Mr. Speaker, while I am generally recognized a fun loving person, I think that I will be somewhat of a party pooper this evening. I can see colleagues having fun, joking around and laughing. They are still at it. I understand that it is getting late, but I do not think that should prevent us from maintaining some discipline out of respect for the people we represent. I think that the least we can do is deal with the issue at hand seriously and stop this joking around that several gentlemen in this House have been engaged in for the past half hour. I say gentlemen because the only remarks showing any intelligence came from a woman, much to her credit.
I find it regrettable that, to some extent, democracy is under attack this evening. For one thing, with all the clowning around going on, I doubt that anyone who happened to tune in on the parliamentary channel tonight is still watching because, frankly, we have to admit that the level of debate is rather low.
In terms of democracy, a committee of elected members of the House of Commons is currently making amendments to a bill to give it more teeth and thus enabling it to better protect our citizens. This committee has unanimously approved these amendments. We tell our citizens and our electors that we have worked hard, done our job, acquitted our duty and given them a law with more teeth. Then unelected senators return the bill to its original state by removing the amendments that improved the bill and responded to the needs of the public.
I would like to point out that what is quite paradoxical is the fact that the amendments made by the committee of the House of Commons to give more teeth to the bill were adopted unanimously. I am perplexed by the comments of our Liberal colleague who spoke before me, was doubled over with laughter and practically mocked the work of the committees, because he was a member of this committee and supported the amendments. He subsequently accepts that the Senate committee that studied the issue removed the original amendments.
What is even more paradoxical is that the Senate committee was unanimous in its decision, which was the complete opposite of the decision reached by the members of Parliament. There is a contradiction. These results are not close. On the one hand, all members of the House committee stated that the legislation should have more teeth; on the other hand, the senators stated unanimously that the legislation should not be given more teeth.
There is a reason for that. The reason is that members of Parliament asked people to appear before the committee, listened to what they had to say and understood them, whereas the senators did not. They did not go to the trouble of listening to people to learn about what they have to deal with every day because the railway companies operate their lines with no regard for the communities in which they operate. The senators did not take that into account, did they? No, they invited only railway company representatives, who told them that all of the parties represented in the House of Commons committee, who had adopted these clauses and amendments unanimously, were all wrong. According to these representatives, the railway companies know what is best for people. If there has been one case since the beginning of my brief political career—since I was elected in January 2006—that has shown just how useless the Senate is, just how harmful it can be, in fact, this is it.
I find the senators' behaviour unacceptable. First, because they did not even deign to consult the people, and second, because they introduced amendments not on matters that members of Parliament had forgotten to address or study, but on matters that they had studied and amended unanimously.
The amendment the Senate is proposing is to revert almost to the original wording. What does that mean? It means that the senators are telling the members of this House that, even though they worked on the bill for days, held consultations and met with a lot of people, they were all wrong and the senators are going to tell them how it is done. I want to say that the Senate is mistaken.
I would go even further. The behaviour of the Liberal and Conservative members is just as deplorable. They are supporting the unelected Senate and undoing the work done by all the members of the committee. This work will be undone because the senators have given in to blackmail and lobbying by the railways.
Moreover, neither the government nor the Liberal Party wants to tell the senators that that is enough, that the committee worked on this. Neither the government nor the Liberal Party wants to show the senators what we want in the bill or tell them that we are sending it back and that we refuse their amendments. Neither the government nor the Liberal Party wants to tell them to do what they have to do. Nether the Liberals nor the Conservatives want to do that. They will keep quiet and adopt the amendments. This is especially surprising coming from the government, because for days, weeks and months in this House, the government denounced unelected senators, denounced systematic obstruction, denounced the fact that these people undo the work of parliamentarians. Today, these members are keeping quiet, falling in line and accepting this, even though the position of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was unanimous. I find this very unfortunate.
It seems to me that our Parliament, our House of Commons, would have sent a clear message to the senators if it had told them that, because we all agreed, they could not make any amendments on matters the members themselves had amended unanimously. It seems to me that this is what we should have done, but we did not do it. This is extremely regrettable. I hope there are still some Liberal and Conservative members who will change their minds before tomorrow's vote.
I am looking forward to hearing the Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse in particular speak in this debate. He has worked on the committee and brought in TV cameras to show what a great job he was doing and how hard he was working for his constituents. I am anxious to see whether he will vote against the Senate amendments tomorrow to be true to himself and say that he does not want to see the work he has done undone by the senators. I am anxious to hear what the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse will have to say. I am looking forward to him taking part in this debate. Sadly, he is likely to toe the line and vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the Senate, basically turning his back on the work done by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which achieved unanimity.
This is especially true since the need to pass this legislation quickly cannot be used as an excuse. This bill has been introduced in the House a number of times already. We could very well send the bill back to the Senate and tell the senators to do their job and return it without amendments. The senators themselves said in committee that they would not oppose it or block it.
If memory serves, it was a Conservative senator who said, and I quote:
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 to pass the bill quickly through this chamber.
In other words, the senators are already telling us that, should the bill be sent back to them with the amendments having been rejected, they will not dig in their heels; they will send it back to us. Clearly, there is no reason to adopt these amendments.
The only reason would be if the Liberals and the Conservatives were using this, were hiding behind the Senate, to yield to the railway lobby.
For the benefit of those who did not have the opportunity to follow the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I will explain what happened there. There are 308 members in this House. We all sit on various committees, and it is perfectly normal not to be able to follow everything that takes place. The amendments adopted by the House of Commons' committee were adopted unanimously. This was a compromise between some parties, including the Bloc Québécois, which felt that the bill was really not going far enough. Even with the amendments that were adopted, we still felt that it was not going far enough. We believed that the bill needed much more teeth.
On the other side, members from other parties, including Liberals and Conservatives, thought that this was already an improvement, and that even though we could maybe do better, they did not want to go that far. So, we made this compromise. This wording was adopted unanimously, to give more teeth to the act and to better protect citizens. We reached this compromise, even though it was not enough for the Bloc Québécois, but we told ourselves that we had to live with this decision. We achieved real gains for people. However, these gains were lost, because of the work of non-elected senators, but also because of the attitude of those members who are going to vote in favour of the amendments made by senators.
I will try to convince them to change their minds by tomorrow. I would like to say a few things about the reality on the ground, the reality for the people of Pointe-Saint-Charles. First, I should point out that the people of Pointe-Saint-Charles did not build their houses next to the railway. Rather, the train now goes through their neighbourhood. As such, I find the documents that came back from the Senate transport committee to be somewhat disdainful. They practically say that if people decide to put their houses next to a railway, then too bad for them, they will just have to live with the noise. But that is not the case everywhere, and it is certainly not the case in a historic neighbourhood like Pointe-Saint-Charles. The neighbourhood had grown up over the years and then a railway was built right through it. Houses even had to be torn down for it. The railway companies have no right to refuse to pay attention to the communities around their rail lines or to say that it is not their, the companies', problem. They decided to build their railway there, so they should be responsible for paying attention to the community's needs.
I met with people who have trouble sleeping. I met children who have difficulty learning because they do not get enough sleep to concentrate in school. That worries me. It is a real problem. I do not think that the Senate committee heard about this, because not a single representative of the people appeared before it. People live with this problem day after day. Vibrations are also a big problem. Often, vibrations travel even farther than sound because they go through walls and physical barriers.
In Pointe-Saint-Charles, shunting happens in the middle of the night right on the lines, not in the rail yard. I can assure you that the operators do not care one bit about the noise produced by two cars when they make contact. The noise is sporadic. People can hear the cars running into each other.
This is what the expression “cause as little noise as possible” means in the bill. That is what it is all about. It is possible to make less noise in this case. Perhaps the railway cars could be gathered together at some other location. That would be one way of making less noise. Perhaps, they could slow down a little before the cars hit each other, so that there is less noise. This is what is meant by making less noise. It is a very clear notion. It is so clear in fact that it already exists in the Canada Transportation Act. We were told about this by Helena Borges, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, at Transport Canada. She told the committee that, under section 95 of the act, which regulates the construction of railway facilities, railway companies must do as little damage as possible when building such facilities. “Do as little damage as possible”, now that sounds a lot like “cause as little noise as possible”.
So, this already existed in the act. It is already a well-known principle that is easy to understand. However, we are told that it could be subject to interpretation. It is no more so the case than when we use the term “reasonable”.
What is reasonable for railway companies is not necessarily reasonable for people who live next to the railway tracks. This is confusing. However, if we say “as little noise as possible”, the only question that the Canadian Transportation Agency has to determine is whether it is possible to make less noise. If it is possible, it must be done, and if it is not possible, it is not done. It seems to me that this is just plain common sense. It would really have helped our fellow citizens, and it would have forced railway companies to really do their job, to surpass themselves, and to ask themselves, day in and day out, in the course of their operations, what they can do to reduce the noise level.
Furthermore, a second principle was introduced to the effect that the surrounding environment would have to be considered. The reason for introducing the principle is that, in listing the criteria that must be considered in assessing whether the companies are making as little noise as possible, there was a factor included that took into account the operational needs of railway companies. The Bloc felt that that should be removed. It is not a question of whether the railway company needs to make noise or not, but rather, whether the noise is bothering the people who live nearby.
There was quite a debate on this matter in committee. The advantages and disadvantages were weighed, and the economic impact was assessed. The compromise meant considering the needs of the companies. I think this is a good guarantee for them, one that protects them. In reaching its decisions, the agency will take into account their operational needs. This seemed to me to be a significant loophole, a considerable gap, that allowed them to continue to do as they please. To compensate, on the other side, we thought we would also ask them to take into account the setting in which they work. If they are in a marshalling yard that is isolated and out of the way, they can make noise. There is no problem if there is no one to bother except the hares. However, when they are located in a densely populated residential area where people live close to the railway lines, like in Pointe Saint-Charles, when rail lines run close to where people live, we will ask them to take this into consideration. I thought this was a reasonable compromise. I was not the only one to think so. I recall that all members of the House Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities and all members of all parties agreed with this idea. Only the senators and the railway companies did not agree with us. Today and tomorrow, we will unfortunately probably see some members, people elected to represent their constituents, give in to the appalling blackmail by the railway companies and senators. I find it all very unfortunate.
I would like to conclude by saying that I believe this was a very sad part of our work. During the coming months and the coming election campaign, citizens from Quebec and elsewhere in Canada will have to be reminded about the role that Conservative and Liberal members played in this saga. They will have to be reminded that, in committee, they first responded to the demands of their fellow citizens, to the demands of the people. They did their work well. Afterwards, they wimped out and caved in to the Senate.
I am anxious to hear the explanations of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse on this issue. He made a lot of noise in the media, he bragged a lot and he put up a big show. I am anxious to see the member for Lévis—Bellechasse tomorrow. I hope he will be here and will rise to vote against the Senate amendments. I think that this is the only decent thing he can do if he wants to respect his constituents a little bit. If he does not do so, he will confirm what the Bloc Québécois always says, that is that the only party that is really able to represent Quebeckers, without making any compromise and without ever abandoning them, is the Bloc Québécois.
The government always talks about the uselessness of the Bloc and the Conservatives think they are good and smart because they are in power. However, when comes the time to vote, Conservative members, as well as Liberal members, are not really free to do so in the interests of their fellow citizens. This is what we will see tomorrow during the vote.
