canada Transportation Act review panel report and in the final report of the independent observer on airline restructuring.

It reflects comprehensive consultations with the affected airport operators, air carriers and provincial and territorial governments.

The Canada airports act is intended to build on the successes of the 1994 airport commercialization policy, while addressing new and emerging issues that have arisen, with 10 years experience since that policy was announced.

The bill contains a new declaration for a national airports policy that replaces the 1994 policy which was primarily divestiture oriented. This declaration is very much in line with the new transportation policy statement set out in Bill C-26, the transportation amendment act, introduced in the House on February 25.

The declaration recognizes that it is in the public interest to have a national system of airports that is operated in a manner that is safe, secure, efficient, economically sustainable, transparent and environmentally responsible. The new policy also articulates the requirement to provide facilities and services to air carriers in an effective, pro-competitive manner and to provide opportunities for air carriers and passengers to express their views on key airport development issues and fees.

The policy recognizes local and regional interests through the activities and governance structures of airport authorities, as well as the role airports play in linking the air transportation system to other modes of transportation and linking the communities they serve to the rest of the world.

The new national airports policy declaration will guide airports in how they must implement the requirements of the act.

Upon passage, the Canada airports act will apply to 29 airports that account for 95% of the traffic of all scheduled passenger and cargo traffic in Canada. This includes the 26 airports identified in 1994 as comprising the national airports system and other airports of national significance due to their strategic geographic location, continued federal residual ownership or because they serve more than 200,000 passengers annually.

The bill contains the key elements that constitute an economic policy framework to strengthen the governance, transparency and accountability of these airports.

I will say a few words on each of these.

Let me start with the government's role and powers. The government's key role is to protect the public interest as it relates to airports, namely, monitoring the airport system and making policies to promote the integrity and long term sustainability, protecting federal property and promoting good corporate governance.

The Government of Canada will be granted the power to give directions and create regulations, for example, in the provision of equitable access for air carriers to airport facilities such as gates, bridges and counters, slot coordination, federal visibility and environmental requirements. The Government of Canada will also be given emergency powers to remedy extraordinary disruptions similar to what is provided in the Canada Transportation Act.

As for the roles and obligations of all affected airport operators, there will be a requirement for them to provide information to the Minister of Transport in support of carrying out his role of overseer, policy-maker, landlord and regulator.

Operators will also have to develop a pro-competitive, equitable access policy for airlines wanting to use essential airport facilities and services, and to post information on fees.

Airports will also have to give access to state and military aircraft, and airports with international traffic will have to ensure visibility of symbols of Canada.

All will have to help Canada meet its international obligations including trade commitments, for example, obligations under bilateral agreements with other countries.

Turning to disclosure and accountability, the focus of the act is on higher transparency through public reporting. There is a more limited application to the airports in the territorial capitals and airports not operated by authorities. However all affected airport operators will have to produce annual reports with audited financial statements and hold annual meetings that are open to the public.

In the case of airport authorities, the requirements are spelled out in greater detail and include those respecting financial information on investments in subsidiary and minority interest corporations. They include the requirement for an independent, comprehensive performance review to be conducted every five years from the date of transfer. To increase transparency, authorities will have to have all their key documents available for public review including their leases and performance review reports.

Perhaps one of the most important subjects covered in Bill C-27 relates to airport fees. Although notice requirements are covered in our leases, this bill would establish a more formal fee setting process respecting aeronautical fees and passenger fees of general application.

The bill sets out the charging principles and requires that a methodology for determining fees be developed that will make it clearer how they meet financial needs. It establishes a procedure for notices of fee adjustments and obligatory consultations with concerned parties.

The bill makes provision for appeals to the Canadian Transportation Agency in cases of alleged non-compliance with these procedures or with charging principles.

The proposed bill includes rules on the use of airport improvement fees, AIFs, collected from passengers. AIFs can only be charged in support of capital projects and those projects must be identified. Smaller airports, with traffic of less than 400,000 passengers, are permitted to use passenger fees to cover operating costs and they must also be disclosed.

I would like to explain some of the elements specific only to airport authorities, those related to their corporate structure and governance regime.

Unlike the port authorities that were continued under the Canada Marine Act of 1997, airports were divested without the benefit of a specific legislative framework. All but three airport authorities were incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act, part II, as for not for profit entities.

We have now determined that it is more appropriate for the airport authorities operating leased airports of national significance to be incorporated under their own legislation. Consequently, all the airport authorities will be continued under the act. This means that instead of 21 different statements of purpose, the airport authorities will have a single, simplified statement that applies equally to all of them. Initially this will affect 18 airport authorities. This will be accomplished without any requirements other than to amend their bylaws to comply with the act.

The rights of the airport authorities will be preserved and they will continue as not for profit entities without share capital that are not agents of the Crown. The airport authorities will have the power to engage in activities defined as essential and complimentary activities of the airport and to create subsidiaries within investment limits.

Bill C-27 would also establish the framework for a more uniform corporate governance regime for authorities that updates and strengthens what we have now.

Nothing can replace a solid regime of governance and transparency for airports of national significance that provide an essential public service. The regime will be based on elements such as the structure of boards of directors, the necessary skills, the rules of eligibility for directors and rules regarding conflicts of interest.

All airport authorities will be subject to the same requirements regarding the make-up of boards of directors, with the possibility of choosing directors based on local factors in the region where the airport is located.

The bill spells out the types of organizations that can become selecting bodies that appoint or nominate directors as well as the processes for nominations and appointments of directors. These bodies include the federal government, the provinces, the regional authorities and municipalities and five categories of non-governmental entities, including the Air Carrier Industry Association. This uniform yet flexible regime is designed to ensure that no single entity controls the board and that persons with all the necessary skills are identified.

The proposed bill sets out in detail the duties of the boards of directors and will require them to have a governance committee and an audit committee. In addition, there are rules on auditor selection and rotation, on public bid solicitation and mandated consultation with air carriers and the community. As well the airport authority obligations respecting compliance with the Official Languages Act have been transferred without change.

We believe that with this bill we have struck a balance between the freedoms that airport authorities have and the need for increased accountability. We also believe that we have struck a balance between the wish of air carriers to have their say in the decisions of the authorities, and the independence of said authorities.

There are pro-competitive provisions to assist the airlines and the airports in their decisions on access to essential airport facilities such as slots, gates, bridges and the like. We believe these are measures that will contribute to ensuring the viability of air carriers. How communities can relate to their airports is made much clearer.

Many of these obligations are already in some form in our leases with the authorities, but we have done more. We have offered to provide advice on how to be compliant with the act to any airport that asks. Members should know that some airport authorities have already begun to put in place transitional measures to bring themselves into compliance more quickly.

The bill is a significant piece of legislation which I know has been anticipated by members. The Minister of Transport looks forward to the debate on its contents and to discussing it in detail in standing committees.

Criminal Code

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find consent in the House that the vote on the main motion on second reading of Bill C-26 be applied in reverse to the amendment at second reading of Bill C-20.

Transportation Amendment Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-26.

Interim Supply

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House to proceed immediately to the taking of the division on the main motion on Bill C-26 and the amendment to Bill C-20 and to proceed following that with the motion on Bill C-206.

Business of the House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among the parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded division scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Monday, March 24 on second reading of Bill C-26 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, March 25, 2003.

Transportation Amendment Act

[The Speaker]

The question is on second reading of Bill C-26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-26.

I have been waiting for this day for a long time because I represent a community that for many years has been affected by the noise from trains in shunting yards close to a residential area. Other communities across Canada have also been very negatively affected by this issue. From the experience of my own community in east Vancouver in the Burrardview area, up until now there has been virtually no recourse or process to allow local communities to resolve these longstanding grievances against various rail companies around noise and the impact of that noise in adjacent residential neighbourhoods.

I was very pleased to see that Bill C-26 finally addresses some of these issues. To be specific, my understanding of the bill, if it is approved, is it would give the Canadian Transportation Agency authority to review railway noise complaints and require that the railways keep any adverse noise to a minimum when constructing or operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operations and services and the interests of local communities.

The bill also develops a mediation process through the Canadian Transportation Agency. Public guidelines for the resolution of noise complaints will be developed. This is a huge relief for people who every single night have been experiencing sleep deprivation as a result of enduring excessive noise levels from the operation of trains, engines, coupling, decoupling and shunting, and so on.

As one constituent in this Vancouver neighbourhood said, “As always, we have no complaint with the railway in general, we just want to sleep”. I would wholeheartedly support that sentiment. For residents in communities such as the one I am describing in Burrardview, there is a recognition that railways, and of course the services they provide, are hugely important in our country.

However, there also has to be a recognition that when these services operate in very close proximity to urban areas and residential neighbourhoods, there has to be very careful consideration and we have to be sensitive and ensure that the processes are in place to deal with problems effectively and quickly. I would emphasize doing it quickly because I know that Burrardview residents have had to resort to phoning at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning because they have not been able to go to sleep because of the noise just a few hundred feet from them.

In our situation in east Vancouver we have worked with the local health department. We have had noise testing done. Residents have gone to city council to try to apply the noise bylaw. Residents have tried every single thing they could to generate some relief so that they could go about their daily lives and not be completely disrupted. This has been to no avail so this bill is very important.

I recognize the outstanding efforts of a key group of residents in east Vancouver in the Burrardview neighbourhood. Jim Campbell and Barbara Fousek, Shane Simpson, John Lynn, Terry Bulwer and Torsten Kehler have acted as leaders on this issue. They have informed other residents about what they could do. They have monitored the situation and have stayed on top of it.

In our case it involves CPR. I want to congratulate those people for being so diligent in not only keeping me informed of what is taking place but in staying on top of the railroad company itself. We have actually gone out on the tracks. We did a tour on the tracks. We went to visit the various locations along the lines that were causing all of the problems.

I am sure some members of the House will remember my predecessor, Margaret Mitchell, very well, the wonderful member of Parliament for Vancouver East from 1979 to 1993. She too was dealing with this issue. That is how far back it goes.

I hope very much that the provision in Bill C-26 will strengthen what the CTA can accomplish in providing relief to local residents and ensuring that there is an environment of peace and quiet at critical times. People need to sleep and they want to enjoy their homes and neighbourhoods.

I want to speak to another aspect of the bill which is also very important. This is an omnibus bill, so there are many provisions. There is another part that interests me particularly as a member of Parliament who represents an urban community.

The bill will also modify the current provisions governing how rail companies can dispose of railway lines that are no longer required for freight service. The changes would allow urban transit authorities to receive offers where they would be able to acquire corridors that could be used for urban transit. This is something that is very pertinent to urban communities.

Certainly in Vancouver there is an ongoing debate about the critical need for rapid transit. It could be light rapid transit but certainly what is needed is a public transit system and structure that will allow people easy access to rapid transit that is affordable and which will also take account of our environment. This is critical as we face rising rates of asthma and as we see the smog hanging over our cities. As we try to meet the implementation agreements around Kyoto, this is a very key piece.

The rail lines and corridors exist. They sit there for years and years unused and they could be used for public transit. It seems to me we are missing a fabulous opportunity.

I was very pleased to see the provision in the bill that will allow urban transit authorities to look at specific corridors that may be suitable for public urban transit. I hope this will happen in Vancouver because we are surely suffering from congestion and smog and a complete overload of mostly single occupant vehicles on Vancouver streets.

Those are my comments on the bill. The NDP is supporting the bill in principle. We are happy to see it go to the committee where it will have thorough debate and review.

I hope that residents from east Vancouver will be among the witnesses who will be heard so they can put on the record firsthand some of the terrible situations they have had to endure in dealing with train noise. It is hoped that their issues can be addressed in the bill and finally the Canadian Transportation Agency can deal with the issue in a way that is fair, equitable and efficient to ensure that people can enjoy living in peace in their neighbourhoods.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in light of some of the debate we have heard already today, it will be a truly enjoyable experience speaking to Bill C-26.

We do not often have the opportunity to support legislation with which the government comes forward. I am happy to say at this point in time that we intend to support Bill C-26. We look forward to the bill going to committee where we will have the opportunity to discuss it more thoroughly and ensure that what the government has put in the bill is really upfront with what it suggests it will do. I do want to indicate that and I have indicated that to the minister as well.

The bill is an attempt by the minister to right some of the wrongs that the government has done for the last number of years. I want to emphasize that these wrongs were followed through as a result of bad actions, deregulation overall and the whole idea that a marketplace, capitalistic approach was the only way to go within the transportation industry. I want to emphasize that the Liberal government's agenda was supported wholeheartedly by the Reform party and now the Alliance Party.

My colleague from Red Deer spoke today about understanding the need for differences throughout the country, and I am glad to hear that. In reality that is not the message the Alliance Party has brought to the House time and time again on numerous issues.

New Democrats, and even Canadians who are not New Democrats, do not believe for one second that a marketplace attitude is necessary in every aspect of building a nation. It is certainly not necessary in every aspect of transportation, not if we are going to do things to benefit the entire country and do things to address the different geographical aspects of this nation.

Initially it was just men who had a vision for Canada and they realized that as part of that vision they had to recognize the different geography of Canada and the differences in the provinces. They realized that some commitments had to be made as a whole to benefit all regions of Canada.

The rail line that brought our nation together was done with one area putting a little more out than another because it was nation building. We have to look at things differently with regard to transportation, if we are to meet the needs of a country from coast to coast to coast.

I will use Nunavut, the territories and Yukon as a major thrust of this because they do not have the road system that the rest of the country has because they are newly developed areas of Canada. As a nation, are we going to tell Nunavut and the territories that they have to pay for it all themselves because the Government of Canada believes that the transportation system of tomorrow should remain largely market driven where the government sets a competitive framework and intervenes only as a last resort? In spite of that, I suggest that we support the legislation at this time and deal with some of the issues in committee.

However the government is still saying that a marketplace economy is the only thing it will look at. I suggest that cannot be done in a nation such as Canada because there are certain areas of Canada that cannot offset those costs. We cannot just deal with the issues of marketplace and making profits.

To my colleagues from the Alliance, from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are dealing with issues right now with regard to the additional cost for trucking their grain and other farm products as a result of rail lines being taken out. I hope farmers and people in rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba are listening. The issues and hardships they are dealing with are a direct result of the Alliance Party and the Reform party pushing for a market driven economy. There is no question that they are a direct result of the Alliance pushing and the Liberals saying “We are going to do what they want because this is really a right wing agenda and it is what we want to do anyway”.

In the history of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, people worked together. People did that in rural communities. They had to work together for the benefit of each other. In the early years people got together to build homes and farms. They helped each other out when there was a disaster. If someone could not get his crops in on time and another person was done, they rallied together to do the job.

The promotion that has come out of the Reform and Alliance Party is if it is more costly for farmers to get grain from White Fox, Saskatchewan, they will have to pay more than the farmer right along the American border. We do not want that one farmer along the border to get less profit because he is that much closer to maybe shipping it across the border. We work together in a co-operative spirit to ensure fair marketing for everyone. That was what we did as communities.

The reason I mention that is because my colleague from Red Deer talked like he believed it when he talked about transportation policy. It is necessary to recognize there are some differences in different communities, We are not going to be able to have a profitable line that runs from Montreal to Toronto or to Ottawa. We have to recognize there is greater opportunity for profit in those areas and we will have to offset that somewhere else. I agree with that. I just quite frankly do not agree that we should be building a transportation system within our country based upon profit alone. That service should be there for all Canadians.

In my five years here in Ottawa, time and time again we have dealt with the crisis in the airline industry, a crisis that was that much worse because we had a situation where companies were out strictly to make a profit. There were threats of anti-competitive actions. They were out strictly to make a profit with no consideration of providing service to the smaller communities, to smaller regions on the east coast and the smaller regions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. As a result, we had this action where we want to make a profit, be the biggest and have everything. We lost one major airline in this country. The others are at major risk. Then when another crisis happens, it is just that much worse because everything is being done purely because we think there should be a marketplace approach.

That is wrong for any nation that has any kind of a vision to provide services. I believe the entire country, every business and every person living in a community, benefits from an officially run transportation service and one that is there providing service throughout. I do not think every person who hits the airport should have to pay an additional fee as an airport improvement fee. I do not believe everyone who drives on a road should have to pay a toll charge. Even though others are not on that road or in that airport, they benefit from access to those services and by others having access to those services. Whether that means other business people can come in and work in their community or sell their products in their community, we all benefit, and that is what it is about.

I mentioned that I support this bill and I want to talk about a couple of the key points in the bill. There is no way I can get into all of it. It is an omnibus bill and it deals with a lot of issues. I do not agree with everything in the bill but I believe this is an attempt by the minister to right some of the damaging wrongs that have happened in the past, and I am acknowledge that.

One key issue mentioned in the bill, as my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve previously mentioned, is the issue of train noise. It has been an ongoing thing that I dealt with as our transportation critic. My colleague from Vancouver East has had numerous related issues in her riding regarding train noise. There was absolutely no recourse for anyone. Can members imagine having something in place where the noise creates such a problem for the residents around an area but there is absolutely no recourse, no type of mediation process or anything that can be done with the rail lines to address the problem for those citizens who have a problem with it?

The bill actually looks at addressing that, to the point where it indicates that there will be a mediation process as well, that the CTA will be given some teeth to deal with it. That is an absolute plus. It might seem like nothing to most people. For the people who do not live by the rail line it is no big deal, but it has been a major issue in many parts of the country and I was pleased to see it addressed.

My colleagues from the Alliance talk about VIA Rail being made a crown corporation. The bottom line is that the process for VIA Rail would be to have it operate as a crown corporation to give it the opportunity, as that corporation, to borrow money from alternative sources, so that we can put in place a much better passenger rail system in Canada, so that we can meet the needs of Saint John, New Brunswick, and so that we can continue to meet the needs of the line going up to Churchill where there is no other mode of land transportation. In Manitoba, from Thompson to Churchill there is no other land transportation for people, and for some other smaller communities as well. VIA Rail has provided that service, sometimes in conjunction with other rail lines. It has provided that service and we need to ensure that this service is maintained.

I think VIA does need to be given that opportunity. Quite frankly, my concern on the issue of VIA Rail was the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services when she said that we are not looking to privatize VIA Rail yet. I will actually pull up her comments, because it was pretty clear that there was sort of this intent to privatize VIA Rail. I have a serious problem with that. Even private rail lines in other parts of the world have had to get government support. There is not a single passenger rail service in the world, not one in the entire world, that does not operate without government support. We can mickey mouse around with it and hide the support, whether it ends up as giving them the money for the infrastructure or some grants to do something, but the bottom line is that they do not operate without government support.

I would much rather that we not put our passenger rail service in the same type of situation as our airline service because somehow there is this push that we have to privatize it. What would I like to see? I want to see high speed rail between the densely populated areas in Quebec and Ontario. I think Canadians should be supporting that kind of approach, because it is beneficial for the entire country. We would be getting a lot of cars off the roads and giving people the opportunity to travel where they do not have to be involved, not just because of the CO

2

emissions, which is highly important, but it also would give them the opportunity to not have the stress of travelling on some of those congested highways. Again it is crucially important that we support our entire country.

Quite frankly, as for me benefiting from the number of times I am going to hop on that rail service, I do not see it as a big thing, but it certainly would be extremely beneficial for the people in Quebec and Ontario. I suggest that it would give the opportunity to people from the east coast, should we improve that rail service again, to also be part of that. Once again we would be working to join our country together and make rail a much more efficient system.

As a last note, as I have a smidgen of time left, so in line with a doublespeak sort of approach by the government, there is this situation. As we talk about improving rail service and the need to get trucks and cars off the roads so that we do not have to put more money into highway infrastructure, or at least keep the costs down, we have a situation in Windsor where there actually is a rail tunnel. The municipality, from what I understand, wanted to improve that system. They wanted to improve the use of the tunnel and support that process. That was the municipality's approach to it. Then we had three Conservative bureaucrats from transportation in the Province of Ontario get together with three federal government bureaucrats and they decided they would pull out that tunnel, that they would not keep that rail tunnel. This is their approach. They are going to pull out that tunnel from the absolutely busiest trade corridor in Canada. They are going to take away the rail tunnel and stuff things back up on the roads.

What is wrong with that approach? It is that kind of hypocritical attitude and approach that has everyone wondering where we are really going. This is why I say I support the bill before us, but I certainly want to be actively involved in our committee process to make sure that what is there is accurate.

We have to stay on the government on an ongoing basis to make sure it is not getting away with some of this. I do not know what to call it. The government talks about improving rail service and getting cars and trucks off the roads, but on the busiest trade corridor it is going to pull out the rail and the tunnel. What can we call that? Quite frankly I call it absolute stupidity and I am sure there are other words for it as well. It is absolute foolishness, especially when the municipality was looking at enhancing that rail service, which is what we should be doing. The federal government should be supporting municipalities with additional funds to keep as much cargo as possible on the rail lines and off the roads.

The other point I will make is about the vision for transportation. “Straight Ahead” was the Department of Transport's title for their new vision on transportation. My thought was straight ahead and over the cliff, because we got this vision and then we had a federal budget with no money, not near enough money, to even look at implementing any kind of vision for transportation within Canada.

I think we will all agree with my colleague from the Alliance, who said that there absolutely has to be a long term strategy. Certainly I will. There cannot be a strategy for transportation policy in any aspect of the transportation sector or infrastructure in a country such as Canada without having a long term vision. I am not talking from budget to budget or even from one federal government to the next. If Canada as a country does not have a strategy that stretches over at least 10 to 20 years, we will be doomed to be fighting crisis after crisis within the transportation industry.

I am looking forward to seeing this legislation before the committee. I look forward to having more discussion on it, and I look forward to questions.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I do not know what the Minister for International Trade thinks about the Doré administration; some people thought it did a good job, others did not. But the fact is that we do not accept, nor will we accept in the future that, under the pretext of economic development, some of our fellow citizens should be deprived of quality of life.

Equipment is defective and schedules are not being adhered to. When the residents and I went to meet with railway officials—I repeat, a community committee was established—we tried to reach some solutions. Perhaps an anti-noise barrier or a wall could help? Should the railway not set aside some funds for measures aimed at noise reduction?

Do not think, Madam Speaker, that we met with a good corporate citizen who expressed the desire to help his fellow man. I sensed an authoritative attitude, authoritative-sounding legal language. I told them. I even indicated that if I did not sense an openness on their part, I would mobilize the population to file a class action suit, as permitted under Quebec's Civil Code.

They answered me in a haughty, self-important and even disdainful manner. However, I stayed calm, as usual, and said that if we had to take it as far as a class action, they did not stand a chance of winning. In their smug way, they replied that they had good lawyers, that they could defend themselves, and that they could afford to go to court. We know what that means: months and months of stress for the plaintiff.

We will not be swayed by this kind of talk. I too know lawyers. We are going to mobilize people, and then make sure that reason prevails. It is not true that we have to deprived of our quality of life because we live in a large urban centre like Montreal. It is not true that the development of Montreal harbour will require disregarding the demands of our fellow citizens.

This does not mean that we do not want industries on the east side of Montreal. Many factors can contribute to the development of that area, as the Minister for International Trade knows; we have four subway stations, qualified labour, community groups very dedicated to the people, public schools providing good service, Ontario street. There are many reasons for business people to want to have their offices in our area.

Vidéotron is an example. Bas Iris, a company which received grants under HRDC's program, is another.

But as I said, we will not accept that businesses be allowed to operate 24 hours a day. There has to be a limit. They must realize that they cannot operate all day and all night long. People might not object to operations starting at 7 a.m., but would it not be reasonable to expect them to end by 9:30 or 10 p.m.?

When we are at home, we do not expect to receive telephone calls at 10 p.m. We expect to get some rest after a hard day's work. It is the same for our fellow citizens. They do not want to be disturbed by noise coming from trains. This is a legitimate demand.

The government took too long to introduce this bill. But at least it did so, and I think this is a positive thing.

I do not own a car. I am a person that has a green side. To some, I have a pink side, but to others I have a green side. I do not own a car, which means that I always rely on public transit. I take the train to come to Ottawa.

I do not know whether there are other members of this House who travel by train, but when we travel on Via Rail's trains, whether it is in the winter, summer, spring or fall, there are significant delays. This happens frequently and it is unfair, because when we are on the train and expect to arrive in Ottawa at 10 a.m., but only get here at 2 p.m., we may miss oral question period. As we all know, a person cannot plan his schedule based on a service that is so bad that he reaches his destination three or four hours late.

What do the people at Via Rail tell us when we ask them about this? They tell us that they are not responsible for this situation, because the rails that they use belong to CN-CP. However, CN-CP does not want to make the necessary investments to make these rails functional and to ensure that the signal system allows trains to arrive “just in time” at their destination.

Therefore, we must call back to order the very bad corporate citizen that CN-CP is. I will ask the Bloc Quebecois critic on transport issues, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, to call the residents of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who are creating the anti-noise committee, as witnesses. I will ask the committee to obtain explanations for the government's refusal to provide the quality of life that people are entitled to.

Do not think that such things happen just in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I have been contacted by the residents of Côte-Saint-Luc. CN-CP is also a very poor corporate citizen in other provinces as well, believing that anything is allowed in the name of economic development.

I am told that residential areas have the same problems in the lower St. Lawrence area, the Gaspé, Matapédia and Mont-Joli, and this has gone on far too long already.

Bill C-26 will, therefore, provide a mechanism for handling complaints and I feel that it is a very good thing that is it being proposed to us, and that the people will be able to make their views heard.

The bill includes changes relating specifically to rail transportation. Among these, it provides for the creation of a mechanism for dealing with complaintsconcerning noise resulting from the construction or operation ofrailways. This is vitally important to the people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

This is not a problem that has just popped up out of nowhere.

I saw correspondence from the late Jean-Claude Malépart, former member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Since the late 1970s, regardless of party affiliation, all members elected to represent the east end of Montreal here, in the House of Commons, made representations to CN-CP. Unfortunately, they got no results. The problems were always the same: no respect for quality of life, excessive noise and the pursuit of economic development without any consideration for the legitimate aspirations of people.

We will not miss this opportunity to apprise the Minister of Transport of the current situation in the east end of Montreal. I am eager to see how this complaint mechanism will work.

I can assure the House that those people from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve whom I mentioned earlier will follow the work of the parliamentary committee very closely. They will make a request to appear before the committee. I hope that we will be able to bring a corporate citizen like CN-CP to its senses.

The world has changed since the days of Émile Zola. We are no longer in the 19th century, in the era of industrial capitalism where corporate citizens were granted every privilege for the sake of economic development. This situation no longer exists.

Today, when we think about urban development, we want to make a distinction between economic development and quality of life. If we have a choice to make between the two, as legislators, we must choose quality of life. We have only one life to live and there is no reason that we should agree to live it in appalling conditions.

We will attend the committee meetings. Gone are the days when the anarchy of economic development took precedence over the rights of residents of the east end of Montreal.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Right, it is “juste à temps”, but they said it in English. Perhaps they thought it demonstrated their superiority in some way, but I was not impressed. However, I wanted to quote them properly.

Therefore, I met with the officials of this railway, a private company that is not, I might add, subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. I would have liked to see Bill C-26 make CN-CP subject to this legislation so that we could look into their actions and network expansions and, naturally, monitor pollution.

That said, there are five trains passing or entering the station and going to the shunting yard. There are maintenance problems; proper braking is a problem; schedules are not adhered to. As a result, there is noise pollution for local residents, who have raised their families in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and who, for generations, have been living with this major inconvenience.

Obviously, we could ask why the municipality allowed a housing development near a railway facility. Obviously, the question arises. It happened under the Doré administration.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

People back home call it “une traque” in French, but they are not as erudite as the Minister for International Trade. They say “une traque”, but it is true that the proper term in French is “une voie ferrée”.

These people are experiencing a veritable nightmare, a veritable hell. When cities were being planned in the last century, people were not always as concerned about having separate residential and industrial areas. It was believed that people should be able to live near their place of work and be able to get there on foot.

Obviously this type of urban planning no longer has any currency. Nobody today would accept having big, polluting companies in their residential neighbourhood, nor would they accept having a railway line.

The railway is closely linked to the port of Montreal. Economic development is at stake, and this cannot be ignored. I can understand this. East Montreal needs to have some prosperity. It was a manufacturing district from the 19th century until the 1960s and now services, such as Vidéotron, Mediacom and other companies, are setting up there.

However, we must not sacrifice quality of life in the name of economic development.

The advantage of Bill C-26 is that it will allow the Canadian Transportation Agency to hear complaints about railway companies that are guilty of making too much noise.

Allow me to explain the situation of the people I referred to a moment ago. First, there are five trains per day that leave at all hours. That means that there may be a train entering or leaving the rail yard at 3 a.m. Obviously, it is hard not to hear it when a train stops or starts. The average train has three or four engines and any number of railway cars. It affects the quality of life of people, and we need to be concerned with this.

When I met with CN-CP representatives, they were intransigent and told me that one of the factors of economic development—and I believe I have heard the Minister for International Trade say this—is just in time delivery. It means that deliveries have to arrive when requested.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, when my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois and himself a former mayor, told me that Bill C-26 changed the role and mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency, I was extremely curious to know whether the bill in question could in any way improve things for my fellow citizens.

I became interested in this bill because in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve—which I have been representing here since 1993—there is a railroad track near Moreau Street in the east end of Montreal and a shunting yard. For many years I have frequently and periodically received representations from people who live near the track and who obviously find it a nightmare.

I will have an opportunity to explain this later, but I think that CN/CP rail is a very bad corporate citizen. It is truly unbelievable. The management style and corporate behaviour at CN/CP rail should be looked at by us as legislators. It is high time to call them to order.

CN/CP rail acts as though economic development should be the only consideration, quality of life is not important and it does not matter where railroad tracks are located.

When my constituents made representations to me, I suggested to them that they form a citizen's committee. We know how governments react to these sorts of disputes. Sometimes they are blind, but they are never deaf. They go where there is noise. I soon realized that to make any headway in a case like this, it was important to form a citizen's committee.

This was done. There are a dozen or so people who are active members of this committee. I would like to thank them for their involvement. I will mention their names so that if you ever happen to meet them, you will know who they are. They are: Léopol Bourjoi, Gaétane Couture, Maurice Lahaie, Michel Languedoc, Victor Berthelot, Lina Gauthier, Guy Walman, Robert Dalpé and his wife Olga Berseneff, and Martin Mercier.

They live in the east end of Montreal near a railway track and it is sheer hell.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26 and the importance of this legislation for the country.

Moving people and goods efficiently, safely, securely and in an environmentally respectful way is vital to our economy. As Canada's national passenger rail service, VIA Rail has an important role to play: providing safe, high quality, efficient passenger service to Canadians.

Moving people out of their cars and onto trains is one solution to the problem of congestion, which we see each and every day in and around our cities and on our major highways and was an issue frequently mentioned as we did our work on the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues. Not only is congestion a personal frustration, but it also slows down our business.

Passenger rail also gives Canadians a convenient and economical choice, whether they are travelling for business or pleasure. Many Canadians do not have the means to travel by air.

For many Canadians in northern and remote parts of the country, rail provides an invaluable lifeline, especially where no other transportation options are available.

The Government of Canada is dedicated to passenger rail and its revitalization, not only as a viable transportation option that is central to our identity as Canadians but also as one that makes good economic and environmental sense.

A strong passenger rail system also contributes to building stronger communities. Passenger rail provides a vital link for the movement of people, encouraging business development and growth. VIA Rail connects some 450 communities with services that run across the country.

More Canadians are using the train today than ever before. In 2001, VIA Rail carried 70,000 more passengers than the previous year. In fact, passenger revenues have grown steadily over the past decade while VIA Rail has steadily improved the cost effectiveness of its services. VIA Rail now carries over 400,000 more passengers and operates 153 million more passenger miles than a decade ago. It has reduced government funding from 45.6¢ to 17.2¢ per passenger mile. VIA Rail's operating subsidy is now fixed at $170 million per year compared to $410 million in 1990.

With this demonstrated growth and improved cost effectiveness, we are pleased that we are making a commitment to passenger rail in legislation.

Up to now, VIA Rail has been operating as a crown corporation subject to the Financial Administration Act but governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act. But most crown corporations and other enterprises created by government are governed by special acts of Parliament. That is because they were created for specific purposes. Pilotage authorities are governed by the Pilotage Act. The port authorities are governed by the Canada Marine Act. Canada Post is governed by the Canada Post Corporation Act. It is time for VIA Rail to be governed by its own act of Parliament.

Bill C-26 sets VIA Rail's mandate in legislation, a mandate that calls for VIA to manage and provide a safe and efficient passenger rail service in Canada. This mandate is consistent with VIA's mission statement, which is to offer safe, high quality, efficient passenger rail service. This mandate means that VIA Rail will continue to provide its current passenger rail services across Canada.

From the perspective of the travelling public and taxpayers, there will be no changes to VIA Rail as a result of this new legislation. Trains will continue to run on the corridors and across the continent. VIA Rail will continue to receive appropriations from the government and the Minister of Transport will remain accountable for VIA Rail.

There are many who expected the legislation to specifically allow VIA Rail to finance its capital needs from the private sector so as to reduce government funding. Let me make it very clear that VIA Rail already has and will continue to have the legal power to borrow money to finance its capital needs, so we do not need to give the corporation special powers. However, it is subject to the Financial Administration Act, which sets out the control and accountability regime for crown corporations.

For VIA Rail to borrow money from the private sector, two approvals are needed. The governor in council must approve the corporation's five year strategic plan. This plan must set out the operating and capital budgets and any borrowing plan. The Minister of Finance must also approve the terms and conditions of the borrowing. To date, the government has prudently decided that private sector borrowings are not an appropriate source of funds for VIA Rail.

VIA Rail is an appropriation-dependent crown corporation. This means that VIA Rail relies on government funding for its operations as well as its capital needs. Also, the government is liable for VIA Rail's debts. As such, it makes more sense for the government to provide the capital funds as well as the operating funds.

Over the past few years, there have been a number of studies considering the privatization of VIA Rail or other public-private partnerships. There are some who expected that this legislation would allow for more private sector participation in the provision of inner city passenger services currently provided by VIA Rail.

The earlier studies confirmed that the timing was not right for such direction. The results of the last study show that passenger rail needed to be revitalized so that the private sector investment would be more attractive. To this end, the government announced in April 2002 that it would provide VIA Rail with an additional $401 million in capital funding over the next five years to allow the company to address urgent capital requirements and to undertake a modest expansion.

Once the revitalization initiative launched in 2000 has been implemented fully, I expect the government will consider the next steps, but as members might expect, capital improvements to take some time to bear fruit.

VIA has already made improvements as a result of this funding. The company purchased 139 new passenger cars and began operating 21 new high speed locomotives in December 2001. It has also completed the refurbishment of several stations across the country and equipped the corridor fleet with waste retention systems.

However, the government recognizes that major investments are still required to maintain the integrity of Canada's rail passenger network and to ensure its viability in the long run.

VIA has been directed to review its long term capital requirements and to develop a capital investment plan for the government's consideration. This plan is to address the need to replace existing equipment and make additional track upgrades to improve rail services that are key to the corporation's future viability. In this context, it may be some years before the government can consider privatizing VIA Rail.

This legislation does not materially change anything for passengers, taxpayers or the corporation.

So what does this legislation do? It demonstrates the government's commitment to passenger rail in Canada. It sets out the government's objectives by requiring that VIA Rail provide safe and efficient passenger rail services. However, it recognizes that VIA operates in a commercial environment and therefore provides VIA with the flexibility to deal with the demands of the marketplace. It means that VIA can add capacity if there is sufficient demand or reduce capacity if there is insufficient demand.

This legislation would also allow VIA to use its excess capacity for purposes other than its mandate so as to reduce the need for government funding.

In setting the mandate for VIA Rail, the government also makes a commitment to ensure that VIA Rail has the resources to fulfill its mandate. The government made an initial commitment in 2000 by guaranteeing stable, annual operating funding of $170 million and investing $401 million to begin the revitalization of passenger rail.

With this new legislation, we make a commitment to continue improving passenger rail service to meet the needs of Canada across the country.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree. If one were to enumerate the things that are not in the bill but could be in the bill, one would have a very long list indeed: no elimination of the air tax; no mandating of gas taxes to roads; the increasing subsidization of Via Rail, which is not sustainable over a long period of time; no scrapping of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which is something that makes complete sense; and no commitment to this Windsor-Quebec City corridor. We keep hearing of that corridor as a proposal or a theory from the Minister of Transport, but he never seems to put meat on the bones so that we can actually debate whether or not this theory has any kind of practical usage whatsoever.

As well, there is no mention whatsoever of Kyoto. In fact, as for the new jet train concept, the train that is built by Bombardier that would be on the Windsor to Quebec City corridor, that train uses the same jet engines that are used in the planes it is supposed to replace, so there is a net no benefit at all to the environment in terms of CO

2

emissions.

There is nothing in Bill C-26 in terms of port security. There is nothing in it in terms of airport management.

I am speculating here, of course, but this could very well be the final transport bill from this transport minister and again, after years of being transport minister, he has completely failed to outline with meat, bones and cash a real transportation infrastructure program for Canada. He has failed again.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is no. The hon. member has raised a lot of issues here, but I do not agree with him on the last thing he mentioned.

It should not come as a surprise that the Canadian Alliance is against big government and unnecessary regulation. In his question, the hon. member pointed out that if airlines were guaranteed profitable routes, then we should expect regulations to ensure that these communities have access to permanent services.

But the philosophical problem is that if any of the routes that is granted to Air Canada or any other airline turns a profit, then, we do not need regulations. We need regulations for the routes where there is no competition.

We believe that the ability to travel throughout our country by car, plane, train, ship or any other means of transportation is not a right. It is not an absolute right to be able to travel throughout our country by whatever means of transportation we choose just because the government can regulate an industry and levy taxes to offer us that option.

It is not up to the government. It is not a right of all Canadians to have all means of transportation guaranteed permanently by legislation. It is really impossible for the government to have such a principle, that is to pass legislation and pay for it today and indefinitely. In my opinion, the hon. member is proposing something that is impossible.

If he does want to do this, however, he needs to be honest. If he wants to do so, he needs to be frank with the people in his riding, and tell them it will cost a lot more to pay for these various services. Government will have to be expanded, new taxes levied. In my opinion, the people in his own riding will not be very thrilled with that.

There is one more important point, however, on which I agree with my Bloc colleague. Bill C-26 is really nothing at all, and not because it is poorly drafted.

It was introduced by the Minister of Transport a week after the budget. He says he has carried out all his consultations in order to present a major document on transportation. That he has spoken with everybody and obtained all the recommendations relating to all potential avenues for the transportation industry. What he has done, however, is taken all these recommendations, combined them into one fat document, and handed them to us a week after the federal budget.

Had it been a month before, we could have obtained support on its specific recommendations. Then perhaps we might have obtained money in the budget to implement his proposals. There could have been a debate on regulating the airline industry, highways and so on.

But the Minister of Transport has not met his own responsibilities. He has really reneged on what he was supposed to do, which is to offer us new ideas on transportation, and then to obtain support in the budget for the various projects so they could be implemented, as I have said, without any new taxes. This goes for the proposals made by the member from the Bloc Quebecois.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to enact the VIA Rail Canada act. It was tabled in the House on February 25 at the same time as the document called, “Straight Ahead--A Vision for Transportation in Canada” was tabled.

The press release that came with the “Straight Ahead” package said:

This document provides the vision, the policy framework and principles that will guide the Government of Canada's decisions in the years ahead in key areas such as marketplace policies, strategic infrastructure investments and initiatives in support of the broader government agenda on competitive cities and healthy communities, climate change and innovation and skills.

Straight Ahead is the culmination of extensive consultations that began in June 2000 with the Minister's Millennium Conference on Transportation and continued with roundtable discussions across the country headed by the Minister of Transport. It includes responses to many of the recommendations of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel and of the Independent Transition Observer on Airline Restructuring.

In initiating the second reading of Bill C-26 yesterday, the Minister of Transport told the House:

In our policy document, “Straight Ahead”, we talk of the culmination of an initiative that began in 2001 to review the transportation policy for the next 10 years and beyond. “Straight Ahead” proposes a vision to guide the continued development of a sustainable transportation system for the country. It also conveys the government's response to the 2001 report of the Canada Transportation Act review panel.

The amendments to the CTA that are introduced in this bill are an important step in moving the vision forward. “Straight Ahead”...

In the eyes of the minister, Bill C-26 is the implementation in part of the “Straight Ahead” document and that in turn is the government's response to the 2001 report of the Canada Transportation Act review panel. It is therefore helpful to have read the 2001 report of the Canada Transportation Act review panel.

On page 191 of that report, one finds a discussion of fuel taxes, something that is important in the country now, certainly with regard to the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the labour crisis that existed in Venezuela as well.

It is dealt with in the report on page 191 but the government does not deal with it here. The panel states:

Federal fuel taxes stand out as having no evident justification in the eyes of road users.

The Panel's proposal is that federal fuel taxes be recognized as part of the price paid for the use of road infrastructure.

The CTA review panel proposed that federal fuel taxes be recognized as part of the price paid for the use of road infrastructure. It recommended various ways that the federal fuel taxes could be used to fund Canada's highway infrastructure. Yet while the future actions section of the infrastructure chapter in “Straight Ahead” talks of making strategic investments in trade and passenger corridors, such as the national highway system, the talk is truly hollow when one looks at Bill C-26, or the recent federal budget.

It is important to understand the timing. We know the federal budget was tabled on February 18 and that prebudget consultations had been going on for months before that. We are also told that the “Straight Ahead” document is the culmination of extensive consultations that began in June 2000. If we assume that the Ministers of Finance and Transport are in contact with each other, it is a virtual certainty that the idea of dedicating a percentage of the federal fuel tax to building, maintaining and expanding our national highway infrastructure was discussed at some point around the cabinet table and lead up to the current budget.

Nonetheless, when the budget was tabled, it contained only an additional $300 million in annual funding for Canada's infrastructure, including highways and roadways. The $300 million seems like an impressive amount until we actually do the math. Statistics Canada estimates that there were 31,485,623 people living inside Canada in October 2002. This year the generous Liberals will spend a grand total of $9.53 per person next year on infrastructure and about two-thirds of that, or about $6.38 per person, will go into highways and roads.

While the government is spending some $6.38 per person on roads and highways next year, if gas stays around 85¢ per litre for Canadians, the Liberals will collect $4.8 billion in federal fuel taxes plus another $2.2 billion in GST on the gasoline and taxes as well. That is $7 billion this year, or roughly $222 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

Let me repeat those numbers so it sinks in on the Liberal side over there. The Liberals will collect roughly $222 in federal fuel taxes and GST on those taxes on fuel from every man, woman and child in Canada. At the same time, they will strategically invest, as is their code word, roughly $6.38 per person into roads and highways. If we wonder where the $215, the difference between the $222 they collected and the $6.38 they spend on roads, perhaps the statement contained on page 91 of the 2001 report of the Canada Transportation Act review panel will help us out. It states, “Federal fuel taxes stand out as having no evident jurisdiction in the eyes of road users”.

The biggest problem with the “Straight Ahead” document is that it proposes a vision to guide the continued development of a sustainable transportation system for the country without suggesting a funding formula for something as basic as roads. In my mind that is not a vision, it is fog.

To the extent that Bill C-26 is inspired by this “Straight Ahead” document, it is essentially empty rhetoric by the Minister of Transport.

I would like to turn my attention now to the specifics of Bill C-16. I have already dealt with what is absent, the commitment of highway funding, but now I would like to address what is in the bill.

Bill C-26 deals with two main themes: airlines and railways. In each case it is a mishmash of missed opportunities and dangerous initiatives.

On the aviation side, it is philosophically inconsistent. On one hand, we find several clauses arguing for a greater role for competition and market forces. Clause 3 recognizes that competition and market forces are the prime agents in providing viable and effective service in the air industry. That is a good start rhetorically, but then it starts to get confusing for those who read the bill.

In both clauses 18 and 24 we see the concept that under certain circumstances a non-Canadian company might offer domestic air service for “any period of time”. It is as though the minister is recognizing the idea that in certain situations foreign carriers might be seen as a last resort to spur competition. However at the very same time there is nothing in the bill that raises the limit on the number of shares of a Canadian carrier that a foreign airline might acquire. Thus the same type of problems that foiled the Onyx takeover of Air Canada remain and are part of the Liberal vision for the future of Canada's airline industry.

At the same time, Bill C-26 proposes a massive re-regulation of the domestic airline industry. For example, clause 11 gives the Minister of Transport new powers to review mergers even though the competition commissioner is already involved in the process. It also gives the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to ensure that merged corporation is “Canadian”. Right there, instead of one person examining the competitive implications of any proposed merger, we now have two. Bigger bureaucracy and slower service, that is the Liberal vision, and also having someone in the process who perhaps has no expertise whatsoever in the very issue that the minister may be dealing with.

We also see in clause 16 that it requires airlines to revise advertising to include all non-governmental fees and prices and to not advertise one-way tickets where a person needs to buy a round trip to get the exact price that is being advertised. However let us not forget that the Air Transport Association of Canada voluntarily agreed to this before Christmas, and that the sticking point is not the Canadian airlines industry but the need to get both Canadian and U.S. carriers to adopt similar advertising strategies for tickets on transborder routes. Clause 16 is essentially harmless but it is an attempt by the Liberals to take credit for something that the airline industry has already done voluntarily and has already done through the powers of market forces.

Clause 20 of the bill is just downright dangerous. It would give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to review and even set airline fares in cases where there was not true competition on a route. The concept of having a government agency tell a private for profit company that it has to provide service between two points on terms and conditions that the government decides is simply frightening.

Clause 26 of the bill goes further, mandating that carriers accept domestic interlining code shares and permit access by their competitors to their frequent flyer programs. This type of policy is a real re-regulation and is driven by a genuine anti-competitive spirit on the Liberal side.

The Minister of Transport keeps telling the House about WestJet, Jetsgo, CanJet and Air Transat, but I can tell him that none of them in fact will want to be in Aeroplan, Air Canada's program, and none of them want to be forced to interline with anyone else.

If one looks at Ryanair, an Irish airline similar to WestJet, a low cost service provider, it actually states that it is a point to point airline and, therefore, does not offer and cannot facilitate the transfer of passengers or their baggage to other airlines. That is a management decision by a private sector company called Ryanair, and it makes it on its own.

Under Bill C-26 it could be illegal for Jetsco, CanJet, WestJet, Air Transat and Air Canada to adopt a similar policy.

If the government wants to regulate the airline industry, it should nationalize Air Canada, turn it into a crown corporation and abandon any pretext of private sector competition that it claims exists in Canada. Otherwise, it should truly respect that competition in the market forces is the prime agent of providing a viable and effective transportation service and do what it can to promote it, as a government.

One way it may start doing that is to have the people who book civil service travel make sure that airlines, beyond Air Canada, are considered from time to time as potential service providers. If the government truly wants to stimulate competition, it could start by buying airline tickets on some competitive fare basis rather than just going straight to Air Canada, as it consistently and persistently does.

Speaking of crown corporations, I want to turn my attention now to VIA Rail.

Yesterday in the House, on this very bill, Bill C-26, the Minister of Transport said “Unlike the majority of other crown corporations, VIA Rail did not have its own legislation”.

In order for us to understand the impact of that statement, one has to understand the different legal structures that the government uses to deliver various services.

The first is a line government department, such as Transport Canada, that used to manage airports and provide air traffic services. There was no crown corporation. The government department played a direct role in managing airports and air traffic services.

The second is a crown corporation, such as Canada Post, where the company can borrow with government backing and the government owns all the shares, names the directors and has full control.

The third is a private company, incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, where the shares are traded on the stock exchange and the company follows free market rules, but the government owns a minority of the shares and names some of the directors. Petro-Canada is in this situation today and so is VIA Rail.

What the government wants to do in clause 67 of Bill C-26 is to take the private corporation known as VIA Rail and flip it over into a crown corporation.

It is important for us to understand what is happening here. VIA Rail, like Petro-Canada, is essentially operating as a private company right now. All the government needs to do to privatize it is to begin selling the company's shares on the stock market. Rather than doing this, the Liberals want to make VIA Rail a crown corporation, admitting, in effect, that it cannot compete without massive taxpayer subsidies. Let us not forget that this too is part of the Liberal vision for the future of rail travel in Canada.

Bill C-26 was sold as the implementation of a transportation blueprint, a blueprint that is not clear on competition in the airline sector, that proposes to make VIA Rail a crown corporation, and that is silent on the biggest transportation concern of western farmers who were rhetorically told that it would be in the bill. However, that concern of western farmers with regard to grain transportation, running rights and so on, is not in this whatsoever.

Therefore, rather than providing a real vision for Canada's transportation future, as the rhetoric of the package that was tabled by the finance minister says, the bill, which twins along with that, would not in fact accomplish that whatsoever.

I want to talk very briefly on another issue because of the reality of the situation in Iraq. Yesterday in his speech as well, the Minister of Transport talked about the issue of port security. I want to use an example of where I come from, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, which is half an hour or 45 minutes east of the city of Vancouver.

Prior to the Liberal government's reckless activities with regard to national security, Canada had the Canada ports police. The ports police in the City of Vancouver did a tremendous job and put tremendous effort forward in terms of securing our borders, helping with cargo freights, helping to stop people who basically sell people into indentured servitude in Canada in exchange for getting them here on rusty cargo ships.

Canada had a ports police that helped the police against those things and the ports police did an effective job. There was some debate on whether they were effective enough, large enough or it was cost effective.

However, the Liberal government, rather than addressing some of those concerns, rather than making some of the difficult decisions of raising the hood on the Canada ports police situation, looking at the engine and making sure that it was running properly, it decided to end the ports police.

Now we have a situation of drugs getting on shore in my riding in the City of Port Moody, which is part of the port of Vancouver that extends all the way from Delta in the south up to Indian Arm and Burrard Inlet in the north. It is a huge area for the port authorities to cover.

Since we have had the scrapping and elimination of the ports police, the City of Port Moody is now responsible for securing the port of Port Moody. It sounds good on paper but the problem is that the City of Port Moody and the Port Moody police do not own a boat. It is awfully hard to have drug interdiction, to stop smuggling into the cities and do an effective job of securing port security when the government turns over port security to the City of Port Moody and the Port Moody police and they do not own a boat in order to get those things done. The government offers nothing, no financing whatsoever, to help the City of Port Moody and other cities like it to combat smuggling.

The government brags about the fact that it is spending $172 million on port security but not a single dime of that federal Liberal money will go into my riding in the City of Port Moody to help it buy a boat in order to ensure security.

If the Liberal government took security seriously, it would re-establish the ports police, reorganize it so it was an effective mechanism to ensure that they could have an impact on drug interdiction and prevent the selling of human beings into indentured servitude, which is what is happening with the people smuggling on the west coast of British Columbia. They could establish a port security system that really works.

The scrapping of the ports police in the City of Vancouver was a tremendous mistake by the government, and there is nothing in Bill C-26 and nothing in the response to the realities of September 11, and nothing in the budget that we have been debating. There is nothing that takes real port security measures seriously.

The Liberals seem to think that the current infrastructure is fine. As long as some new technology is put in place and more money is put in place, this will work out all right. However, it will not be that way.

The City of Port Moody is hurting. It has had the keys to security turned over to it but it does not have a boat to put the keys in and get it started. Those kinds of examples are happening all over Canada, on the east coast, west coast, up and down the St. Lawrence where communities are being forced to take over the security responsibilities.

In closing let us not forget that the first responsibility of the government, above all else, is to secure citizens and make national security its top priority. It is Abraham Maslow's “hierarchy of needs”; the first thing is to protect citizens; second is to ensure their safety into the future with the basic provisions of life, and then build an economy on top of that.

The government's number one responsibility above all is to ensure the security of its citizens and yet it scrapped the ports police. The Liberal government's decision to scrap the ports police was a tremendous mistake and it has put a huge burden on the City of Port Moody, a burden that it should not have to bear. It is a disgrace that the government made that choice.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words on the bill before the House today, Bill C-26, an omnibus bill dealing with a whole series of transportation issues. I want to begin by saying that our critic, the member for Churchill, is not here today. She is travelling with the aboriginal affairs committee and would otherwise be here to make a well fleshed out presentation in terms of our position on the bill.

The bill before the House today is a bill that we call an omnibus bill. It covers a whole series of topics, from air transportation to rail transportation to transportation of naval vessels and the like. It covers deregulation and a whole series of issues in this country that are transportation oriented, so I just want to say a few words that hopefully the government will take to heart.

In terms of the last decade or so, my main concern about transportation has been the tremendous deregulation of transportation in our country. We have seen it that has not been helpful to the ordinary citizens, the ordinary consumers of transportation right across the country.

We have also seen the privatization of some of our transportation industries. Air Canada is a prime example of that. Despite privatization and deregulation, Air Canada is in serious financial trouble today. It has also stopped serving some of the smaller markets that it used to serve in different parts of Canada.

I think these are things that should be looked at in terms of the future. We should be looking at re-regulation in some areas of the transportation industry in Canada.

We support the bill before the House. We think it is a positive step. We are not greatly enthusiastic about a lot of it, but it is a positive step in the right direction. When our critic gets back, she will have a chance to speak on the bill and to look at it in the transport committee as well.

The other issue that concerns me about transportation is that in the recent federal budget there was very little in terms of investment in transportation in Canada and very little in terms of investment in infrastructure in the country. I know my friend in the Liberal Party across the way is interested in urban infrastructure and urban issues. This is something the government has fallen down on in the last decade. With a huge surplus, the last budget in particular was an opportunity to put more money into transportation and infrastructure. That is needed for all kinds of reasons. We have environmental problems, traffic congestion problems and problems of frequent travel from point A to point B right across the country.

About a year or so ago I was supposed to speak in Peterborough. I flew to Pearson airport in Toronto. It is about 150 kilometres between Pearson and Peterborough. I thought that would take about an hour and a half on a huge freeway. I got to the meeting an hour and a half late. It took three hours between Pearson and Peterborough because of all the traffic congestion and big trucks on the road. All the pollution being emitted by those trucks and vehicles really shows us in Technicolor the need for increased investment in transportation to get some of the trucks off the road in the country, to have a better rail system in Canada so that there is more transport of cargo by rail as well as transportation of people by rail. These are things that have to happen. Again, the federal government missed the boat in the last budget by not putting in very much at all in terms of investment in transportation and urban infrastructure in Canada.

When I look at my own part of the world, rural Saskatchewan, I can see what has happened there over the last 20 years as well through greater deregulation of transportation. In particular, I see what has happened to the whole rural elevator system and the rural rail lines and branch lines across the Prairies.

In town after town, elevators are now abandoned because the rail lines have been pulled up. With the rail lines gone, trucking is now a common thing for transportation of grain from the farm to an inland terminal. Many of the prairie roads were built with thin membrane concrete and when the big trucks are put on the road they damage and destroy the roads. There are all kinds of potholes on them. It has been very costly for provincial governments to rebuild the roads with a thicker membrane that can withstand the trucks hauling the grain to market.

That is one of the consequences of Liberal Party and Conservative Party policy over the years in terms of abandoning rail lines. When rail lines across the Prairies are abandoned, there is more trucking. When there is more trucking, there is damage to the roads. When there is more trucking it is harmful to the environment. It is more costly for the farmer. As well, when the farmers truck their grain to a market that is further away, they tend to shop in the bigger centres and then the small towns disappear, as they are disappearing right across rural Canada.

These are some of the issues that are extremely important. We have to put a lot more money into investing in urban and rural transportation infrastructure so that we can get more of the trucks off the roads and get more transportation and people onto the rails.

We could look to Europe or of course Japan, but let us look at Europe. We see a lot more rail transportation there than we have in this country, in both people and goods. That is the kind of direction we should be moving in, particularly when it comes to VIA Rail in the high density corridor between Windsor and Quebec City. Again, these are issues that are extremely important.

I mentioned Air Canada and the airlines. We saw the privatization of Air Canada. We see the problems that Air Canada now has. We have seen the lack of proper servicing to smaller communities. I believe that once again there should be a government equity investment in Air Canada on behalf of the taxpayers of the country.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that the government very recently brought in the airport security tax. That was a $24 tax. The government reduced that tax in the budget of a few weeks ago, but again, that tax was put in to provide more security for airports. That did not occur. For example, a few times in the last year I was at a small airport in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. They had one person with just a wand who was trying to provide security at the airport in Prince Albert. They collect the $24 fee and people fly in and out of the airport, and they still only have one person with a wand. With all the money they have collected, they could have a better security system.

These are the kinds of things that I believe are important and should be addressed in the bill that is before the House today. We are a large country. We are geographically the second largest country in the world, surpassed only by the Russian federation in geography and pure mileage. It should be our country that leads the world in terms of transportation technology. It should be our country that leads the world in terms of a national transportation policy.

In our country we do not even have a national highways policy. Most countries do have a national highways policy. In Canada, most of the money for building highways comes from the provinces, from provincial revenues. For a small province like Saskatchewan that becomes very expensive. With just one million people, Saskatchewan has more highways on a per capita basis than any other jurisdiction in North America. Without a national highways policy in Canada, it becomes very expensive for a small province with a small budget to maintain a very thorough highway system.

These are the issues that are extremely important. We need a national highways policy. We need a national rail policy. We need a national airline policy. They would help bind this country together.

Grain movement and grain handling issues are also very important. I know we have gone a long way down the road and it is very difficult, most times impossible, to turn back the clock, but there are some things that can be done. There is a group on the Prairies now that is interested in buying some of the short line rail lines. That is dominated by farm groups and supported by provincial governments.

There is another group that is interested in purchasing hopper cars. The federal government purchased 12,000 or 13,000 hopper cars, I believe, primarily in the 1970s, to transport grain in Canada. It did this in order to make sure we met our export commitments to our customers and to make sure that farmers had a way to transport their grain. The federal government now wants out of the hopper car business. There is a group called the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, supported by the provincial governments of the Prairies, which is interested in purchasing those hopper cars on behalf of the farmers to move grain across the country. That should be looked at as well.

These are some of the issues. As I said before, our member for Churchill will be back in the House shortly and will shepherd this bill for our party through the House of Commons and through the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-26. I have been listening to the Minister of Transport. I hope that we will all have sufficient intellectual honesty to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of Bill C-26. It pleases me that the minister has spoken to us of his policy document “Straight Ahead”, his national transportation policy. In my opinion, it represents a ministerial wish list. At his press conference on this policy, the reception he got from reporters was as someone with plenty of dreams but not much promise of delivering the goods.

In other words, “Straight Ahead” is a document that is a patchwork of Liberal Party ideologies on transportation, but has absolutely no connection to the announcements made by the Minister of Finance in the latest budget, on which we will vote in part this evening.

Once again, the contents of this document bear little resemblance to those of Bill C-26. It seems like a rather impressive bill, but when we go through it, I will point out the blank pages that pop up every two or three pages. There are 24 empty pages in all in the bill. That is the reality.

I would love to hear the minister deliver a learned discourse on the future of all kinds of transportation everywhere in Canada, but the problem is that today we are debating Bill C-26, and there is absolutely nothing in it to support the minister's words.

In this connection, I always am thunderstruck when spokespersons for the party in power, including the Minister of Transport, come and deliver some fine speech to us—and this minister is no newcomer, as he is third-ranking in this government. He has just given those listening to us in Quebec and in Canada a fine speech on the future of transportation in Canada.

The problem is that there is nothing in this bill. There was nothing about it in the budget brought down a few weeks ago, on which we will be voting in a few hours, either. The people of Quebec, the people of Canada, the members of this House, are not stupid.

I will provide some examples. It is all very well to describe the situation, but I will provide some examples.

The minister told us at the end of his speech that we need good ports, good airports, good highways and good border crossings. In the same vein, I would add a good railway system and a good public transportation system.

But once again, there is nothing in Bill C-26 to back what the minister is saying. And we will examine each of the categories. I am especially pleased as the transportation critic for the Bloc Quebecois to be touring Quebec in order to identify Quebeckers' transportation needs. This is quite unique. I have met with agencies involved in all categories of transportation throughout the regions of Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is the first party to conduct such a tour in Quebec. We will be the first to set out in a book—that I am calling “the transportation blue book”, which I will submit by the end of this session—the needs of Quebeckers in this area.

I will try—because I visited six of the 16 or 17 regions in Quebec—to summarize both the minister's speech and the bill. We will see how people compare the needs of Quebeckers—the needs in Quebec being substantially the same as the needs elsewhere in Canada—and how the minister responds today with Bill C-26 to the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians.

I will begin with marine transportation, because it really takes the cake. First, as the minister candidly admitted, Bill C-26 is totally silent on marine transportation. However, the minister's red and white book called “Straight Ahead” does touch on it.

There is, among other things, a statement, a news release that followed the policy, and the text of the document, which indicates that a policy was put in place by the Liberal government in 1996. This policy is the Port Divestiture Program for regional, local and remote ports, and it affects over 530 ports and wharves that used to belong to the federal government. The policy was aimed at transferring ports and wharves to local authorities, with a budget of $125 million.

I am just presenting and summarizing the policy. It is very well spelled out in the news release. As of February 2003, when the minister introduced his policy, the government had saved $122 million annually because of this port divestiture policy. So, the government gave ports back to local authorities and has since made annual savings of $122 million.

This is a harsh reality for those who took over the facilities. If the federal government is saving $122 million, this means that somewhere there are communities across Canada who must face costs of $122 million.

Moreover, when the policy came into effect, 13% of the 537 ports and wharves were located in Quebec. In his document entitled “Straight Ahead”, the minister announces that the divestiture policy will be completed by March 31, 2003. So, when the policy was first implemented, 13% of the wharves and ports in Quebec were to be divested. Now, as we are speaking, 32% of the 116 or 117 ports and wharves that have yet to be divested are located in Quebec.

This means that, as regards this port divestiture policy, the government acted more diligently in the rest of Canada than it did in Quebec.

Why I am mentioning this? Because in Quebec, the provincial government had decided, in the context of this policy, to see if it might be profitable to restore some facilities. Ten wharves and ports were selected for that purpose, including those of Gaspé, Matane, Rimouski-Est and Gros-Cacouna. I am pointing this out because these ports are located in the Gaspé and in the Lower St. Lawrence.

This is all the more important since Quebec decided as early as 1999-2000, following a policy review, to inform the federal government of its intention to buy 10 of the facilities that the federal government was supposed to transfer to the province. It did not wish to do this for the mere pleasure of regaining control over some of these facilities. It submitted a shipping policy to the people of Quebec, but especially the residents of the Gaspé area, Matane, Rimouski and Gros-Cacouna, for their consideration.

The policy was aimed at developing the ports. The Government of Quebec had realized that the St. Lawrence River had great potential for economic development and decided to invest $20 million. Some would argue that this is not enough, that more money is needed, but it is still $20 million more than what the federal government was offering, which was nothing.

Under its port divestiture policy, the government would transfer the facilities to the local population and provide financial assistance for their upgrade. Then, the communities would have to decide what to do with the facilities and how to develop them. Some were not as eager as others to get their hands on these facilities.

But still, Quebec was the only government to hand money to the communities and to tell them “Look, we will invest $20 million to be able to incorporate these 10 seaports into an economic development project.”

Believe it or not, at this time, these 10 ports have yet to be transferred to Quebec.

Worse still, since 1996, the economic development of these regions has not been promoted. The federal government has simply decided to do nothing. Last year, the government even had the preposterous idea of extending by one year the program that should have ended March 31, 2002. There were zero consultations in the last year because the federal government figured that if the Government of Quebec took over control of these facilities, the Quebec flag would replace the Canadian flag.

It is unbelievable. That is the reality of the federal system. The government has taken hostage entire regions and facilities, which are the tools for economic development, because it realized, seven years later, that if it transfers them to Quebec, it will no longer be able to hoist its little flag.

For a year now, the federal government has not even had the nerve to write a letter to Quebec's transport minister to ask if there is some way the Canadian flag could still be flown if the ports are transferred. No, the government could not even bring itself to do that, for fear of being criticized, I suppose.

Meanwhile, economic development in the Gaspé, Matane, Rimouski, Cacouna and Rivière-du-Loup has been threatened. The federal government could not give two hoots about what is going on in the regions. All that counts is its visibility.

My second point: given that the program is coming to its end, it is running out of money. There is only $17 million left in the program. For just the ten ports that the Government of Quebec had targeted, we are talking about $60 million. That does not include the 26 others, because there are still 36 facilities that need to be transferred to Quebec.

As for the shortfall, local organizations estimate that approximately $80 million is needed to be able to transfer these ports to the Government of Quebec or local entities and bring them up to standard and into line with the policy that is used across the rest of Canada.

Again, Quebec is being penalized. Even though the minister has told us that he was very concerned with marine transportation and that he wanted good ports across the country—that is what he said earlier—Bill C-26, which was tabled today, contains nothing to that end.

I am not trying to scare those who are listening to us. The minister admitted that there was nothing in Bill C-26. Policies with regard to shipping will probably be tabled at a later date.

Now let me turn to the second major part of the minister's speech. I always refer to the minister's speech because, I will say it again, the minister took the policy entitled “Straight Ahead” that he tabled some time ago and decided today to turn it into a speech.

Incidentally, when he gave his press conference, journalists did not pay much attention to it simply because there was no funding announced. Politicians can say all they want, but they cannot fool journalists, who hear speeches in this House and press conferences every day. They are not taken in by the rhetoric they get from MPs and other politicians.

Of course, this policy entitled “Straight Ahead: A Vision for Transportation in Canada” made absolutely no impact. It went practically unnoticed simply because journalists, like members of this House—at least members of the Bloc Quebecois—saw it for what it was, that is a nice speech by the transport minister without any funding to back it up.

I will now deal with the issue of air transport. Yes, I must say that there are changes in this area, including increased competition. On that subject, the minister did not miss the opportunity to tell us that Air Canada's market share, which had gone up to 78% after the September 11 crisis, was now down to 60% or 65%, or at least that is what he says.

The bill before us today will enable national carriers such as Air Canada to grant other carriers access to their interline programs, their incentive fares and their loyalty marketing programs, should they request such access.

This means that, theoretically, the smallest companies could benefit from the Air Canada point programs. This would all be governed by the Competition Act and made available to companies that did not engage in unfair competition.

This is good to the extent that there are small air carriers operating in the regions. I have travelled to Mont-Joli and Gaspé, where there is no plane service. I would very much like to hear the Minister of Transport tell us today that he wants to encourage freer competition and allow small companies to benefit from all the Air Canada customer loyalty programs, but there has to be service available in the regions.

The problem is that the regions are losing their service. How long has this been going on? It is simple. The bill passed in this House that merged Air Canada and Canadian required regional service to be maintained until September 30, 2002. It is not that the opposition did not try to get that date deferred and regional service maintained, given the very special circumstances facing the airline industry after September 11, 2001. We were met with a refusal.

Air Canada was allowed to pull out of the regions. Free enterprise was allowed to work. Today the minister is telling us that Air Canada will have to solve its own problems. It has only 60% to 65% of the market, but Bill C-26 is going to increase the competition it faces. Yet there is no assistance for Air Canada.

We are told Air Canada needs to solve its own problems. It has labour problems, problems which, believe it or not, were created by the legislation that merged the two carriers, Air Canada and Canadian. The problems were created by this government. Today he comes to tell us with great candour, once again, that Air Canada will have to solve its own problems by negotiating with its unions. Once again, it is Air Canada's employees who will have to pay for getting the company back on its feet, for making it profitable.

The federal government's solution is not to provide Air Canada with assistance. It is to encourage competition, which will be harmful to Air Canada, so that Air Canada employees will have to accept salary cuts in order to keep the company alive.

With the Liberal federal government, nothing ever makes sense. With regard to free competition, especially in the air transport industry, the government has no policy to support regional development. Let us take as an example the Quebec government, which decided to create a ticket bank and do business with Air Canada. With its purchasing power, it was able to ensure that service was maintained in certain regions, but not everywhere. Why? Because the purchasing power of the Quebec government is limited.

I wish the Liberal government had done the same thing and offered to help airlines by saying: “Look, you are in trouble. With all our public servants who have to travel across Canada, we certainly can have ticket banks to help airlines in the regions”. The Government of Canada never thought of that, or at least there is nothing about it in Bill C-26.

Of course, on this subject, we have to put the question to the minister, whatever the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who is a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, may think. He was pretty harsh in criticizing the Government of Quebec. Without that policy and the purchasing power of the Quebec government, many more regions would have lost air service.

That is the reality of this market. If we let the carriers do whatever they want, if we let Air Canada operate in isolation, the employees will surely pay the price. The president of Air Canada has only one responsibility: to provide his shareholders with a dividend at the end of each quarter. That is his responsibility. Otherwise, he would no longer be the president of Air Canada. This is where the problem lies. Private carriers cannot be left to their own devices. Otherwise, only the profitable routes will be serviced. Every region in Quebec and the rest of Canada will suffer the consequences.

That is the harsh reality. With Bill C-26, we are helping small carriers to remain in business and to be included in the customer loyalty programs of the big air carriers. There are not many big airlines. In Quebec, there is Air Canada. There is one airline. Of course, the smallest carriers could use their Air Canada points to their advantage and create more competition for Air Canada.

But is this a good time to give Air Canada even more competition and tell Air Canada employees, at the same time, that they must accept a pay cut to keep the company going? Once again, I think that this is a bad political decision.

In terms of rail transport, Bill C-26 does contain some measures, but they are far from what the minister promised in his speech.

The minister finally wants a good rail system. In fact, everyone was expecting rapid rail service along the Quebec City-Montreal-Windsor corridor because the minister himself made the announcement. But, there is nothing on this in Bill C-26.

It is creating VIA Rail. This legislation is now creating VIA Rail. This is what is in the bill. The minister is telling us that he was going to develop rail transport, passenger services, because demand is high. But it is not true, none of this is in the bill.

Shortly before the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, the Minister of Transport said that there would be rapid rail service between Montreal and Toronto. There was an uproar in Quebec City. People there said, “Once again, you made us a promise and you forgot about us”.

We know it takes substantial public investments, but there is nothing in Bill C-26 to give effect to the minister's promises. Since there is nothing in the finance minister's budget or in Bill C-26, we will have to forget about the rapid rail idea for another year.

The railway system will in fact be improved. The Canadian Transportation Agency has been granted more power, as requested, over noise pollution among other things. We must admit that the government has made a bit of progress. I give it that, since this allows the Transportation Agency to examine complaints about noise and require the railways to take measures to reduce the harmful effects of noise as much as possible.

Obviously this is not a legal requirement, but a policy. In the past, even if the Transportation Agency acted as a mediator, it had no authority to follow up and ensure that the company respected the policies that had been mutually agreed upon. At least now, when there is an agreement between the parties, the Canadian Transportation Agency will have the authority to ensure that commitments are met.

Deregulation of rail transportation has resulted in cut-throat competition and downsizing at the railroad yards. When railway cars are coupled together for repairs and so forth, they are unmanned. This means some major jolts. Everything is rushed and hurried and there is a lot of noise. It was no longer tolerable, and that is a fact. It is not because new people are involved. It was the same people who lived near the same railroad yards. This began in the early 1990s, in 1992 when the entire railway system was deregulated and turned upside down across Canada. Private industry came in and the companies were listed on the stock exchange.

The same problem still exists. Profitability comes at the expense of neighbours and noise pollution. There were so many complaints that the government was receptive to the problems faced by communities bordering on railroad yards.

But that does not solve the problem with the minister's promises. For months—and I could even say since the last election—the minister has been travelling across the country promising a rapid rail service in the Montreal-Toronto corridor. Because of pressure, he finally extended this service to Quebec City. Everyone who had hopes in this respect will have to be patient, however, because the whole plan has been put off for at least one year. That is clear, because the investments would have had to be announced in the budget and there was no such announcement in the finance minister's latest budget.

Let us turn to the issue of public transportation or transit. It is so wonderful to hear the minister boast about what the federal government will do in terms of mass transit, public transportation and the environment.

Public transportation needs are known. Transportation companies across the country have made very specific requests. They have outlined their needs. Believe it or not, excluding the minister's great speech, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-26 to address these needs.

That is why I said at the very beginning of my remarks that intellectual honesty was required. The minister could have admitted that he missed the boat at the press conference on his “Straight Ahead” policy and was making up for it today with a speech on that policy. Instead, he prefaced his speech by saying it was a speech on Bill C-26. There is absolutely nothing in there.

While the minister just told us about his great concerns about public transportation and the need to invest, especially since the ratification of Kyoto, there is absolutely nothing to that effect in Bill C-26. There is nothing in there, less than nothing in fact.

Naturally, there were needs and requests were made. It is not that the needs were not identified. As I said, transportation companies all had sent requests to the federal government. It is likely that all members of this House, at least those representing ridings where these companies operate, were approached. The companies came to tell us, “Look, we know what our needs are and what we want. We want a long-term program. We want to be able to develop”.

The Bloc Quebecois knew where the money could come from. Since 1996, the federal government has been collecting 1.5 cents per litre for the elimination of the deficit. That goal was achieved in 1998 but, every time you fill up at the gas station, the government still collects 1.5 cents per litre.

The 1.5 cents were for the elimination of the deficit. What has the federal government been doing since 1998? It has taken that money, put it in the consolidated fund and invested it elsewhere. Some would say maliciously that the government has been very generous to its friends since 1998. Of course, this may have stopped because of some pretty serious investigations. In any case, in 2002, changes were made to the sponsorship program.

However, a lot of money has been collected since that time. The 1.5 cents per litre, which represent over $700 million, could very well have been used for public transportation. For the government, it would have been a good opportunity to do such a thing. And we certainly made the suggestion. We had found a way, and the proposal had even been very well received by stakeholders. I remember that, in the Quebec City area, people had even made calculations. For the new city of Quebec, the 1.5 cents per litre would have gone a long way toward meeting that city's public transit needs.

However, even after the finance minister's last budget that will be voted on tonight, the 1.5 cents per litre still belong to the federal government. Each time you fill up, once a week or once every two weeks, the federal government still collects the 1.5 cents per litre.

The transport minister is always making fine speeches in the House to remind us that the focus will now be on public transportation and that the government will start investing in public transportation because of the Kyoto protocol. But there is no mention of that in here and the government keeps collecting 1.5 cents a litre to wipe out its deficit, a deficit it wiped out 1998. That is how public affairs are being managed by the Liberal Party.

Again, Bill C-26 makes no mention of road transportation. The minister told us he wanted top quality roads. And when I say there is nothing in this bill, it includes the 24 blank pages I showed the House earlier. Road transportation is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. The minister said that it is included in the major infrastructure programs brought forward since the 2001 budget.

Yes, there is $6 billion out there, but it is not only for road transportation. The program is called the strategic infrastructure fund. That is how things stand. The minister can well talk about the $6 billion. The first $2 billion is for a 5 year period. The last $2 billion is spread out over a 10 year period.

Again, we are talking about $6 billion for the whole country. In Quebec, the money could be used for municipal infrastructure, for instance, like water systems and other such things. Projects have to cost over $75 million to be eligible. If we can get our act together and exert a lot of pressure, we estimate that about 50% of the strategic infrastructure fund could be spent on the Canadian road and highway system.

As for the $6 billion the minister referred to just now, half of that has been taken away. There is $3 billion left.

When we calculate that $1 billion is spread over 5 years, and the last $2 billion over 10, we are forced to conclude that there is not a single cent available before 2004-05, and only $50 million for 2004-05. There is nothing in 2003-04 for the last $2 billion. That does not make a lot of money, considering the $3 billion promised by the Liberal government in the province of Quebec. These were promises made by the federal Liberal Party during the last election campaign: for Quebec alone, more than $3 billion.

There will be some celebrating because the highway 30 project has been announced, and highway 175 also. Agreements have yet to be reached on highways 185, 35 and 50. I see the smile on the face of my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, who is very much aware that an agreement has yet to be reached on highway 50.

In some ways, there are still some very important projects left, and there are surely others in other parts of Canada. I have just mentioned the needs in the province of Quebec. We are well aware that the federal government is not going to give it all to Quebec.

I have just demonstrated this. In maritime transport and ports, we are behind the rest of Canada. This is the situation in a number of areas. However, in some ways, there is absolutely nothing for us in Bill C-26. As far as highways are concerned, there is nothing but the minister's speech, and that commits only him. The Minister of Transport is not the Minister of Finance. So when questions are asked of him—and I find this just lovely—he replies, “I will be pleased to come to the committee. You can ask us anything at all”.

I have been on that committee for as long as I have been in this House. I can indeed ask the minister anything I want, but the problem is he is not the one with the money. The Minister of Finance is. And for the strategic infrastructure program, it is the Minister of Industry. Obviously, he can afford to make all sorts of announcements and promises, but the problem is that he is not the one who manages the money. That is the reality of the Liberal government.

It decided to create a lot of programs spread over several departments so that every time a minister speaks to the people, they always have the impression that they have to believe him. The Minister of Transport said that he was going to use money from the Canada strategic infrastructure fund for a certain project. The problem is that he is not the one who is managing that fund; that responsibility belongs to the Minister of Industry.

That is the way it is and this is why I am raising this issue today with regard to Bill C-26. It is just another example. The speech delivered by the minister on his “Straight Ahead” policy has nothing to do with Bill C-26 that is before the House, which does not deal at all with road transportation.

The minister even talked about municipal infrastructure. Indeed, problems and agreements concerning municipal infrastructure are mentioned in his press release and in “Straight Ahead”.

What the Liberal government is offering in the budget that will be adopted tonight is $1 billion over 10 years. This means $100 million a year to help municipalities. The minister even suggested earlier that unions of municipalities did not have a good understanding of the budget. But they do have a very good understanding of the budget.

In Quebec, the Coalition sur les infrastructures municipales probably sent to every member from that province its document saying that the needs in terms of municipal infrastructure are $1.185 billion a year over a period of 10 years. It was $1 billion a year when it made its first submission to the federal government two years ago.

The amount has increased by $185 million because there has been no investment in this strategic program to support municipal infrastructure.

The federal government has announced $1 billion divided equally over a period of 10 years, that is $100 million a year for the whole country, while Quebec alone needs $1.185 billion a year.

On the issue of infrastructure, I want to point out to all my hon. colleagues in the House that the oldest cities in Canada are located in Quebec. Why? Because the development of Canada started in Quebec. It is only normal that the infrastructure in Quebec is older than anywhere else in Canada. It is normal that the needs are also greater in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. This is something my colleagues in the House have to understand.

I am not ashamed to say so. I was president of the Union des municipalités du Québec for three years. It is a well known fact that part of the water system in some cities, like Quebec City and Montreal, are still made of wood.

Why? Because it is normal for the oldest cities in Canada. What is not normal is that 40% of the drinking water passing through these water systems is being lost. We need a major program to protect our drinking water, which contributes to our quality of life.

Of course, the money set out for this is still $100 million more than what we had before, which was nothing. The problem is that it will only meet 10% of the needs of Quebec municipalities. Communities throughout the rest of Canada are faced with the same problem.

Some would argue that municipalities simply misunderstood, which is not true. They understand quite well. They understand that the federal government decided not to give more money. So, the government should have the intellectual honesty to tell the cities they it did everything it could by giving them $100 million and it knows that it is not enough.

Some day, hopefully, the government will understand that the quality of life of its citizens is linked to the quality of the drinking water and it will invest the money needed to ensure that our municipal underground infrastructure is up to the international reputation Canada wants to be able to maintain.

Again, even though the minister referred to infrastructure in his speech earlier, Bill C-26 contains nothing. Even though the minister shared with us his thoughts, and fleshed them out a great deal, as far as I am concerned, the problem is that Bill C-26 does not solve anything because it contains absolutely nothing about infrastructure.

As for transparency and airport authorities, the minister said that he would be introducing a bill in the near future dealing with airports. He said at the beginning of his comments today that Bill C-26 does not cover airport authorities. These are supragovernmental administrations whose representatives are appointed and recommended by the federal government. We would have liked to have seen more democratically elected and appointed representatives for these airport authorities. Quebeckers who are listening will be familiar with the ADM or Aéroports de Montréal, one of these authorities in Quebec.

In committee, I even told the minister, who was singing the praises of the airport authorities, that I would have liked him to do a survey of what Quebeckers thought of ADM's performance. I already know what the results would be; I would not need to wait to see them. I know what Quebeckers think of ADM.

ADM completely dropped the ball on one of the finest airport facilities in Canada, and the largest federal property in Quebec, the Aéroport de Mirabel. They prefer doing business with the Toronto airport rather than Mirabel. That is the truth about ADM, which decided to develop Dorval at all costs, to the detriment of Montreal's north shore and Mirabel.

We are being promised new legislation that will bring more transparency to airport authorities. I look forward to it. Quebeckers are waiting for transparency legislation that will, I hope, force ADM to answer questions from reporters for a change.

Believe it or not, ADM manages money and property that belong to the federal government through a lease. These include a hotel at Mirabel, an airport and a terminal, and ADM does not answer questions from reporters. If they do not answer reporters, I do not think they will answer questions from a member of Parliament. I am not even sure they answer questions from the minister. That is the fact of the matter.

This is how things are being managed. This was a choice made by the Liberal government. It clearly said in the policy, in 1994, that management was being handed over to an independent organization. This suited the government's purposes because it did not need to take a political stand with regard, among other issues, to Dorval and Mirabel.

This allowed the government to reach its objective of closing Mirabel and transferring the flights. Now, that did not happen, although there are fewer flights. It says here that ADM had a $27.2 million surplus. However, traffic decreased by 7.7%. That is the truth. Where did the traffic from Dorval go? Not to Mirabel, no, they closed Mirabel. It went to Toronto and Montreal. The government just invested $300 million in Ottawa. Probably because it benefits Ontario.

This is how the federal government is letting its equipment and property be managed, by not getting politically involved, but still succeeding in taking from Quebec to give to Ontario.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-26. I have been waiting for it for awhile. We knew it was coming. It is always hard when the government controls the exact timing and we do not know it until it occurs so we have to spend quite a bit of preparation time putting other things aside.

Bill C-26 is in essence two bills. One deals with a variety of amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, and the other deals with the creation of a new act, the VIA Rail Canada act.

I will briefly touch on issues contained in the first section of the amendments. This area will be dealt with in more detail by my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, who is the Canadian Alliance chief opposition critic for transport. He graciously yielded the lead speaking position to me as the Alliance spokesman for VIA Rail, so that I might speak at length about the second part, the VIA Rail Canada act.

The portion of the bill that deals with amendments, and presumably improvements to the Canada Transportation Act, needs to look at many issues.

The minister said that this is part one, there will be a part two and a part three, and maybe some other parts thrown in there as well. I would suggest to him that there are things that must be looked at that this bill certainly does not address.

Today the federal government spends approximately $300 million annually on the national highways system. It takes approximately $5 billion from fuel taxes, $1 billion from British Columbia alone.

There is the new airlines security tax. There are a lot of alternatives to it. There are alternatives that I have touched on with the minister in committee and I hope he will continue to look at them. Small airports in my immediate region of Cranbrook, Castlegar and Penticton, at this point in time, still do not have basic x-ray and yet the people who get on board the aircraft there fly around all the security the minister claims to be spending millions upon millions of dollars on at the major airports. This flies them around that.

The minister might wish to suggest to the contrary but never has he suggested, I would hope, that he would put in CAT scans and incredible lengths of security at tiny airports. A chain is only as good as its weakest link so the minister should consider some significant alternatives to the security system. If he does not recall what I suggested before, I would be more than happy to give him a new outline.

The government must take a lot of the responsibility for the problems in our airline industry now, particularly with the national carrier, Air Canada. Air Canada, as it sits now, is the result of Air Canada taking over Canadian Airlines. There was an alternative. The alternative was for an outside company, the Onex Corporation, to take over both and put them together. That would have been highly preferable.

Let me tell the minister why it would have been preferable and the fundamental difference between what happened and what would have happened. The Onex Corporation brought in new market capital. Air Canada financed out of its existing debt structure, one that it is now reeling under. What prevented the Onex deal? It was federal government legislation that prevented Onex from owning more than 10% of the shares, a thing that the government with a mere wave of a hand could have extinguished but chose not to do it.

There are major airport fees. Up until the time the government went through the creation of national airports and the authorities to look after them, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars a year running airports. Now it is charging so many fees that it is a profit making venture for it. That is another form of taxation. It is just another way for the Liberals to sneak money from the taxpayer. We can be assured that if an airport operation has to pay excessive taxes to the government, so the government can reap a big profit, that cost has to be passed on to the public.

I have heard the minister mention that he is concerned about the financial viability of community airports. There are a couple of things he could do. He could increase the capital assistance allowance for those airports to ensure that they remain viable in terms of dealing with necessary capital projects, but there is another thing he could do.

At the time all the community airports were turned over to these communities, they were told that they have to provide a plan in terms of their fire response times.They were allowed, where the times were sufficient, to take the airport firefighting off the airport and handle it from their own firefighting resources. Then after that was all signed and turned over and the commitment was made by these communities, the government came up with CARS308, which now threatens to force these same municipalities to put dedicated firefighters on the airport itself, a cost that very few of these airports can sustain.

The minister can take care of that by simply saying one of two things: that he will do away with that, or; if he requires authorities to put in something that he told them they did not have to do at the time they took these airports over, that he will pay for it. If the minister is really worried about the financial viability for small airports, those are the two choices.

The minister mentioned the ports. Recently the minister announced how proud he was and what a great thing it was for the mighty Liberal government to put $172 million into port security over five years. I always get a chuckle when the government does things like this because this is the government that took away the ports police in the first place. It has taken away the entire mechanism that created port security and then says “Please give us a big round applause for putting just a tiny bit of it back in”.

Regarding freight rail, the government needs to do something to ensure that we have all aspects of good free movement of grain for prairie farmers so that we can ensure that grain does get moved to the ports, that farmers are not being penalized with the inability to sell their grain with back charges on demurrage and so on. Also we need to have a real plan to ensure that we move heavy freight onto rails and off of our highways.

These are but a few of the transportation concerns of the public and this bill does not meaningfully address these in any way.

What is the real reason for the VIA Rail Canada act? According to the Minister of Transport in his appearance before the Standing Committee on Transport on May 22, 2002, the minister said,

--I think that by establishing VIA under a statutory base, it will make it very much more difficult for governments in subsequent times to be somewhat arbitrary and capricious with the passenger rail system.

In essence what the minister is saying is that he is a rail buff and that he will not be around in this position forever. He wants to use his position as the minister to entrench VIA as a government operation to make it easier to shovel the taxpayer money to VIA and make it harder for any future minister or party to consider alternatives such as private sector operation of VIA Rail.

In truth Bill C-26 is really about taking steps to prevent VIA from ever being taken out of the minister's hands. Normally, when a government takes on a public operation, it starts out as a government department. The next step to make the operation more stand alone, is to make it a crown corporation. Then, if the government wants to make it truly independent of government, it sets it up under the Canada Business Corporations Act. This would make it virtually identical to any private sector corporation but with the government owning all the shares. That is the stage that VIA Rail is actually at now. What the minister wants to do is go to the trouble and expense of moving backwards. Is there a precedent for this? Not that I know of.

Also, one of the things the government is doing with this is under the concept of running rights and VIA Rail's access to go to the big freight companies and tell them when it wants to run, how often it wants to run and how much it wants to pay. If the big freight companies do not like that, what can they do? If the freight companies do not give VIA what it wants, as a government operation, it can go to the Canada Transportation Agency, another government operation, and tell it to decide what is fair. No conflict there at all.

What are the choices for VIA? One is the status quo but that is a poor alternative at best. It would mean the ongoing subsidy of half a million dollars a day to VIA Rail. It would mean that VIA continues to compete against the unsubsidized private sector transportation companies. Since the Liberal Party took office in 1993, it has given VIA $2,966,905,000. Basically to round it off, and it does not take very much added to it to that, $3 billion. We talk about the boondoggle of the firearms registry now approaching $1 billion. This is $3 billion of taxpayer money to help subsidize VIA Rail. I wonder how many of those taxpayers actually have ridden on VIA Rail.

Let me put that into perspective for individual ridings, the minister's riding, my riding and your riding, Mr. Speaker. In each riding in this country, on average, the taxpayers have sent to Ottawa $10 million of their money to the minister to hand over to VIA Rail. It costs VIA Rail almost $400 million to make a gross revenue of $250 million. It is amazing. The ongoing subsidy is about a half a million dollars a day, and we should keep that figure in mind. Ten million dollars to each riding and $3 billion nationally.

Canada's health care system is greatly underfunded and is in trouble. There is a lack of funding for post-secondary education. Our national highway system is deteriorating. Farmers are suffering and in need of a continuation of farm aid. There are many local funding problems in all our ridings. Just think what each riding could have done with that $10 million dollars of taxpayer money which the minister has given to VIA Rail since his party took office and what we could have done nationally with the $3 billion VIA Rail has spent.

The alternative is to sell off all VIA Rail, in essence a continuation of what was so successfully done when VIA Rail sold off its western rail excursion business. It would mean then that rail travel would be given the opportunity to reach its full potential, the way the Rocky Mountaineer Railtours company has done. It would mean an end to the immense and ongoing subsidization of those who travel by rail. It would mean that the innovation of private enterprise could be brought into to play to find new ways to enhance the viability of rail travel.

One question that must be asked on the concept of selling off VIA Rail is: Is there anyone out there who would take it?

When the current Minister of Transport took over his portfolio, he publicly stated he was interested in either privatizing or commercializing VIA Rail. Frankly, given the minister's background, I was a little surprised to hear him take this enlightened attitude. Of course it was too good to be true. Not too long after, the minister stated that such options were off the table because VIA Rail could never make money and, therefore, the private sector had no interest in it.

This flies in the face of later testimony the minister gave before the Standing Committee on Transport. On May 22, 2002, the minister, in response to my questioning, stated:

--there's no question that the private sector had interest. We sent out solicitations of interest and 40 companies were interested...it would have been possible to do something.

As to why he changed his mind, he stated:

--when I became minister, it was in an environment after program review where I never thought in my wildest dreams that I could get $400 million out of finance for VIA Rail.

Now we know what the latest plans of VIA Rail really are. They are the minister's wildest dreams.

Since that meeting, I have been trying to obtain a list of those 40 names so I could contact them and see what kind of ideas they had for operating VIA Rail.

First, I tried access to information. I was not hopeful because I had used this to try to obtain a variety of different information about VIA Rail and had always been refused by the government. Sure enough, this attempt proved futile as well.

Then, when I brought it up at a transport committee meeting, on November 7, 2002, asking that the clerk obtain a list from the minister's office and the committee contact these individuals and ask about their ideas for operating VIA Rail, the committee agreed. However over four months later, there was nothing from the minister's office.

In a past presentation to the Standing Committee on Transport, former VIA Rail CEO Terry Ivany also made clear VIA's intentions and new targets for competition. For western Canada, he stated:

In the west, we will continue to provide basic transportation service. But we will also establish new services. Western Canada represents the greatest tourism potential in Canada.

There is an enormous potential for passenger rail to take full advantage, and to contribute to the development of tourism. We will invest and expand services to focus on the fastest growing tourism market today.

In response to a letter from me, where I addressed a concern that VIA was trying to re-establish itself on the Calgary-Vancouver route, in competition with the very company they sold that route to, the minister implied that VIA was needed on the southern route. Specifically, his letter states:

As you may be aware, I asked VIA Rail to assess the feasibility of restoring certain discontinued passenger rail services in order to expand VIA's service across Canada. As part of its proposed initiatives for western Canada, VIA has submitted a proposal for the reinstatement of year-round service between Calgary and Vancouver.

What would be the purpose for VIA to expand its service in the west? There are only two possibilities: the minister's contention that it is necessary to provide passenger service to the travelling public or, the alternative, to go into competition with the existing tourism operator, Rocky Mountaineer Railtours.

The argument that VIA is needed to provide passenger service to the travelling public is absolutely absurd. Currently a round trip from Edmonton to Vancouver by aircraft costs $287.22, which includes $41.22 in federal government taxes and surcharges of $55. It takes about an hour and a half each way. The minister is telling me that the airlines should be more visible in what they do. That is the full price. The VIA Rail fare is $393.76, and these are the lowest fares, which is net after a subsidy of nearly half a million dollars a day that VIA receives, and it takes in a full day in each direction. The Canadian taxpayers shell out half a million dollars a day so that VIA can operate a service that takes 16 times as long and costs 37% more. Yet the minister would have us believe that we need more of this kind of service. We do not.

Also, the minister talked briefly at the end of his speech today about the environment. Unlike the environmental benefit of moving heavy freight by rail, passenger rail service is the least environmentally friendly form of transportation. It uses considerably more fuel per passenger on the Edmonton to Vancouver trip than an aircraft. What is the justification of expanding this slow, expensive and environmentally unfriendly operation as a passenger service? There is not one.

That leaves VIA looking at going into competition with the existing tourism operator, the Rocky Mountaineer Railtours. The Rocky Mountaineer was a rail excursion service initiated by VIA in the 1980s. Like most of what VIA does, it lost money. When the Conservative government ordered VIA to dispose of this service and concentrate on their core responsibility, it carried less than 5,000 passengers annually.

The private sector investors who purchased the business from VIA paid millions of dollars to buy the business rights and rolling stock from VIA, to buy new cars and refurbish them, to hire and train their staff to the high standard, which I think the public expects on that kind of service, and to develop an international advertising strategy that would bring large amounts of foreign tourism into Canada every year. Business has grown tremendously. This is a private sector success story.

In essence, the government went to the private sector and said, “We want you to take over this operation, invest large amounts of private capital, end the drain of taxpayer funding, create jobs, boost the economy and pay taxes”.

The Rocky Mountaineer did all those things and now the minister, who as a self-confessed rail buff, should be heaping rewards on this company. Instead he is looking at letting the taxpayer funded government railway go back into competition with the business it could not run and sold. I guess he feels now that Peter Armstrong and the hard working people at the Rocky Mountaineer have built the industry up, his personal government rail line should be in a position to reap the benefits and the profits from all the work that those people have done. Anyone with a conscience or sense of what is right will see that this is a travesty, no matter what his or her political party.

We frequently talk about the need to involve the private sector in more investments in this country. We look to it to boost the economy and participate in public-private partnerships. Rocky Mountaineer Railtours has done what was asked of it in spades, and its reward is to have the government talk about going into competition with it using the taxpayer money to give the government the advantage. The whole private sector should watch this bill very closely. If VIA is allowed to further compete with the private sector, it is a warning to the private sector never to trust or co-operate with government again.

The minister says that there have been all kinds of consultations in the drafting of this bill. I would like to know who he talked to in western Canada on this issue. It certainly was not the chambers throughout the rail route in British Columbia, from Vancouver all the way to Calgary. It was not the boards of trade. It was not the councils along the route. It was not the provincial government in both B.C. and Alberta, all which oppose VIA Rail going back into competition with the Rocky Mountaineer.

Again referring to the testimony of former VIA CEO Terry Ivany, for eastern Canada, he stated:

In the (Quebec-Windsor) corridor, we will provide vastly expanded services--new express trains, more frequencies, shorter trip times, convenient schedules--all designed to fully capitalize on the business travel, cross border travel and tourism markets.

Given VIA's projected debt free startup status and its likely ongoing subsidization from the federal government, VIA would be able to further erode the customer base of the private transportation sector.

In a recent Maclean's interview, the Minister of Transport stated:

...congestion on the roads and security delays at airports make train travel more attractive.

This is the minister who takes $5 billion in fuel excise taxes and gives back only $300 million. Congestion on the roads indeed. No wonder. He could probably congest them a little more if he only gave us $200 million of that $5 billion.

With regard to security delays at airports, who put those in place? Who is collecting the airport security fee with no accountability for it and creating chaos at the airports? He is the very person who put that into place. He could have done something much more streamlined than what we have. We do not see it happening. The minister then says that we have to turn to rail, which I happen to be a buff of, because there is congestion on the roads and delays at the airports. What an interesting statement to make when he is the very person responsible for that congestion and those delays.

As I said, Ottawa collects about $5 billion a year in fuel taxes and spends only 6% on highway programs. At airports, the government has had over a year and a half to organize efficient security measures. All the flying public has received is yet another tax.

In 1995, VIA Rail employees went on strike. When the strike ended, VIA decided that it needed to take business away from the bus lines so it cut its already hugely subsidized fares by another 40%. VIA offered a round trip fare on VIA 1, its first class service, between Toronto and Kingston for under $100. That fare included before dinner drinks, a deluxe menu to choose dinner from, wine with dinner and drinks after dinner in both directions. It is questionable if the fare even covered the cost of the food and drinks for many people. How is an unsubsidized, taxpaying company supposed to compete with that?

The Ontario Motor Coach Association points out that Toronto desperately needs a new $20 million bus terminal but the industry cannot make that kind of investment if it thinks the government is about to expand a highly subsidized passenger rail system through that same market.

Many companies feeling the current financial squeeze have cut back on their discretionary spending but not VIA. Given that VIA is subsidized by almost $500,000 a day, how can it justify funding a private film production in the amount of $1 million? You remember that one, Mr. Speaker. It was the one where the government had to come up with an extra $1 million for VIA Rail and paid Lafleur Communications Marketing a commission of $120,000 to deliver the cheque to VIA. Of course Lafleur Communications Marketing also delivered a pretty hefty cheque back to the Liberal Party as a contribution.

The concept of privatizing VIA Rail does leave a question of service provision to communities where VIA Rail operations provide the only reasonable transportation service. Although these situations are limited, they are a concern that must be addressed. Continuation of service in these areas can be ensured through a variety of measures, and the Canadian Alliance is fully prepared to work to find the most viable solution to ensure continued service in the most cost effective manner. Continuing the government operation of VIA nationally is not the most cost effective manner. It is the least cost effective, along with all the other problems that I have already outlined.

As I mentioned earlier, I have been working through the Standing Committee on Transport to try and obtain a list of names the minister advised were interested in operating VIA. The committee had indicated a will to investigate the feasibility of having the private sector take over the operation of VIA. This was underway before the minister tabled Bill C-26 in the House. If the minister is really interested in the financial and transportation interests of the Canadian taxpayer, he will agree to allow the transport committee to complete a feasibility study of having the private sector take over the operation of VIA. I believe that a good case has already been made for this.

At the beginning of the minister's earlier on he talked in glowing terms about what an incredible job his government had done on privatization. Airports, ports, CN Rail, the air navigation system, all of which he said were good moves, good for the country and good for the taxpayer, and that these things were thriving. Why then does he not take one more step and look at it with VIA Rail as well?

The minister is a self-professed rail buff. If this is his only reason for keeping VIA under his control and he will agree to relinquish that control, I will personally offer to purchase for him the best model rail set imaginable. I realize that it is not the same as playing with a full size train but the taxpayers of this country will be forever grateful to him.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here today to speak on Bill C-26, amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the establishment of the VIA Rail Canada act.

I rise in this House today to discuss a document entitled “Straight Ahead: A Vision for Transportation in Canada”, which I tabled in the House on February 25.

Throughout our history, governments have embraced a succession of bold transportation visions - national railways spanning the continent, an international seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, and transcontinental air services.

Our national transportation system, linking every corner of this country, opened our doors to the rest of the world and to the commercial markets beyond our borders. As our nation has evolved, we have built a world-class transportation system.

Transportation practices in Canada have evolved over time, as required by the times and circumstances. Where required, we have brought in reforms and taken aggressive and innovative steps to improve the system and increase its efficiency.

Changes in the way airports and ports are managed, the commercialization of the air navigation system, the privatization of other infrastructure have all contributed to making the transportation system stronger and more dynamic. The results speak for themselves. The productivity growth in transportation over the past 10 years has been truly phenomenal. In fact, it has doubled in that period of time.

Canadian ports are forecasting $700 million of capital investment over the next five years. More than $5 billion of private money has been invested in airport capital projects since 1997. Also, price and cost trends in the transportation sector have consistently been lower than the rate of inflation, and we have also succeed in eliminating most transportation subsidies.

What this has meant for Canadians is better quality and greater choice in transportation services. Safety and security, accessibility, economic efficiency and environmentally sound performance have all become cornerstones of our transportation system, but we cannot become complacent with these very impressive results. We have to ensure that our policies continue to adapt in the face of new trends and new challenges.

In our policy document, “Straight Ahead”, we talk of the culmination of an initiative that began in 2001 to review the transportation policy for the next 10 years and beyond. “Straight Ahead” proposes a vision to guide the continued development of a sustainable transportation system for the country. It also conveys the government's response to the 2001 report of the Canada Transportation Act review panel.

The amendments to the CTA that are introduced in this bill are an important step in moving the vision forward. “Straight Ahead” reflects a careful consultation with the industry, users, provincial and territorial governments and of course, parliamentarians through the various committee appearances that I have had with members of the House and Senate Standing Committees on Transport.

It also reflects the results from earlier consultation efforts on the transportation table on climate change, Transport Canada's second sustainable development strategy and the millennium transportation conference, which I hosted in Toronto in the year 2000.

During these consultations, participants agreed that Canada's transportation policy is basically sound and headed in the right direction.

While it may not be necessary to overhaul the policy extensively, new challenges arise and our policy must adapt. Among these challenges are growing concerns about the impact of congestion on our quality of life.

The need for infrastructure in good condition to continue to support trade and the realization that our world-class transportation system is facing new challenges in a world where safety and security considerations force us to be more vigilant and to use new technologies.

The main sources consulted, which account for the proposed changes to the Canada Transportation Act, were general public information and research programs of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel.

The panel received more than 200 submissions and held townhall meetings in every province and territory. Meanwhile, the research program called on experts to examine policy issues and options. The result was a series of well thought-out opinions on the state of the transportation policy, future challenges and options for efficient intervention.

All this activity shaped the deliberations and recommendations of the panel. In addition to this, I convened a number of round tables across the country where I met with key members of the transportation industry, both the big companies and organizations, and representatives of the smaller transportation companies. I met with shippers, professors and academics who were concerned about transportation policy. My officials have been engaged in dialogue as well, not only with stakeholders but also with the provinces and territories.

Policy directions were also discussed at the annual meetings of the Canadian transportation ministers in September 2001 and September 2002. By and large, I am very happy to note that provinces and territories have been supportive of the many changes proposed in “Straight Ahead”. Certainly they will reflect some of these changes within their own jurisdiction in their legislative and policy changes.

“Straight Ahead” lays out the basic principles that will guide transportation policy development and for future planning and activities affecting the sector. They include the highest practical safety and security of life and property, guided by performance based standards and regulations when necessary; the efficient movement of people and goods to support economic prosperity and a sustainable quality of life based on competitive markets and the targeted use of regulatory and spending interventions; a clear focus on environmental issues with specific measures, such as promoting vehicles and fuels that produce few emissions, increased use of alternative modes of transportation for passenger travel and more efficient transportation of goods to support the government's climate change plan; user pricing that better reflects the full costs of transportation activity and transportation infrastructure decisions that meet user needs based on governance models that provide for stakeholder involvement and transparency; reasonable access to the national transportation system by Canada's remote regions; accessibility in the national transportation network without undue obstacles for persons with disabilities; and finally, partnerships and integration among the jurisdictions and with the private sector.

These principles will guide our action in five broad areas: safety and security; marketplace frameworks; infrastructure; the environment; and innovation and skills.

Let me now turn to some of the specifics.

Having a safe and secure transportation system has long been a central objective of our transportation policy and the number one priority for Transport Canada. By virtue of the co-operation of transportation stakeholders, Canada has one of the safest and most secure transportation systems in the world. That is particularly germane at this point in time given the difficulties that we have faced since September 11, 2001, and the ongoing unsettling atmosphere that we have because of pending hostilities in the Middle East.

However I can assure Canadians that not only have we taken exceptional safety and security measures in the system in the last 18 months, but we have adopted new measures that will be and are being put in place as the current situation evolves.

I would like to turn to some of the specifics on the issue of marketplace frameworks. With regard to rail freight, we will make remedies more easily accessible for shippers by removing the requirement that the Canada Transportation Agency must be convinced that shippers would suffer “substantial commercial harm” before relief can be granted. We will expand the availability of final offer arbitration and we will improve the conditions under which a shipper can ask for traffic to be transferred to another railway. At the same time we will maintain all other existing remedies.

I should say that we did not accept the view of some to enhance the current running rights provisions within the Canada Transportation Act because we felt that it would place an undue burden on the system, that it would be unworkable and, certainly, that it would have the obverse reaction to the one that would be desired.

A series of legislative amendments will be proposed in the legislation that will strengthen publicly funded passenger and commuter rail services, including giving publicly funded passenger rail operators, such as VIA, Go Transit, West Coast Express and others across the country, recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency when commercial negotiations are unsuccessful with respect to the terms and conditions of operation on federal rail lines.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker, the controversy over the last couple of years with West Coast Express, which was subsequently resolved, between the operator and Canadian Pacific Rail, but at that time no remedy was available for West Coast Express. This now says that publicly funded passenger rail systems will be able to seek adjudication from the Canada Transportation Agency.

Another measure is to make contracts of publicly funded passenger rail services public to improve transparency and to maintain the integrity of rail corridors for possible public transit needs by improving the rail line discontinuance process in urban areas.

We think these legislative amendments support rail as a viable choice for passengers, thereby contributing to both the government's climate change and the cities' agenda.

In support of passenger services, VIA Rail's existing mandate and powers will also be confirmed in new legislation. Unlike the majority of other crown corporations, VIA Rail did not have its own legislation. I feel particularly badly about that because in 1977 I was vice-chairman of the House of Commons standing committee on transportation and communications, as it then was, and was one of the proponents for the government to take the CP and CN passenger operations, the losses for which were 80% funded by the federal government, and put it in a dedicated company. The minister of transport at the time and the government did that. Unfortunately they did not go the extra step. They did not give VIA its statutory base. I believe VIA has suffered as a result over the last number of years.

Therefore we want to make sure that the statutory base will ensure that if there are any substantial changes to VIA's service in the future they will be the subject of public debate in the House. I think all members should applaud that. In fact, this was one of the recommendations that came from the Standing Committee on Transport a few years ago in its landmark report “The Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada”.

We think the new VIA Rail act accomplishes all of the goals that the committee members set out and, combined with other initiatives, will demonstrate the government's continued support for inner city passenger rail services across the country.

I should state that we are also working on some other initiatives, which have been commented on frequently in the news, with respect to making VIA services in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor faster. I would hope to be able to say something more substantial on that at a later time. However the fact is that we are committed to enhancing passenger rail and providing that option for Canadians.

We are also introducing two initiatives that are multi-modal in nature. We are proposing to adapt and expand to all modes the mergers and acquisitions process that currently applies for the air industry.

The House will remember that in 2000, after the merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada in the then Bill C-26, we brought forward a merger and acquisition strategy that covered the merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada.

We propose to adopt that particularly ethos and apply it to other transportation industries. Frankly, this really came about because we realized a few years ago, when Canadian National entered into a partnership merger, as it was called, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, that there was no statutory base upon which to review that merger outside of the Competition Act.

While the Competition Act is important for obvious reasons, there are other public interest issues that need to be addressed when we have mergers of such magnitude, including the impact on communities and the impact on workers. We found the odd situation of Canadian shippers having to go to Washington to make submissions to the surface transportation board, which was then reviewing the proposed merger under U.S. law. What kind of a ridiculous situation was that when the sovereign country of Canada was not able to have its own process and its shippers had to go to a foreign country to make their case?

Once we pass this bill that will not happen if we see in the future, as I think we will, further mergers in the rail industry within North America. The Canadian national interests will be addressed by virtue of the statutory changes that we have brought forward.

One of the most interesting files I have had over the last number of years is the evolving one with respect to air policy. I remind members of the House that in an earlier version of Bill C-26 in the year 2000 there was support from all parties in the House for the concept of a made in Canada solution to develop competition to Air Canada.

That policy, supported by all members on both sides of the House, was working on September 11, 2001. We had Canada 3000 at the time with its largest booking day in its history the day before. Of course we know that with the tragic events, the entire society was impacted, but nowhere was it more impacted than in the transportation sector and particularly the aviation sector. As a result, Canada 3000 went bankrupt. Air Canada's market share went from 82% at the time of the merger to around 65% on September 11, 2001 and then bounced back up to 78%. Since that period in time, Air Canada's domestic market share has declined. Some will say it is in the low 60% range and at some point it will bottom out.

Of course there are issues facing Air Canada which have to be settled by the unions, the workers and management. There are issues the government can be helpful with and we are prepared to play our part. We emphasize that at the moment there is a process going on with respect to the airline getting its costs under control.

Certainly with the restructuring that is going on, I would hope that we will be in a better position to have a more viable national carrier, Air Canada. Of course it is one of the world's great carriers and has been faced with the same problems as other great carriers in the world. I think Air Canada has done a much better job in handling the challenges than many of the other carriers, including the ones in the United States.

We are proposing some amendments to the CTA that would facilitate market entry for carriers. Through these measures a dominant carrier would be required to interline and agree to joint through fares with other carriers on domestic services and permit ongoing access to its frequent flyer program on reasonable commercial terms. This is not just targeted at Air Canada; it is targeted at any dominant carrier that reaches that position. Certainly with the fluidity we have seen in the industry, we will see other entrants come forward and have the critical mass that will provide viable competition to Air Canada.

We are proposing amendments that would ensure that the advertising of air fares is transparent and accurate. That is something that has really frustrated a lot of travellers. People in the House are much more knowledgeable about the air industry than are ordinary Canadians and therefore we are perhaps more circumspect when we look at the advertising. Ordinary people just open the newspapers or look at television and the price they see is the price they think they have to pay, but of course it is not. That is why we are proposing amendments to deal with that in this legislation.

Current ownership rules are not going to change. The raising of the limit from 25% foreign ownership is not an answer. It is not really required. In fact I am told that Air Canada's largest foreign stakeholder owns less than 10%, so where is the thrust?

I know there are some who will say, “Who cares whether we have an airline with a flag on it and it is called Air Canada?” They are entitled to their view, but I beg to differ. I believe Air Canada is one of the great symbols of this country. It is our flag carrier around the world. It brings us pride. It takes Canadians around the world.

The government is committed to keeping the Canadian air industry owned and operated by Canadians, so current ownership rules will not change. Perhaps something will occur in the future to change our minds, but we do not think it is a solution that is required right now.

On the international front, we will continue to work with other countries to gradually liberalize Canada's bilateral air agreements using as a model the successful open skies agreement that we had in 1995 with the United States. A lot of people say that we are not prepared to broaden the agreement with the U.S. Of course we are. I have told this to my counterpart, Mr. Mineta in Washington. I have told Ambassador Cellucci that we are prepared to sit down with the U.S. any time to talk about the broadening of the current open skies treaty. People often confuse that with the issue of cabotage, the ability of a foreign carrier to take passengers from point to point within a foreign country; Air Canada could take passengers from New York to Los Angeles, or American Airlines could take passengers from Toronto to Vancouver.

This is an issue that has cropped up in the last few years. Everybody thinks it will be the panacea for competition and that it will better the Canadian flying environment. The fact is the large foreign carriers, especially the Americans, once they get reorganized, will only be interested in the major core routes. They will not be interested in serving smaller communities, unlike a company like CanJet that goes into Deer Lake, or Jetsgo that is now going into Charlottetown and Timmins. They would not be interested in those smaller communities, so where is the advantage?

We already have significant competition in the major markets. The biggest and most profitable one is Toronto-Vancouver and then Toronto-Calgary, so why do we have to do it? In any event, it is a moot point. I raised it with Rodney Slater, the Democrat secretary of transportation in the Clinton administration. I raised it two or three times with Norman Mineta, who is the current secretary of transportation. Mr. Mineta, who has served 20 years in Congress, said, “Look, just do not bother talking about this because there will be no appetite in the U.S. Congress to allow cabotage”. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because in the U.S., the U.S. unions view Air Canada as a high quality, low cost operator that will be a significant challenge to them.

Also, if they did it, they would have to extend that same kind of privilege to airlines in other countries, for example, British Airways, Air France, KLM and Lufthansa, so it is just not on. I am prepared to discuss anything, including that, but when the other side does not even want to discuss it, there is not much I can do about it. People just do not seem to get that message.

With respect to infrastructure, this has been the subject of some debate, certainly since the budget. This country now has a transportation infrastructure second to none. That does not mean to say it cannot improve, but we see the new airports being built. We see the ports improvements. We see the fact that the federal government is recommitting money to major highway projects across the country. We see the infrastructure programs that we have had with provincial and municipal governments since 1993. Some $800 billion has gone in there.

In the budget announced a few weeks ago there is $3 billion that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, will oversee. There is another $3 billion in the Kyoto envelope for the Minister of the Environment. Much of this money can be applied to transportation initiatives and transportation infrastructure in the country.

I know there are some who wanted more money, particularly the municipalities. I have to say quite frankly that when the municipalities reacted to the budget, they did not read the document. They did not read the fact that there is $6 billion for infrastructure in that budget. They did not realize all the other initiatives, whether it is housing, for which I have responsibility, or the homeless, for which the Minister of Labour has responsibility. There is an increase in moneys for affordable housing for the SCPI program and for the RRAP home renovation program. All of this helps Canadian cities.

On the transportation front there are moneys available. In fact a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Industry and I, along with the Minister of Justice, announced in Montreal the A-30 autoroute. The A-30 autoroute has often been raised in the House, particularly by my friends from the Bloc. This is a major piece of infrastructure that is national in significance, because it will allow trucks and cars to bypass the downtown streets of Montreal. That was done under the auspices of the infrastructure program.

Let us not buy this phony argument that somehow the federal government is not involved in providing for federal infrastructure improvements. We are doing it through policy changes that allow local authorities, whether it is the ports or the airports, to borrow on the open market. We do it directly, like the subsidy to VIA Rail of an extra $402 million, or we do it through infrastructure programs as I have just described. As more money becomes available, it will be applied to transportation. I think that 60% or 70% of the money that came out of the 2001 budget that we are working on with officials at Industry Canada is applied to transportation projects.

I am not going to say anything about airports today because I am about to introduce another bill very soon that will deal with providing a statutory base for Canada airport authorities across the country. In the 1994 national airports policy, this was done under existing statutes and the Financial Administration Act and another statute, but there was no statutory base for these airports. We are taking the 29 largest airports and making them come under a new statute that will have as its goal improved accountability, improved transparency and improved governance. When people see the bill, in a matter of days hopefully, they will see that we are trying to put our airport authorities on a very sound footing.

As an accompaniment to that, we have been reviewing the issue of airport rents. We hope to have that review completed very shortly. We are also reviewing our policy on remote airports which will include the viability of regional airports. We want to make sure that smaller airports do not get left out in the cold. We did it right in broad terms in 1994 with the national airports policy, but there are a lot of loose ends. The loose ends require a statutory base for the big airports. For the smaller airports it requires further reflection and study and perhaps assistance.

There are other issues that will come up in committee and will be raised in debate here about user charges and how they affect the airline industry and the airport charge and all the rest. I will be pleased to answer those questions when we get to committee.

We are also having a review of the Canada Marine Act. Members may remember that in 1998 we passed the Canada Marine Act. It was somewhat controversial but has been a great success. It has enabled the creation of 19 Canada port authorities across the country. It allows them to borrow money. It allows them to manage their own affairs and to dictate their own marketing strategies. The results are incredible for big ports and for small ports.

For the big ports it has been truly remarkable. The three great ports of this country in terms of volume, Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax, have done incredibly well. Business has increased. Efficiencies have been made. Money has been made and ploughed back because facilities like airports are still owned by the people of Canada.

Vancouver, for example, is the single most successful port on the west coast of the Americas. My friend over there from British Columbia, who I know is going to speak after me, should be happy about that. It beats all the American ports on the west coast and any other ports south of the United States. Halifax and Montreal have similar competitive advantages to many ports on the east coast of the United States.

We will have the marine act review completed shortly. Then we will probably begin statutory changes to the Canada Marine Act. The bill we are introducing today is the precursor to the airports act and amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

We are not only interested in our ports, airports, and putting more money into highways. We have announced highway extensions in New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and I am sure there will be many more across the country under the infrastructure programs and the program that we administer at Transport Canada.

However, we are also concerned about the need for new bridges or tunnels to the United States. That is one of the reasons why we have amendments in this bill to establish a clear approval process for the construction of new international bridges and tunnels to ensure they meet the trade and transportation needs of the Canada of the future.

I want to make a few more points with respect to our overall policy.

Future strategic investments in the transportation sector will focus on reducing urban congestion and bottlenecks along trade corridors. At the same time, these investments will ensure we reach our climate change and clean air objectives.

We also intend to work hard to find alternative delivery models for public transportation infrastructure in the areas of marine navigation, highways and public transportation.

Our infrastructure must also service Canada's remote regions. An important part of the national transportation policy has always been and will continue to be guaranteeing that remote regions have reasonable access to the national transportation system, with respect to their circumstances, size and particular location.

I am fully aware, Mr. Speaker, that you have an opinion on this policy because you represent a large remote riding. It is very important for us to ensure that our policy addresses the problems faced by remote regions throughout the country.

Another area of concern of course is the environment. I would be very remiss if I sat down and did not say anything about the environmental impacts that come from transportation. We must keep this issue at the top of mind. In fact, we debated this in the House for many months and the work still has not been concluded.

We have now adopted the Kyoto protocol and made a commitment to Kyoto, but now the tough work has begun with respect to ensuring that we meet those objectives. Clean air, clean water, improved fuel efficiency standards and increasing the awareness of Canadians are among the many elements of our strategy to contribute to the government-wide environmental agenda.

Transportation, as members know, is the single largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. It is about 28% versus about 33% or 34% in the United States, so progress on Kyoto will require real gains in transportation. Transport Canada will provide leadership in the sector and encourage the development of innovative solutions.

We will work with industry to better understand the social costs of transportation because understanding these costs is the first step in reflecting them more accurately in the prices paid by users. As a clear signal of our commitment to the environment, we will enshrine the principle of respect for the environment in the national policy declaration section of the Canada Transportation Act.

Another area that is very important, and I cannot underscore this enough, is the need to deal with innovation and skills requirements of our transportation industry. Success in the areas of marketplace frameworks, infrastructure, environment, and safety and security will depend upon the sector's ability to innovate and develop the skills of its workers.

After all, transportation moves $1 trillion worth of goods a year in Canada and is a key enabler in many sectors. Innovation in transportation will enhance Canada's competitiveness and contribute to meeting broader social and economic goals, such as reducing congestion and limiting environmental degradation.

Our efforts will focus on fostering innovation and intelligent transportation systems and logistical systems that support the efficient and seamless movement of people and freight. We will also work with the sector to increase the awareness of high skilled requirements of the transportation system of the future.

We have gone through a period of time in the last 30 or 40 years, certainly in the period when I was growing up in the late fifties and early sixties, where people assumed that a better job was always an administrative job, a white collar job, a desk job, and that somehow those people that serviced planes and trains, that laid the ballast or the track for the rail or worked on the ships, or worked below deck in the boiler rooms, that these people somehow were doing work that was less acceptable and less relevant to society.

I come from the school where every job in society is of equal value. Not everyone can be the Prime Minister of Canada. Not everyone can be the president of Canadian National or Air Canada. People have to do what they are comfortable in doing. Whether it is sweeping the streets in our cities, driving a bus or working computers in the control centres of Canadian National or the airlines, all of these jobs are very important.

An interesting thing has happened in the last few years. Transportation has become high tech in its own way. Has anyone sat in the cab of a modern truck to see the instrumentation that is available? It is not as complex as a cockpit of a plane, but that instrumentation is much more sophisticated than it ever was before.

Global positioning systems are now in operation by big trucking companies. Technology has permeated the industry. We invested a lot in high technology, in the innovation and technology agenda in the last number of years. There was always a view that if we did that it was enough. It is not enough.

We can invest in all the telecommunications, all the technological systems that we want, computerization, and we can be on-line nine ways to Sunday, but unless we can get goods from point to point and unless we can get people from place to place it does not matter what kind of technology there is in the planning of the transportation system.

We need roads, rail and the seaway. We need good ports, airports and rail yards. We need good crossings at the border with the United States. We need all of the physical attributes required to make a transportation system truly competitive.

The policy document I have brought forward enunciates the government's intention to continue to build on the many successes already evident in our transportation system. It embraces our objectives that show the true course for the future.

The amendments that we have today are the first part of the menu, the first course. The second course will be the airports bill and the third will be amendments to the Canada Transportation Act some months down the road.

Certainly, I would hope that members, although they may differ in some degree with the philosophical directions, would at least say that the government has come forward with a concerted, comprehensive transportation framework that addresses the transportation needs of Canadians in the years ahead.

I look forward to answering questions in committee. My officials look forward and I know stakeholders will come to the committee. I believe this is a major piece of legislation for the government. The policy document was a major policy document of the government that was outlined in the throne speech last fall. We are living up to the commitments of continuing to build the best, safest, most secure, and most efficient transportation system in the world.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

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

Airline Industry

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the airline industry around the world has faced turbulence since September 11, 2001. It is being exacerbated by the current tensions in the Middle East and the spiral of fuel prices.

When the hon. member talks about airline policy, I might remind him that it was his party, the Reform Party in 2000, that supported the government and Bill C-26. As the Alliance, it supported us on Bill C-23.

I thought the opposition was supporting the government, so we spoke with one voice on airline policy. I think the Alliance members should recognize the truth.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. Under Bill C-26, Air Canada was obliged to serve those communities served by Canadian Airlines and Air Canada on December 21, 1999. That expires January 4, 2003, and it has given notice to terminate service to some communities.

Our experience has been that when an airline leaves a community with the sufficient notice as provided for in Bill C-26, other carriers come in. In his own province, Provincial Airlines and Air Labrador have immediately announced that they will fill the vacuum. That shows the airline policy is working.

Regional Air Transportation

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that after the merging of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, we set up a system, under Bill C-26, to protect services to small communities across the country, for a period of three years.

Air Canada now has the right to leave any city. In our opinion, if Air Canada stops serving a small community, it will be replaced by another carrier in that community.

We saw it happen in Newfoundland, for example, and in other communities across the country.