Bill C-11 (Historical)

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

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

Canada Transportation Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-11 which contains proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. Many of the clauses in Bill C-11 are taken from omnibus legislation tabled by previous governments which never passed despite repeated attempts. Bill C-11 is strategic in selecting high priority items, like powers to address railway noise, ensure proper advertisement of airfares and facilitating commuter rail for quick passage.

Bill C-11 is the second transport bill I have selected for second reading because it addresses high priority issues that were not addressed by previous governments. The current bill contains amendments to the Canada Transportation Act related to the general provisions, air provisions, rail passenger provisions, railway noise and grain revenue cap. Some of these issues were raised by members in the House during the second reading debate on Bill C-3. I am sure those members will be pleased that we are proceeding with the proposed amendments.

The government plans to table a third bill soon on amendments to the rail freight provisions of the act. These amendments will reflect the views heard during a final round of consultations with shippers to develop as much consensus as possible. The government has assured shippers that it takes their concerns very seriously and will be proceeding with a third bill on a priority basis.

I would now like to focus on Bill C-11, which aims to strike a balance between the interests of communities, consumers, commuters, public transit companies, and air and rail carriers.

We believe that these changes will translate into a better strategic framework, which will help Canada achieve its economic and environmental objectives, increase the efficiency of its transportation system and improve the quality of life of Canadians, especially those living in urban areas.

The proposed amendments include a modernized and simplified national transportation policy statement, which sets out the guiding principles in a way that is simpler and clearer than in the past.

The statement provides direction and guidelines for possible action plans, along with information on how to process complaints and arbitration applications submitted to the Canadian Transportation Agency. The improvements made to this statement are intended to address the concerns expressed by shippers.

Bill C-11 contains a number of provisions related to the role and structure of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The number of full time members of the agency would be reduced from seven to five, all of whom would be located at the agency in the National Capital Region. I believe that the efficiency of the agency would be increased if all members were located at the agency on a full time basis. This would be more consistent with the nature of the agency's decision making processes, which normally require more than one member to sign off on decisions, orders and findings.

At the same time, the concentration of members at the agency office in the same location makes it possible to reduce the number of members to five. This is not only an efficient measure; it would bring financial savings as well.

The proposed amendments would give the agency the statutory authority to engage in mediation upon request on matters within its jurisdiction. The amendments would ensure the adequate safeguards are in place to maintain its quasi-judicial role.

Mediation solutions can be simpler, quicker and less litigious and costly than other options. The lines of communication between parties during mediation typically contribute to a healthy commercial relationship after disputes are resolved. In addition, mediated agreements have higher commitment levels as parties jointly craft solutions and the process can assist in narrowing the gaps on disputed issues if brought before the agency at a later date.

Bill C-11 also provides for new measures designed to protect air passengers.

The government realizes that Canadians want to know the real price of a plane ticket in airline advertising. It would like the prices advertised for air transportation to be clear and transparent, and not misleading. The airlines have listened to consumers and taken major steps to guarantee greater transparency in their advertising. At the same time, consumers wish to make sure that the industry will continue on the right track.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-11authorize the minister to make regulations that would apply to all media, as necessary. The Air Travel Complaints Commissioner’s Office was created as a temporary, transitional measure in 2000, following the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International. Bill C-11 would replace the temporary function of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner with a permanent, transparent function imposed by the law for handling complaints about air transportation. This activity would be part of the regular activities of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The government recognizes the importance of the air travel complaints program for Canadians. Thanks to the amendments under study, Canadians will still be able to address their air travel complaints to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will improve the framework for passenger rail service in Canada by allowing commuter rail operators and VIA Rail Canada to seek adjudication from the agency if they are unable to reach agreement with the railways on access to track and other services when new agreements are negotiated or existing agreements renegotiated.

In addition the line transfer and abandonment provisions will be extended to include urban corridor and urban transit authorities. Bill C-11 will give the agency the authority to settle noise disputes if voluntary efforts are not successful. The agency will be able to order a railway to make the necessary changes in order to reduce unreasonable noise levels associated with railway operation or construction.

Governments need access to good data to help develop and assess transportation policies and programs. The existing data provisions in the Canada Transportation Act will improve to add security as a purpose for which I can collect data. The amendments will also expand the list of stakeholders from whom data can be gathered and improve on the administrative penalties that can be applied if reporting requirements are not met.

The amendments in Bill C-11would introduce a new merger review procedure, which would apply to all carriers and service providers under federal jurisdiction, for example, air, rail and maritime transport, bus and truck transportation, and airports and seaports.

This approach would build on the strong points of the merger review process now in place for airline companies.

This process was put in place with the amendments made to the Canada Transportation Act in 2000 as a result of the issues of public interest raised by the acquisition of Canadian Airlines International by Air Canada. This new mechanism replaced the requirements of the Competition Act respecting merger reviews.

Here are the chief elements of the proposed provision respecting mergers:

Merger applicants must address specific issues in the new merger review guidelines.

I will be authorized to appoint someone to review the proposed transaction if the proposal raises enough issues with respect to the public interest as it relates to national transportation.

The provision provides for a single government decision to be made so as to avoid duplication. I will handle public interest concerns, and the competition commissioner will look at competition concerns.

The proposed amendments include a new provision that authorizes me to enter into an agreement with a provincial authority under which the provincial authority would regulate a federal railway.

One other main element of the previous Bill C-44 that I would like to explain is a proposed new provision on the grain revenue cap, which limits the amount of revenue that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway can earn from regulated grain movements in western Canada. The provision is linked to the costs of maintaining hopper cars for such movements. On May 4, I announced that the government would retain its fleet of 12,100 grain hopper cars in order to maximize benefits for farmers and taxpayers.

There is a provision in Bill C-11 that would enable me to make a one time only request to the agency to adjust the revenue caps to reflect the current maintenance costs for all hopper cars used in regulated grain movements. This will more closely align the costs in the revenue caps with the actual costs of maintaining the hopper cars in revenue cap service. Estimates show potential savings for farmers of approximately $2 per tonne or about $50 million per year based on an average movement of about 25 million tonnes.

I also want to explain the proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act. They are fairly straightforward. The Canada Transportation Act authorizes federally regulated railways to establish and operate their own police forces. CNR and CPR maintain police forces as do provincial railways and transit authorities. The duties of railway police constables relate to the protection of property owned or administered by the company, and of the persons and equipment on that property. Only a judge of a superior court, upon the application of a railway, is allowed to appoint, dismiss or discharge railway police constables. The power to appoint police constables is being moved from the CTA to the Railway Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act deals with matters pertaining to the safety and security of railways, making it a more appropriate statutory authority to deal with railway police.

In addition, amendments to the Railway Safety Act will require that the railways establish an independent review mechanism for responding to public complaints against railway police. The review mechanism will be filed with me for approval.

In closing, I want to reiterate that Bill C-11 is consistent with the government's legislative strategy for amending the Canada Transportation Act. The strategy is to proceed with amendments that stakeholders are already demanding, have awaited for several years, and that reflect extensive consultations and consensus building.

I believe that the proposals contained in this bill will have strong support from stakeholders and that they look forward to early passage of the bill. I encourage all members to give Bill C-11 their full endorsement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for appearing this morning and sharing with us the salient features of Bill C-11. There are obviously many questions from members here that run through the essential elements of the bill.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister on being here this morning. We have not seen him for a few weeks, even though the important issue of security at the Montreal airport has been under discussion. This is a rather disturbing issue for Canadians.

It is important to raise a couple of core points before responding officially to the government's bill.

I have a couple of pointed questions for the minister that deal with what is not in the bill as opposed to what is in the bill. I do also at the same time congratulate the minister for his candour in reminding the House of Commons that the vast majority of this legislation is in fact legislation from our previous government. There was an awful lot of heavy lifting done by government officials and all members of the House, but I do want to give him those kudos because it does take great big shoulders to admit that the lion's share of the work here was accomplished by previous governments.

There are two pointed questions I want to put to him. First, if I understand the bill correctly, this bill provides new powers to the minister and the government to devolve further the responsibility for federally regulated railways, and this at a time when the government represents a government which strictly interprets the Constitution and responsibilities. Is that the case?

Second, there is no talk at all in the bill about final offer arbitration, a very contentious issue. I would like to ask the minister for his views in this regard. Why is final offer arbitration not addressed in the bill?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very happy to see my colleague. I know that in a recent radio interview, he had indicated that we had progressed quite well over the last three years in ensuring safety in airports, and I am quite pleased that he also was able to admit it with full candour.

On the issue of the rail amendments and what we are doing, the purpose of that amendment is to enable Ottawa to receive the authority to go forward with its light rail train. That is the essential purpose of the amendment.

On the issue of final arbitration, there are several opinions on that. It is quite possible that we will ultimately go in that direction, depending upon the circumstances.

I know my hon. colleague is probably referring to shippers and the rail freight issue. We are moving on that. Discussions are ongoing. Hopefully, the parties that are involved will be able to come to some solution. In the event that is not the case, both of us will be able to sit down and look at how we can push that forward and move the file forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the minister on his presentation about Bill C-11.

Perhaps I could ask the transport minister to think back to his career in the municipal arena. I say this because clause 29 refers to noise. I would just like to explain to the minister that whole communities are experiencing serious problems with marshalling yards.

In reality, as we know, federal law takes precedence over provincial law and even municipal laws. As the clause is written, when determining whether a company is making excessive noise, the Transportation Agency is limited by the company's obligations and operational requirements. This is therefore related to how the company operates and what constitutes reasonable noise. Municipalities do not work in this way. A municipality would have set standards to obey, with decibel levels.

I would simply like the minister to send an important message, especially to the Transportation Agency, to avoid the tendency to target industry practices and instead make sure the industry can adapt to the surrounding area. Clearly, it is important to ensure that the Transportation Agency plays more than just a mediation role. Cooperation has to be facilitated, and in the end it has to be possible to impose standards when the industry does not want to listen. In many places, mitigation measures have been taken and discussions have been held with the companies in operation. But the parties do not reach an agreement, because there is too much noise for the surrounding area.

I would therefore like the minister to tell us that he will keep abreast of this situation and will make it clear to the Transportation Agency that steps must be taken to solve the noise problem.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our role as legislators is to ensure that what we enact in the House is something that will work properly and can be carried out.

I agree with the comment by my hon. colleague, that in municipal government, a determination has to be made as to whether, for example, the level of the noise made by heavy vehicles exceeds 50 or 55 decibels. In that case, the public can call for a noise wall to be erected or other measures taken.

I am certainly open to examining these things. However, I mainly want to convey the message that if Parliament intends to correct this problem, we will have to work together to find ways of doing it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for describing some aspects of this new bill, the principle of which is a very good one. He is establishing mechanisms that will encourage dialogue so that communities and transportation agencies will finally start talking to each other and also introducing measures designed to protect the environment and correct noise problems.

I know that there are problems in my part of the country, in British Columbia. So let us hope that this bill will help to solve them, or at least to open the way for dialogue so that these problems can be resolved.

I have a question to ask regarding the amendments, in relation to abandoning rail lines.

In my part of the country, in British Columbia and specifically on Vancouver Island, a rail line was to be abandoned by CP Rail and VIA Rail. I know our communities up and down the island spent years trying to arrive at some solution. The process was cumbersome. It was not transparent.

Therefore, I truly hope the bill will help in the future and will continue to help our communities, which are trying to make this rail line run better to serve our communities.

I have a question concerning one of the proposed amendments. There is a suggestion that it will extend the measures that relate to the transfer or the abandonment of rail lines that can be used for public transportation or transit.

Could the minister tell me whether he feels that this will also apply to the use of possible abandoned lines as cycle paths in the context of the Canada Trail?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I do, quite humbly, think that the amendment provides a benefit for all these transportation companies that are asking to be able to use the existing rail lines, and that it protects consumers from prices that might be charged. We had to find a way of enabling these transportation companies and public transit agencies to be able to operate, while at the same time ensuring that consumers come out ahead, because fundamentally we need to be able to use these infrastructures for the common good, the good of the public.

On the question of these rail lines, my colleague is of course referring to policies that were applied several years ago, when a number of rail lines were transferred, for example, in Quebec, to regional municipalities or local authorities. Some of them ultimately recycled the rail lines by making them into bicycle paths or pedestrian trails.

We can study this. I must humbly say that I do not have the answer to my colleague’s question, but this question can certainly be raised during the debate that will take place in committee in the near future.

[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.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's presentation touched on a couple of points on transportation but the one that leaped out at me was in his closing comments on the Farmer Rail Car Coalition and how this government did not honour the so-called agreement that his government had inked with FRCC in the dying days of the last Parliament.

If the member were to check that out he would find that the cabinet table, consisting of Liberals and so on, had signed off on that initiative but the Privy Council Office had not taken that route. Therefore, there was nothing to honour that this government was forced into.

We took a look at a number of different things that were pertinent to the future of rail transportation, especially in my area on the prairies. Even good Liberals, such as Red Williams and his group, Agrivision, out in western Canada have done an exceptionally good study on the use of container cars as opposed to these bulk cars and saying that is the future and that hopper cars will become obsolete in the very near future.

The Wheat Board has continued to study that initiative and it is saying the same thing. It says that there is a tremendous opportunity for the back haul on a lot of these container cars coming in, especially from the Pacific Rim, China, Japan and so on, and we can be shipping our product back in that, a more specialized way of doing it when we get into the niche and innovative market that is the future for a lot of western Canada.

I am wondering why he would hang us with that 10 year old program that was out of date at that time? Why does he not allow us to move into the future, which containers will give us?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to hang no one. This is not about hanging anyone. What this is really about is to actually make sure we achieve the appropriate balance between the needs of our farmers who are facing excessive shipping costs through the system that we presently have.

I am talking about a deal that was negotiated over many years. The member himself, in the preamble to his question, made it very clear when he said that cabinet had supported the measure but that the Privy Council Office was opposed. In my understanding of the Constitution and the workings of the federal government, it is not for the PCO to tell cabinet what to do. It is for the cabinet to instruct PCO what to do. The Privy Council Office, as the department of the Prime Minister of Canada, is in no position to overturn a cabinet decision of this kind.

I think the minister has to come clean for us on this. The western farmers who have contacted me and many of my colleagues in our party are deeply disturbed by what they are seeing. They are asking how it is that they will save $2 a tonne, as the minister asserted only moments ago, by keeping 12,100 rail cars in the government's ownership. This again I find a little bit rich because the government, presumably, is a Conservative one. It speaks often about unfettering the marketplace. I am wondering how it is that keeping 12,100 cars in the hands of the federal government is not fettering the marketplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member who did a good job describing what Bill C-44 was and what he sees now in Bill C-11. However, I have the feeling that I understood something that I hope I failed to understand. The hon. member said that the train subsidies were eliminated in Bill C-44 and that is continued.

I have the feeling that I must have misunderstood because trains are the future, the future of our country, and not the past. They are the method of transportation that will be the greenest and the most economical and that will support all our industries and jobs.

Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the government should encourage a transportation system that will both protect the ozone layer from greenhouse gases and do miracles in regard to energy expenditures?

All countries now help their railways. The leader is the government of the United States, right next door to us. Although the United States favours private enterprise, it provides generous assistance to railway companies because otherwise they would not exist. I ask the hon. member, therefore, why he thinks the subsidies for railway companies should be eliminated when we provide lots of them for roads.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

He is perfectly right. He misunderstood what I said. At no time did I say that the railway subsidies in Canada should cease. To the contrary, what I would have liked to raise with the minister, if I had had a little more time, is the fact that he mentioned three or four times in his presentation that Bill C-11 would apparently have a positive effect on environmental protection.

What I find a little frustrating when I read the bill is the fact that the words “greenhouse gases” do not even appear in it. At a time when this minority government seems to be saying that it will propose a new environmental strategy for the country, the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the minister do not mention the greenhouse gas issue at all in the bill. My hon. colleague is quite right when he speaks about the positive effects of using the railway system in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases.

However the government, which is supposed to be formulating a new environmental policy, misses this very opportunity at a time when we need it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his thoughtful analysis of some of the issues. Because I also believe that railway is the future, I want to talk a little bit about railway safety.

As some members might know, there has been a frightening increase in rail accidents in British Columbia. The former Liberal government's last attempt to deal with this matter was to ask CN to develop its own proposals, which was ridiculous, it seems to me. I am wondering if the member would now support the proposal to launch a public inquiry into Canada's sagging railway safety record.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are in a position to support the idea of a full commission of inquiry into rail safety. I would like to hear more and I would like the committee to hear more, but I can tell the member that I am very deeply concerned about what can only be described, I think, as the missing in action strategy of the Minister of Transport around safety generally.

We have not heard a peep from the minister with respect to the Montreal airport security breaches of just two weeks ago. He has not issued any statements. He has said there is some sort of internal investigation. We have seen nothing brought forward to reassure the Canadian public travelling through airports that this is in fact being taken seriously.

We have an outstanding issue with flight attendants and the ratio in our airplanes, something that we may be taking up at committee again, hopefully this week. Once again the minister has been missing in action. We have heard nothing about his views on this issue. It speaks directly to the question of safety and security.

The member makes a very good point. I would like to see the government actually step up and take ownership now as we move forward in the wake of the five year anniversary to commemorate the 9/11 victims and their families, which the Prime Minister went on television to commemorate. I would like to see what the Minister of Transport in fact is going to do as opposed to say about airline and rail security.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was here when I told the House how the government twice in recent laws forgot that the territories is part of Canada, the northern half of Canada. I was not going to speak on this, but he specifically mentioned allowing provincial authorities to decommission railways. Why not territorial?

Proposed subsection 56(3) states “provincial government or a municipality”. Section 87 talks about “provincial, municipal or district government”. There are three different parts of proposed section 145 that refer only to provincial or municipal governments and have totally forgotten the northern half of Canada.

Would the member commit to pushing at committee for amendments that do not leave the territories out of our Confederation as the government seems to be doing in bill after bill?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yukon raises an excellent point. Once again, the government is apparently not speaking for all provinces and territories in this bill. It seems to be the second pattern which we have diagnosed on this side of the House, the first being that decisions are apparently being made without reliance on evidence. Whether it is the gun registry, the appointment of judges process or other issues, apparently evidence does not always rank as highly as it might for a government when it comes to making informed choices for Canadian citizens.

Second, I will take it to the committee on Thursday. The committee will be examining questions for the future. This is a very important point that ought to be raised and I commit to doing so.

[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.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member went on at great length about the concerns of noise pollution and air pollution. It seems to be a common theme across the country. It is a concern in many provinces and communities.

With the reduction in membership of the Canada Transportation Agency from seven part time to five full time, centred in Ottawa, does the member feel there will be sufficient human resources to adjudicate and mediate what I say will be a tremendous amount of complaints that will come forward now that we have an agency that can actually deal with disputes and concerns? Do you feel that there will be sufficient manpower to do this now that we have the tools, although do we really have the tools?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member for Welland to address his questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Will there be sufficient resources? We can always discuss this. I think that the real question is whether we will have the will to solve the problem. We are prepared to give the new system a chance and have two fewer members of the Canadian Transportation Agency. If we do not have the will to solve the problems and impose standards that prohibit noise pollution on operators, we will not accomplish much. I think we should sit down and discuss this.

Does the Canadian Transportation Agency have to hire additional personnel because it is centred in Ottawa? Time will tell.

Once this bill becomes law, the Canadian Transportation Agency will receive complaints from Quebec about at least five marshalling yards, if not more. This will happen very quickly, because this position is known. Citizens' committees have been formed and they will receive complaints very quickly. If they are unable to handle the demand, we will know in short order. I hope that what my colleague mentioned will not happen.

Personally, my fear is that there is no will to solve the problem and that officials will try to sit down and work out mitigation and cooperation measures and try to find a solution without requiring the operators to solve the problem.

That is my fear right now. As for the rest, we are prepared to give it a chance, but certainly the members will be supported by inspectors.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP certainly shares the concerns of the Bloc about the safety of public transportation.

As I mentioned a little earlier, there has been a recent increase in the number of railway accidents in British Columbia. I am sure that the member will agree with me that the problems of public transportation safety greatly exceed the capacity of each province or any one province to find solutions.

I ask what solution does the Bloc propose to deal with this very serious problem, the matter of safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She has recognized that this bill will not solve the issue of transportation safety.

However, she is right that there is a safety problem, especially on the railways. Ninety per cent of railway accidents take place on a curve or coming out of a curve. All the reports from Transport Canada state that it happened on a curve. Yet, these curves are not inspected. There is no systematic inspection of curves. The companies state that there was an accident on a curve. Clearly, the problem is that the rail lines were not in good condition; that there had been no preventive maintenance and they had not taken the necessary steps. All accidents happen on curves. Transport Canada knows that. The reports are available and we do nothing. A very effective remedy is needed for a very serious problem that is now plaguing us, the fact that railway lines are not being maintained, especially by the rail industry. We know that 90 per cent of accidents take place on curves and we say that the next one will be on a curve. That is the problem we are living with.

I hope that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will fully examine the problem of transportation safety and join me in finding solutions to this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question that I want to put to my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, concerns the problem of noise in the railway yards, especially at Charny and at Lévis.

Finally, we have before us a bill that would make it possible to settle this matter, which causes a great many problems to users. This bill, which we hope to adopt with the support of the House, will authorize the Canadian Transportation Agency to deal with complaints about noise, to order railway companies to make changes to reduce unreasonable noise in the construction or operation of a railway or railway yard. I believe this is a key element that responds to the expectations of the community to deal with the problem of noise from railway yards.

Does my honourable colleague think that we can improve this bill when it is examined by the parliamentary committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's last question, I would say yes, absolutely. However, although I do not want to rain on his parade, I should point out that he cited the end of the clause. The first part of clause 29 does mention “unreasonable noise”.

To determine what might be considered “unreasonable noise”, the company must take into account the following elements:

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114—;

(b) its operational requirements; and

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place.

There are no decibel level standards. This is what I was saying earlier to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities—he and I share a similar background in municipal affairs. If ever the industry fails to abide by the standards, and if the Canadian Transportation Agency is too indulgent, we will have to adopt international standards. As for noise pollution, we know the international decibel level limits. We could include a decibel level limit in the bill, but we have not yet reached that stage.

In other words, the government has again decided to give cooperation and mitigation a chance. Will this produce the expected results? I hope so. If not, we will have to follow the municipalities' example by adopting real measures and noise regulation standards. We will have to adopt a regulation limiting decibel levels, just like everywhere else in the world.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel speak because he always goes into the history of the previous bills or those that preceded the introduction of the most recent one.

This time he spoke about two things that caught my attention, noise pollution and the cost of airline services. I took the train this summer to go to Vancouver. All along the line were scattered old barrels of products for coating wood; I think it is creosote. There are mountains of blue barrels along the railway, mountains of pieces of wood that were used to hold the rails. The area all along the railway going to Vancouver is terrible. It is littered with all sorts of debris, and I am not the only one who noticed. Some Americans who were going to Vancouver on the same train said that it was frightful and asked what the environment people were doing regarding railway rubbish.

I want to find out from my hon. colleague whether the bill includes any obligations to clean up the environment. In addition, insofar as the prices of airline services are concerned, it has reached the point that when you take the plane, you have to pay a few dollars to get earphones and pay, if you are on a long trip, for the blanket and pillow that you use. Will these extras be included henceforth in the rates? Will we know what we are paying for?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The answer to the first question is no. From an environmental standpoint, and this is the tragedy, everything she mentioned—the products and pieces of wood—are all contaminated. What we need to understand, and I said so from the outset, is that everything that is federal, including the railway corridor, is not subject to provincial and municipal legislation. Theoretically, therefore, Environment Canada is supposed to deal with this problem, but the department closes its eyes. Why? Because it would cost too much to clean up. So my colleague is right. It is Canada’s image that suffers the consequences of this government’s decision not to comply with its own legislation on its own lands. That is the tragedy.

In regard to the second part of her question about charges on board aircraft, I do not think that we have got that far yet. Everything that is on the outside before the aircraft is boarded will be included in the advertising, but everything that is inside, the pillows and other amenities, is something else. We have not got that far yet. The hon. member is quite right that the government does not comply with its own regulations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to provide information on the provisions relating to air transportation in the proposed Bill C-11, the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. First, I can assure the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that this government does stand up for the people of Quebec. We listen to the people of Quebec and this is an example that we listen and will make changes.

In fact, these are common issues across Canada. I had the opportunity to put some 3,000 kilometres on rental cars this summer travelling around the lower mainland of British Columbia and Alberta. I visited many of the members of Parliament from British Columbia, for instance, the members for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Kelowna—Lake Country and Abbotsford. All of these members had issues that were very similar to the issues that the member raised. I can assure him that our caucus as well as many other members of other caucuses come to me with these issues and we will act on them for the betterment of the people of Canada.

One of the driving reasons for the introduction of this bill is that this government sees and believes that a modern, effective transportation system is integral to the well-being of Canada's economy. A proper and well planned out transportation initiative across the country, a hub system, as well as a system that has adequate highways and rail will be only good for the people of Canada and we understand that. It contributes to the air industry in Canada that is competitive as well as continental and global markets.

Canada's air industry is a vibrant and dynamic one, as the member knows. It contributes to a prosperous and innovative economy which benefits all Canadians. The air industry in Canada helps drive economic development in all sectors of our society. The Conservative government and the Prime Minister is committed to promoting competition in the air transportation sector because this increases consumer choice to the travelling public and provides better service and pricing.

The government is also committed to regulating only where deemed necessary and advantageous to the Canadian public. The objectives of the proposed air transportation amendments meet this government's commitments to Canadians. This bill provides for technical and housekeeping amendments necessary to modernize the act since it was last amended in 1996. As all members of the House know, the transportation industry is integral to Canada's economy. It is an ever changing environment and we need to stay as good stewards on that, making changes as necessary.

The proposed amendments will also provide a clear role in how the Canadian Transportation Agency will continue to exercise its functions in the future, which is also very important. The proposed legislation offers additional consumer protection to assist Canadian travellers as they continue to make choices respecting travel in Canada and abroad.

I will now speak to the proposed amendments that would enhance the protection of Canadian consumers. Although there were concerns regarding some potential abuses that may have taken place when Air Canada acquired Canadian Airlines in 2000 due to the resulting market dominance of Air Canada, this is no longer the case. In fact, we have seen dynamic changes in the Canadian domestic industry over the last few years, as most Canadians recognize.

The proposed amendments would actually reflect the reality of today's Canadian air industry by returning the agency to its well established regulatory and complaints based function and structure which was in place prior to 2000. The government is committed to regulating only where necessary and where the Canadian public would be best served.

Today I am proud to say that Canada has a world class air system and boasts several well established airlines providing international, national, regional and charter airline services. Airlines such as Air Canada, WestJet, CanJet, First Air, Air North, Air Transat, Air Mikisew, which is actually located in my constituency of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and many others. All of these companies are providing increased competition and consumer choice in all areas of the country and indeed on the global stage.

I also wish to recognize that new carriers are seeking to enter the Canadian air industry because it is so healthy. These industry carriers propose to offer Canadian consumers additional choice in air travel. This government listens.

The proposed amendments would continue to allow our new and expanding airlines to make their decisions based on private sector commercial realities free of unnecessary legislation that is not providing any benefit to Canadians. The government is committed to letting Canadian air carriers develop and grow based on the merits of the business choices they make.

The Office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner was created in 2000 to review complaints and attempt to resolve the issues informally on behalf of air travellers. The commissioner served as a useful tool during this transition period only to assist consumers with their complaints following Air Canada's merger with Canadian Airlines.

The Canadian air transportation market has dramatically changed even since then. Today the complaints received by the airline agency are distributed more proportionately across Canada's air carriers, including even low cost carriers. Competition in the marketplace is one of the most effective mechanisms to ensure service quality. The government encourages competition for the betterment of Canadians.

Complaints now increasingly relate to matters that fall within the ongoing jurisdiction and mandate of the agency itself. The government recognizes the importance of an ongoing informal complaints process to get results for Canadians. The proposed amendments would therefore make transparent and permanent, like this government, the air travel complaints function. The informal complaints resolution function launched so effectively by the commissioner would be made permanent and would be integrated into the regular operations of the agency. This would be supplemented by the agency's ongoing regulatory responsibilities.

Since the fall of 2004, the agency has demonstrated its continued effectiveness in its ability to handle consumer complaints. Canadians have received results, the same as this government is dedicated to doing. It has consolidated its ongoing informal processes in an air travel complaints program. With this step and the legislative measures proposed, the Canadian public can be reassured that the agency will continue to respond to travellers' complaints in an informal manner and consistent with its ongoing mandate.

The government wishes to ensure that Canadian consumers are offered clear choices in air travel. Where necessary, the government will take on the responsibility of protecting consumers in exercising these choices. The government is aware of consumers' concerns that airfare advertising be clear, transparent and not misleading. Consumers have told us that they want to be able to compare different airline advertised pricing and to know up front how much they will pay for these air services.

Canadian carriers have heard the message. Canadian airlines have taken important steps to respond to consumer demands even so far. However, some consumers remain concerned that price advertisements prepared by air carriers, either in the newspaper or on the Internet or other methods, do not always contain complete or clear price information. This government is listening to Canadians.

Other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have implemented policies, legislation or voluntary mechanisms with the cooperation of the airline industries in order that consumers have sufficient pricing information regarding air travel ads that display their prices. Some provinces such as Quebec and Ontario require transparent advertising of air travel by travel agents and other provincially regulated operators. Canadian consumers have told us that they want a similar level of transparency for advertising by airlines across Canada, and the government intends to do that with the cooperation, of course, of the other parties.

As already noted, Canadian airlines are moving toward improving advertising transparency with the encouragement of the government. These decisions are prompted by past year demands and respond to other dynamic changes in the industry. The government recognizes that market forces will maintain the pressure on air carriers to take further steps to ensure clear and transparent advertising.

It is for this reason that the proposed amendments provide the minister with the ability to authorize the development of regulations for transparency in airfare advertising in all media. These regulations, should they become necessary only, would be enforced by the agency. This would ensure that these standards are consistently applied across the industry by all domestic and foreign carriers and their agents for flights operating within or originating within Canada.

These provisions clearly signal the government's expectations in this regard and put the industry on notice, that notice being to further modify their practices voluntarily as required by Canadian consumers or be regulated by the government.

In addition, consumers are entitled to know the terms and conditions of the air service before they book a flight. Consumers want that and this government is responding. This is consistent with the government's commitment to ensure the transparency of information to allow consumers to make informed travel choices.

The proposed amendments would require all commercial air operators, both domestic and foreign carriers, operating air services in Canada to promptly display their terms of carriage. That will be necessary at their places of business and on any Internet site, or from wherever else they sell these air services.

These proposed amendments would ensure that Canadian consumers are adequately informed of their rights and the obligations of the air carrier for flights offered as they make choices regarding their travel arrangements. It gives them choices because they know what decisions they need to make.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments reflect the Government of Canada's commitment to a liberalized and competitive air transportation system for the betterment of Canadians wanting to make choices, a system that balances the need to update statutory and regulatory instruments, where necessary, to respond to developments in the air industry marketplace, with the responsibility as well to ensure that consumers, as I have said a few times, are offered choices and options consistent with a fully deregulated market so they know what they are going to buy before they buy it.

We firmly believe that these changes to the Canada Transportation Act are warranted, that they will give the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to continue to serve the travelling Canadian public well, and will ensure that Canada continues to have a viable and competitive air service industry in the many years to come.

This government listens to Canadians and will act on their priorities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is of great interest to hear the parliamentary secretary pick up on some of the themes mentioned by the minister just one hour ago.

I would like to focus on the question of transparency and openness. For most Canadians, if they had a problem with the airlines and the airline system previously, they would go to the position then filled by Mr. Bruce Hood as was created in 2000, the air travel complaints commissioner. I understand that position is being folded into the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

I would like to put to the parliamentary secretary and to the government a couple of comments made by some important actors around that move. Bruce Hood himself, the former commissioner, in May of this year expressed his concern that the proposed elimination of the position would make it increasingly difficult for Canadians to resolve problems with airlines. Furthermore, a Canadian Transportation Agency spokesperson went on to say that these changes would reduce the Canadian Transportation Agency's role in dealing with airline complaints on a case by case basis as opposed to being able to tackle larger ongoing problems with airline service or quality.

Could the parliamentary secretary help illuminate and explain for Canadians when the average citizen may have a problem with an airline and is seeking transparency, is seeking recourse, just how Bill C-11 in transferring this commissioner's office to the CTA is going to ensure that the same kind of function--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the difference between this government and the previous government is that we will listen and we do listen.

We have appointed someone to take over that function and will act on that function.

Speaking of transparency, I would say that the difference is that we are transparent in the way we conduct business because we do listen to Canadians and we will implement the changes necessary. It is an ongoing function of the government to make sure we listen and make those changes as necessary. This government will do that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks.

In my riding, trains pose a problem mainly in three large cities: Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Beauharnois and Huntingdon. Three problems are especially serious: noise from marshalling during the day, in the evening, at night and on weekends; diesel fumes, which seriously bother people in their homes; and rail maintenance for civil security purposes.

Residents complain that the railway company pays little attention to them. Municipal elected officials feel totally powerless. On reading the bill, I was disappointed that clause 29, which has to do with train noise, does not restrict nuisances other than noise.

Does the hon. member not think that the Canadian Transportation Agency has sufficient credibility to be given jurisdiction over emissions and vibrations, for example?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this bill deals with noise. However, we are looking at other issues as well, and the committee itself has the authority to do that.

I want to assure the member and all people across Canada that it is not a complaint that happens in one or two places or one or two provinces; it happens everywhere. Citizens are concerned with what is taking place in relation to noise, in relation to fumes, in relation to vibrations. Indeed, each of the members of the committee came to me in the spring, as did many members of my caucus and other caucuses, and advised me of those concerns. It will be dealt with insofar as we are able to do so. We certainly are listening and will make changes in the best interests of those people who are affected.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that Bill C-11 deals with the air transportation sector and complaints process. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on the idea that Canada needs its own do not fly list.

I filed numerous complaints because somehow my name is on the do not fly list which will not allow me to get a boarding pass on a flight from my hometown to Ottawa within my own country. I do not know if it has anything to do with the revisions or the hearings leading up to this comprehensive bill which amends rail and air transportation, if any of that analysis dealt with the do not fly list, but it is crazy that a Canadian member of Parliament cannot get a boarding pass on a domestic flight within his own country because his name is on an American do not fly list.

What is the government doing about the do not fly list so that we can fly again in our own country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not have a do not fly list. We are working on a passenger or preference list in essence. The situation as far as what the Americans do with their do not fly list is beyond the jurisdiction of this Parliament. Certainly, security is an issue that is foremost for the government. We will take it as a number one priority and all other issues that Canadians bring forward to the government we will act on.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning Air North in his list. That airline is half-owned by the Vuntut Gwitchin first nation. It is a very successful airline.

My last comment was on railroads and some people may wonder why. The Yukon Territory has a historic railway, the White Pass and Yukon Railroad, which was built during the gold rush. It is one of the engineering wonders of the world. There is also the potential of joining the Alaska Railroad, one of the few successful railways in North America, through the Yukon, to the B.C. rail system which ends almost at the Yukon border.

Would the member support that railway project that would open up the Yukon if we joined Alaska? It would be a visionary project for the country. People could go anywhere in Canada, right up to the Yukon by railway, if that project were to go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give specific authority on one particular railroad, but I can assure the member that this government listens to Canadians. This government is interested in doing what is best for Canadians.

Certainly as a northerner myself, I can assure the member that I do have places in my particular constituency, like Fort Chipewyan, that are inaccessible by any way except air, or snow in the wintertime of course. Any encouragement to open up the arteries to those areas would certainly be looked at.

In this particular case, it sounds like a very good idea and something that would open up the north, which is so important to our economic interests in the future. If the member wants to see me privately on that particular issue I can give him a briefing on that, and work cooperatively with all members in this House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order. When the bill was before the House before oral questions, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had the floor for questions and comments consequent on his speech. There remain two minutes in the time allotted for questions and comments to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I therefore call for questions and comments.

There being no member rising, resuming debate. The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-11. The NDP finds that there are some aspects of this bill that are worthy of consideration. I will address the aspects that Canadians might consider less interesting a little later.

The principle set out in this bill is that this is a government that listens. However, given the vote that has just taken place and the pressure that was brought to bear in all the proceedings surrounding the softwood lumber agreement, I am not convinced of this. In this corner of the House, we are in fact not convinced that this government is capable of listening to people.

An agreement has been made on softwood lumber that is in almost all respects bad for the Canadian softwood lumber industry. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding all the consultations that were held this summer at the Standing Committee on International Trade, it is clear that the government has not listened to people’s concerns and worries.

With respect to the question of Bill C-11, the same problems arise again, the same questions that arose in relation to transportation. For some months now, we have seen that the government is trying to weaken the regulations governing transportation, whether in relation to railways, aviation or marine transport.

This is what concerns the NDP. What we have is a government that does not listen and that does things backwards. We saw this when it came to the softwood lumber agreement. In fact, we have just had the first of several votes that will take place in the next few weeks. The Senate will then of course have to consider these questions. We are seeing the same thing in relation to transportation.

We therefore have concerns. Even though we are supporting Bill C-11 at second reading, we shall see, in committee, whether the government is capable of listening or whether, after only seven months in power, it is leading us back into the same situation as we had under the former Liberal government: no listening, no genuine consultation, no ability to understand its mistakes. Even though we are supporting the bill now, we are giving notice that our support is conditional on the improvements that we hope will be made to this bill at the next stage.

I would like to speak more specifically about some of the aspects of this bill that we support and some of the aspects of the bill that we are concerned about.

I will start with the issue of railway noise complaints. The legislation provides a mechanism, finally, for individuals and communities to make complaints about railway noise.

I come from the community of Burnaby—New Westminster. There are railway yards around the Westminster Quay area of downtown New Westminster. Many constituents have approached me, including Brian Allen and others, to raise very serious and very legitimate concerns about railway noise in their neighbourhood. They have tried to deal directly with the railways, as have I as their member of parliament, but there has not been a formal, structured mechanism in place to deal with the railway noise complaints.

In urban areas this is a matter of grave concern, when people cannot get the sleep they need. Families are working harder and harder in Canada now for less and less. Most Canadian families have seen their real income decline over the last 15 years and they have seen the hours of work per week increase. Now it is even more important in an urban setting that our constituents from coast to coast get the opportunity to have legitimate sleep when they need it.

Bill C-11 has a section that deals with railway noise complaints. It provides a mechanism for citizens who live in the Westminster Quay area or in South Burnaby who are near railway yards, particularly with railway shunting back and forth. They and their members of parliament will have a mechanism to try to resolve those noise complaints. This is welcomed and is one of the most positive aspects of Bill C-11.

A second element deals with mergers and acquisitions and provides for a public interest review process. This is important as well. We need to have much more public consultation, particularly when we talk about the transportation industry. Canada is a vast land, the world's largest democracy. We are linked together by our transportation modes. If there is any area of interest that unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast, it is in maintaining the safest and best possible transportation facilities in all areas of transport.

It is an important step forward to have the protection of a valid review process and public consultations when there are mergers or acquisitions in the transportation industry. That is also an element which we support, although in committee we will perhaps be looking at tightening what is currently stated in the legislation.

Another important component is a framework for passenger rail services. I come from an area which is served through TransLink by the West Coast Express. The West Coast Express is a very well run commuter railway operation that runs from Mission through to Vancouver. However, the West Coast Express has had some real difficulty having the kind of arrangement with the rail operators that allows access to the rail lines that it needs.

Bill C-11 provides a better framework for the kind of negotiations that sometimes take place between commuter rail services in our larger cities and the rail operators themselves. This is important. It is a benefit and an improvement. We would like to see this go further. We need that mechanism to allow the commuter rail services to negotiate directly with the rail lines, but we have to be aware that the public good has to be served as well.

There are cases where rail lines will be discontinued. We have to make sure that there is a public good, a public benefit, for example, urban bicycle paths.

My colleague, the member for Victoria, has raised the issue of ensuring that further to providing access to commuter rail when we are talking about discontinued rail lines, there should also be access to the public in general as another alternative through various facilities, bicycle paths or rail paths themselves. The member for Victoria has been effective in articulating this.

We would like to see something in the legislation to advance that right, that if the rail line is not being used for rail purposes, not being used for commuter rail, there are other alternatives for the public good that must come first. The improved framework is a good first step for that, and another element why at this stage, in any event, we will be looking at supporting the legislation so it moves forward.

In terms of the advantages, the bill itself speaks to greater transparency in advertising airfares. This is an important component. Consumers need to be aware of how much they are paying for tickets. We do not want to see hidden costs. Greater transparency undoubtedly would be an advantage. However, I say that this is an advantage if we are looking at the type of regulation that provides greater transparency.

The unfortunate aspect, something that the transport committee will have to look at in much more detail, is the idea of integrating the complaints function of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner into the Canadian Transportation Agency. I am not convinced that this provides for the transparency of which the government is speaking. I have some concerns. At committee we will be expressing those concerns, bringing the appropriate witnesses forward to examine whether that is the best mechanism, whether expanding the office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner, expanding those powers or providing for other methods of dealing with the same transparency better serves the travelling public.

The principle is there. We in all four corners of the House want to see transparency on airfares so that members of the public know what they are paying when it is being advertised that there are no hidden fees. I should add that hidden fees include the fees that Canadian passengers are paying on airlines for things like headsets, to eat, to get a glass of water, to get a pillow or a blanket. Increasingly there are fees for the simple fact of travelling on that transport and those are fees that need to be taken into consideration.

I was on a flight from Quebec City to Vancouver, back to my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. One gentleman joked that he was being asked to pay for his pillow and blanket and soon passengers would be asked to bring their own chairs. This is a good point. The situation now is that members of the travelling public are being asked to pay fees that they should not have to pay once they have purchased their tickets. They should not have to pay for a pillow or a blanket. They should not have to pay to get some chips or some water. They should not have to pay these small costs. If the air transporters want the consumers to pay those fees, they have to be front and centre.

One can imagine that with completely transparent advertising it would be very difficult for an airline to say that passengers will have to pay $2 for this, $3 for that and $5 for something else. Those hidden fees would be forced away by having that transparency because it would not be to the competitive advantage of the airline to gouge members of the travelling public once they were on board.

Greater transparency in advertising is a component that we support. We do question whether the best method is through the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner through the Canadian Transportation Agency. Hopefully this will be sorted out during the committee process. We look forward to participating in that.

We have concerns about other areas. We will raise questions and possibly amendments as well.

On the grain revenue cap adjustment, we have concerns about how that might be dealt with. As I expressed at the beginning, we have concerns about the government's ability to listen. Certainly with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management there have been major concerns about how the government deals with the preoccupations and concerns of rural Canada. Though in principle having that adjustment is important to us, we want to see in very strict details how that would work in practice and whether there would be honest public consultation around it.

I mentioned the question around advertising airfares and the air complaints function. Again the same question is raised, whether the best mechanism for air complaints is through the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. It is something that will come out through the committee hearing process in which we will be very pleased to participate.

Finally, in terms of the exact details of Bill C-11, the details that we have concerns about are around the national transportation policy statement, which was very specific on the private sector's contribution to transport policy and mum on the whole impact and the importance of the public sector.

We in this corner of the House are not caught up in the ideology, that it has to be the private sector. There are many things the private sector cannot do as well as an efficiently run, effective public sector. That is why over a 20 year period, the best financial managers in Canada were NDP administrations. Despite the flop of the Bob Rae government in Ontario, which was due a lack of leadership, when we take the actual fiscal period returns of all the NDP administrations from 1981 to 2001, we see that Liberal governments across the country were in deficit 85% of the time. The Conservative governments over that period of time were in deficit 66% of the time. They did not balance the books. NDP administrations, most of the time, balanced the books.

We have the best track record in financial administration and we are proud of that, but we also believe in a very prudently run, effective public sector. Our concern around the national transportation policy statement is that it does not reflect the importance of the public sector working with the private sector to ensure that we have the kind of safe, effective and accessible transportation system that should exist for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

In no country on this planet is transportation as important as it is in Canada. We are a vast land. We are the largest democracy. Throughout that vast land, transportation infrastructure is of primary importance. We profoundly believe that we need a national transportation policy statement that actually reflects the importance of the private and public sectors working together and that there has to be an effective public sector to ensure that we do get the kind of effective transportation infrastructure that we need to have. That is something we will be looking at as well in committee and it is something about which we are concerned.

I want to say a few words about the general direction. I talked about Bill C-11 and I have talked about some of the elements we support, some of the elements to which we will be looking at providing changes and improvements. Our role in this Parliament is to ensure that we get the best possible policy. New Democrats are not ashamed to work very hard to ensure that we get the best policy process.

Despite Bill C-11, we have concerns over the general transportation thrust of the government. I will raise some concerns that we have raised in the House and that we continue to raise. To date we have not received the response that we believe a prudent and responsible government should give.

The first is the issue of railway safety. Because of self-managed railway systems and a cutting back of that important public sector role to watch over our transportation sector and ensure that it is as safe as possible, what we have seen is railway accidents are on the rise. In 2005 we saw the highest number of railway accidents in nearly a decade, much higher than the 10 year rolling average that existed before.

We have seen an increase in railway accidents. We have seen, tragically, deaths in the Fraser Canyon this summer. We have seen environmental damage such as the Cheakamus Lake in the Squamish Estuary and Lake Wabamun in Alberta. We have seen consistently a greater number of railway accidents over the last few years. This is a matter of some concern.

We have called for an inquiry. The government has not responded. We have called for the tightening of railway regulations and we have seen very little response and activity from the government. That is a matter of very real concern because people's lives are at stake. The well-being of communities is at stake when we see the kind of environmental damage, when we see the lives lost most recently.

It is a tragedy and we need to deal with it. We will be repeating the call for a public inquiry because we do not believe the existing lack of regulations in rail transport is to the public advantage. Obviously, if the number of accidents are on the rise, the number of fatalities are on the rise and environmental damage is on the rise, there is a problem. A responsible government deals with the issue. We certainly hope the government will deal with this issue, and quickly.

Second, there is the entire question of regulating air transportation. We talked about precisely that last June at the Standing Committee on Transport. We talked about the government’s plan, or objective, of reducing the number of flight attendants on Canadian aircraft. This is a major concern. We know very well that a large majority of Canadians are opposed to this measure.

A survey was done on these questions in June 2006. Respondents were asked whether they wanted to keep the existing Canadian regulations or wanted regulations similar to the ones in the United States. And 69% of Canadians wanted to keep the existing regulations in relation to flight attendants. Only 19% of Canadians wanted regulations like the ones in the United States.

When we consider all these questions, that is, whether safety standards have to be lowered so that airlines can continue to be competitive, 72% of Canadians are opposed to it.

Because of how this government seems to do things, we are indeed hoping to be able to change its perspective. We support Bill C-11, but it remains to be seen whether the government will listen to our concerns and make the changes that are called for.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just caught the last few minutes of the hon. member's speech, but I want to take him to task a bit on one aspect of that, and that is the issue about flight attendants.

Given the current climate of rampant anti-Americanism promoted by some parties in this House, if we ask Canadians whether they want something more like Canada or more like the U.S., we will get a biased answer. With respect to the question of flight attendants, the question should be: Do we want Canadian airlines to have the same standards as every other air transport jurisdiction in the world when it comes to the number of flight attendants per passenger, or do we want Canadian airlines to simply stick with the Canadian system which is 40:1 versus 50:1?

Does my hon. colleague understand that every other air transport jurisdiction in the world adheres to the 50:1 ratio?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is just not true and the hon. member should know that. In Australia the standards are actually tighter than they are in Canada. It is just not true that those standards are universal. There are other jurisdictions that have safer standards.

He raised the point of what the question was. I raised the comparison of Canadian standards as opposed to American standards. Another question that was asked was whether Canadian airlines should lower their safety standards to stay internationally competitive. Seventy-two per cent of Canadians opposed that: 65% of males and 78% of females. In all the generations, regardless of the age group, Canadians disagreed. In fact, I think most Canadians would be in line with the NDP perspective on this.

We have competitive international airlines because we have the safest standards in the world. If Canadians know our airlines are safer than the airlines of any other country, then our Canadian airlines will have a major competitive advantage. That is something the NDP stands firmly behind. It is not a question of cutting back on safety standards to save a few cents. It is a question of ensuring we have the safest possible transportation structure, and that becomes a competitive advantage.

We have seen over the past few months some of the problems that exist already within the airline industry. The government has been talking about the potential of cutting back on safety standards, of bringing in self-managed systems similar to what we have seen in rail. We have seen the deterioration of safety standards with respect to rail. We have seen a rise in accident rates and fatality rates as well as a rise in environmental damage.

Why would the government act like the previous government and diminish safety standards? People have raised concerns about some of the airlines flying out of Toronto like Air Canada Jazz, and concerns exist now. We should be moving forward to tighten safety standards, not loosening them. Clearly, most Canadians agree with our stand.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his insight into the speech, particularly with regard to the consumer issues.

The member will know that under current section 85.1 there is the provision for the complaints commissioner, which was a temporary post established back in the year 2000 when Canadian Airlines was taken over by Air Canada. As a consequence, since the marketplace has somewhat stabilized, new clause 25 in the bill will effectively eliminate the position of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner.

The airline industry continues to be a volatile industry. I am wonder whether there is argument still to be made that having a specific travel complaints commissioner for the public to focus its attention to still may well serve Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is my neighbour in the Confederation Building so I always appreciate him rising to speak on this issue.

I raised this during my initial speech. The question of how most effectively to deal with the issue of air complaints is important to us, so we will be very closely monitoring and ensuring that, through the committee process, we get the best possible witnesses forward to really comment on what would be the most effective route forward.

We want to ensure that there is an air complaints mechanism that is better than what we have now. We want to ensure that passengers, the travelling public, are better protected and have better mechanisms or better ways to follow up if they have concerns.

I would like to read for the record, because I did not get a chance during my speech, an article in the Toronto Star of a few months ago on these increasing violations within the air safety sector. It states:

Transport Canada data show a steady increase in the number of alleged violations of Canadian aviation regulations such as improper maintenance checks and pilots taking off or landing without air traffic control authorization....

According to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the number of fatal aircraft accidents was up 48 per cent between 2004 and 2005, from 27 to 40.

These are the kinds of concerns that we are bringing forward. We are seeing the same kind of escalation in air safety as we have seen in rail safety and we do not want to see the government take the same ill-thought, ill-judged routes that we saw on rail safety, where it is diminishing standards and increasing accidents.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to put to my colleague is simple.

Bill C-11 is supposed to amend the Railway Safety Act. But the only amendment is that it allows the presence of police officers to supervise the railway companies’ property. So there really is not anything in this bill to make poorly maintained tracks more secure or to increase security.

So I ask my colleague to confirm what I am advancing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Bloc transportation critic, for his question. This is indeed a shortcoming in the existing legislation. He is quite right.

Now these are aspects that have to be reviewed in committee. I know that the member will take part to the same extent as I in attempting to improve this bill. There are of course some positive aspects, but also some shortcomings and things to be changed.

Still, the big question is knowing whether the government will agree to listen to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the improvements it proposes. That is the big question. I hope so, but some concerns remain because of what we have seen in the last few months in this House.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about hazardous materials.

A very important factor in the debate is the types of things we put on our rail system that put people at risk, not just the operators, but the populations around them. Chlorine gas has moved through a number of highly populated areas.

In the United States, that has been categorized as a weapon of mass destruction because it can kill up to 100,000 people within a 15 mile radius. The U.S. has introduced legislation to move those gases outside of densely populated areas.

Will the committee at least start to look at what the U.S. is doing in terms of rail safety and how it is dealing with the issue of chemicals going through communities that are densely populated.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of grave concern to us.

I mentioned earlier in my speech that there has been a call for a public inquiry into rail safety. What we are seeing increasingly with the larger number of rail accidents is a greater risk to Canadians, particularly in urban areas where these hazardous wastes are transported. This is of real concern.

Just last December there was a rail accident in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. Fortunately, it was not hazardous waste but had it been hazardous waste going through a populated area, goodness knows what the result might have been.

It is a matter of great concern to us that the government seems to want to move to self-managed systems when clearly in rail transport it has not worked. It certainly would not work in air transport. It would be highly irresponsible for the government to move toward less regulations on things like hazardous waste.

The committee will be looking at this issue. We want to ensure Canadians are protected but we also urge the government to do the right thing. It should move to a public inquiry as quickly as possible so that we can finally determine all the elements that are there in terms of rail safety, why we are seeing these increasing numbers of accidents and try to avoid what could well be a catastrophe for Canadians if the present situation continues. More rail accidents mean greater danger for Canadians.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my hon. colleague’s speech. Just like him, there are citizens, constituents from my riding who are concerned about the noise caused by the railway yards. I have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the various groups affected. We know that it has harmful consequences.

Today we have a bill that makes it possible to respond to this situation and to take these elements into consideration, by offering a mechanism to settle this problem through the Canadian Transportation Agency.

My question for my hon. colleague is as follows: according to him, does the bill in its present form properly meet his constituents’ expectations?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, prior to this act there was no resolution of noise complaints. No one really had the authority to deal with it. This is a good first step. Whether this will work or not, we will soon see.

My concern is whether there is going to be sufficient manpower in these five members to deal with all the solutions or all the problems that come from across the country. We have heard even in this debate today that community after community have this problem and residents are subjected to these loud noises at all times of the day or night. There may be a plethora of complaints to the commission or to the agency and whether it will be able to deal with it in a timely fashion again remains to be seen, but as I said, it is a good first step that we did not have before.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Welland, for his comments. In looking through the act, as a representative of northwestern British Columbia, we have a terminus in Prince Rupert where many of the trains and goods pass through, particularly to the Asian markets but other markets as well.

We have noticed over the last number of years, particularly with the absolutely diabolical sale of B.C. Rail to CN, that the accident rate has gone through the roof. Hazardous materials are spilling into lakes and rivers near communities. Just recently, volunteer fire departments in my region were sent a letter by CN that suggested that if any of these materials were to cause a major spill in the region that these fire departments were meant to hold tight for 12 hours until CN could get its act together and show up with a hazardous materials crew.

These are volunteer fire departments. They do not have the equipment, training or money to handle such spills. Looking through the act, we know that the government, neither the previous one nor this one, has not really taken on aggressively what is in the new age of shipping of increased traffic and diversity of goods and also the increased complexity of materials that are actually being transported.

We hear from my colleagues of the work being done in the United States to prevent the bad combination when the stars line up in the wrong way to have a material passing through either a sensitive environment or ecosystem or through a community. My first question to the member is, is not such a powerful review required?

My second question is around the agency and appointment process. I know there have been some bad legacies in the previous government's appointment process of not always being able to distinguish talent from partisanship. I wonder what confidences he has with respect to the new government's ability to make that important distinction and actually appoint people to this vital committee who are known and based on transparency, which is not written into the act as it is right now.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, transparency in appointments is always a very good thing. I cannot really respond to that because the new government has been very derelict in making its appointments. There are many vacancies on many commissions, judicial vacancies as well, and it is difficult to comment because the government has to move very quickly to fill some of these positions.

With respect to my colleague's first question, certainly the transportation of dangerous goods is a matter of real concern. In fact, I attended a training exercise with volunteer firemen in my region along with the former member for Churchill who was present from his party. They were concerned as well about what was travelling through their region, especially if there was a wreck. They were concerned about how quickly they could find out what exactly was in a tanker that was leaking some kind of substance.

I think there should be a better tracking system and there should certainly be one for rail lines that go across our borders. The rail lines in my region cross a major river and if there was a derailment or the possibility of an explosion, it would create a tremendous problem not only from an environmental perspective such as water pollution, but a main arterial route leading to the United States would be affected.

I would encourage and support more stringent requirements to deal with goods which are potentially explosive, noxious, et cetera. I welcome the member's comments. I feel the same way.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have some concerns about the transparency that weeds its way or not through this bill.

It is interesting that my colleague mentioned, just in passing, our record of appointments. I am particularly proud, for example, of the fact that our government fought for the appointment of Stephen Lewis, a very well known former leader of the NDP, as Under-Secretary-General at the United Nations. I am even more proud of our appointment of Ed Broadbent for seven years as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Rights and Democracy in Montreal. I do not exactly share my colleague's interpretation of our appointments record.

I want to come back to a question that was raised by the member for Welland which dealt with the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. If I am paraphrasing right, the member said there are a number of average citizens who fly from time to time. They are not regular commuters and they do not use airports like bus stations like many of us in the House who travel regularly.

I want to come back to what was said by Bruce Hood who was the first actual Commissioner of the Air Travel Complaints Office and a former NHL hockey referee. He expressed his concern that the proposed elimination of the position of the Air Travel Complains Commissioner would make it increasingly difficult for Canadians to resolve problems with airlines.

I am a little concerned about this and I would like to put it to the member for Welland to see what his instinct is in this regard as we look to transfer the commissioner from an independent status into the Canadian Transportation Agency.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, with any complaints system a prompt response for the little guy, the Canadian, against the big airline industry may get lost in the shuffle when the government gets involved. An independent complaints commission will cut through that and it will be much better for constituents in our respective ridings and for Canadians. Canadians will have a quick, independent option to complain to and get a quick response.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member for Welland will be in regard to the history of this bill and its former incarnations.

Although Northern Ontario is very remote and very rural, it suffers many of the issues that he brought up. During my municipal government days we suffered through a lot of these same issues. Citizens need to be listened to.

I think he mentioned in his speech that this bill began in the House in February 2003. I want to know how inclusive the debate was at that time. I would also like to know how inclusive the search was from other communities, both rural and urban all across Canada. Could the member give me a bit of the history on how we developed this position?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It will have to be a short history. The hon. member for Welland has 40 seconds.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is the third attempt at getting this through. Certainly, when legislation is cut off because of an intervening election or dissolution of Parliament, a full and complete review of the act is not possible. We will hopefully be able to do that this time and that would be very beneficial.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria , Education; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Marine Industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-11, introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

This bill would update the Canada Transportation Act of 1996. It is the result of extensive consultations and its basic purpose is to improve the act by enhancing transportation safety and transparency, by reducing inconveniences to users—in terms of noise as we saw earlier—and by protecting the consumer, who uses the modes of transportation.

Today my presentation will focus more on air transportation. There are businesses in Lévis—Bellechasse that regularly ship products manufactured in the area.

There are amendments that would protect the rights and entitlements of the air travelling public by ensuring that air carriers will always represent their products in an open and transparent manner. This afternoon we saw that sometimes there are hidden costs. Air carriers are currently being more transparent on a voluntary basis. The industry is taking steps in the right direction, but this government must not derogate its responsibility to the air travelling public. It therefore proposes to amend the act, to permit its administrator, the Canadian Transportation Agency, to develop, implement and enforce regulations on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, if necessary, to ensure transparency in the pricing of passenger air services.

The amendments in the bill would make clear the government's expectations with regard to the air carrier industry. These amendments would be in keeping with initiatives in the U.S. and Europe that are also designed with transparency in mind.

The proposed approach is also consistent with the broader strategic thrust of this government to legislate only when necessary and to make carriers accountable.

The amendments would also require all operators providing commercial air services in Canada to prominently display their terms of carriage at their business offices and on any Internet site from which they sell these air services. Many travellers buy their tickets on the Internet. It is important to ensure that when a price is posted, it is in fact the price the traveller will pay. That is how this will work.

There is another addition.

There are amendments that would make clear that Canada is wholly committed to all of its trading relationships in international air services. The amendments would ensure that an international agreement or convention respecting air services would have prevalence over the Competition Act in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the two. Canada is a trading nation and so the government believes it is imperative that Canada's partners can rely on their air transport trading relationships with us. These amendments would send that signal.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are amendments that would ensure that air services provided on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces or in the case of a declared emergency are not subject to part II of the Act. Part II of the Act provides the framework for commercial air services. Military aircraft are sometimes used in humanitarian missions and, consequently, should be exempt in such cases.

It is only sensible to distinguish that air services provided for our nation's armed forces, or in the case of a declared emergency, are not regular nor for-profit occurrences. Therefore the provision of these types of air services should not be covered by the act. In that sense these amendments would bring clarity to such situations, and should be considered housekeeping measures that ensure the continued relevance of this act.

We are proposing these amendments because they would ensure a higher degree of transparency and consumer recourse, as well as bring clarity to its application. Also they make the complaints process simpler and more efficient by integrating it into the Canadian Transportation Agency's permanent functions. In this way, the amendments to the air transportation provisions in the act contribute to building a modern, efficient transportation system, which is integral to the well-being of Canada's economy.

At the same time, the amendments would continue to allow air carriers to develop and grow based on the merits of the choices they make in the course of doing business.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments reflect this government's commitment to a competitive air transportation system; one that balances the need to update statutory and regulatory instruments, where necessary, to respond to developments in the air industry marketplace, with the responsibility to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights and entitlements.

A vote was taken in this House today on softwood lumber. Our government is taking action. I believe that Canadian taxpayers, our constituents and parliamentarians want a government that works and that is up to the challenge. This bill will improve the Canada Transportation Act and give results.

Parliamentarians are asked to take concrete action. People expect parliamentarians to be up to the challenge and want them to ensure that our government functions as efficiently as possible with the utmost respect for democracy.

This government believes that these amendments to the Canada Transportation Act are warranted, will give the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to continue to serve the air travelling public, and will ensure that Canada continues to have a viable and competitive air services industry in the years to come.

My speech focused mainly on air transportation, but there are many aspects to this bill. It aims to solve the problem of noise pollution caused by rail, and proposes measures to improve safety and to protect consumers who travel by plane.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Parkdale—High Park is an urban riding, two sides of which are bounded by rail lines, both CN and CP. Where those lines cross it is called a junction, and that is where my office is located. It is a historic area that has been a hub of railway transportation.

In the junction and many other parts of my riding, because of growing deindustrialization in our community we are seeing a greater density of residential development, and we are finding more and more homes right up near railway lines. Of course we are hearing more and more complaints about noise and concerns about railway safety.

My question to the hon. member is twofold. Given the large population of Canada, more than 32 million citizens, 110,000 persons in my riding alone, how will the noise and safety complaints process work so that these five individuals will be able to hear complaints from throughout the Canadian population? How will it work so that it is not cumbersome and is not a bottleneck?

Second, with only five members, what kind of representation will there be on the panel? Will there be citizen representatives? Will there be a balance from different communities? Who does the member envisage being appointed to the committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

In fact, my colleague has raised the case of a real and current situation in this country. Essentially, two situations have arisen. Urban development has indeed occurred near railway stations and rail lines, but also near switching yards. This has created a cohabitation problem, to start with, a cohabitation problem that has been exacerbated by a kind of rationalization in railway operations, and in particular the privatization of railway companies. There has been a real and significant conflict between these uses, which continues today and which this bill is intended to resolve.

The answer I might give my colleague is that in its present form, the bill does in fact try to provide some tools for people who have complaints arising from the fact that a lot of noise is being caused. They can complain to the Transportation Agency. I can tell you that in the riding next to mine, in Charny, people are very concerned about noise, since, as was just being said, noise creates major problems for people who live around the station.

So the proposed amendments to the act will authorize the Canadian Transportation Agency to deal with noise complaints and, when necessary, to order the railway companies to make changes to reduce unreasonable noise resulting from the construction or operation of a railway or a switching yard.

Before taking action, the agency will have to ascertain that the parties are unable to reach agreement. That is what the bill says at present. I hope that, with the consent of the members of this House, it will be able to go to committee where it can be examined clause by clause.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member fo rLévis—Bellechasse will be simple. He talks to us about his good government. I have a question for him about Bill C-44.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities told us today that what was proposed in Bill C-44 has been incorporated virtually word for word. So why does this Bill C-11 not contain the VIA Rail component that was in Bill C-44 and that was the gateway to developing high-speed train service from Quebec City to Montreal and Montreal to Windsor?

I would like the member to explain why his good government, once again, has decided to disregard Quebec’s interests, not to discuss them, not to include in this bill what VIA Rail was asking for—to become a real company that could bring about real development. I would like the member to explain this for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First, with respect to the premise of his question, I should perhaps remind him that in fact railway transportation is one of the most ecological modes of transportation there is, and that it is entirely in our interest to make it part of a sustainable development policy. That being said, the objective of the bill before us today is to improve the existing bill, on which consultations have already been held.

Now I think that there are some very commendable projects, like the one mentioned by my colleague. I hope that one day we will have a high-speed train running through Quebec and the provinces of Canada and that it will help to strengthen the Canadian federation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to address a question to my colleague that deals with precisely the same subject raised by our colleague from the Bloc Québécois, to which he has given an answer. It concerns the whole issue of sustainable development.

We on this side of the House have read the bill several times. There is no reference to sustainable development. There is no mention of “greenhouse gases”. This minority government is apparently in the process of proposing a new environmental strategy for our country. There is no reference to that strategy in the bill. At the same time, the Minister of Natural Resources has advised the employees of his department to stop using the expression “sustainable development,” and in place of that term, to begin using the expression “responsible development.”

Could the member simply clarify the situation a little? Does this bill seek to protect the environment, yes or no? He has just said in the House that a railway system contributes enormously to the reduction of greenhouse gases. On this side of the House, it is very difficult to reconcile that with what is going on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, the underlying objective of the bill is sustainable development, it seeks to rationalize the regulation and thereby facilitate the expansion of the railway industry, and also to promote the creation of short-distance railways.

We know that rising fuel costs are prompting carriers to look to other modes than road transport, for example, to move their goods. That, indeed, is one of the objectives of the bill.

I would also remind my colleague that one of the benefits of our government's approach to this bill, and also in a more general way, is not to introduce bills that are loaded with so many elements that they becomes difficult to adopt because of their complexity. We have before us a relatively simple bill, containing a series of measures designed to improve transportation safety. For that reason, I hope the bill will go forward and receive the support of all members present today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First of all, I want to tell you how disappointed I am concerning the length of time the Parliament of Canada has taken to bring this bill to fruition. We should recall that earlier versions of this bill have already been presented twice, in the form of Bills C-26 and C-44, introduced on February 25, 2003, and March 24, 2005 respectively. However, the adoption of this bill is of major importance for the people of Quebec and for all of Canada.

This delay reminds me of the saga surrounding repairs to the Quebec bridge. Remember the Conservatives’ election promises from last winter. Then they were promising to settle this issue as quickly as possible.

During the last election campaign, the Conservatives enjoyed repeating that the Bloc Québécois could not solve this problem, being an opposition party. The Conservatives boasted that they could finally provide a solution to something the Liberals had been unable to do anything about.

It was not until the company partially mandated to repair the bridge decided to dismantle the scaffolding that the Conservative government woke up.

A government source said that an additional $69 million to $76 million would be needed to complete the work.

The headline in the July 19 issue of the daily newspaper Le Soleil read: “New hope for the Quebec bridge.” There actually were discussions among spokespersons from Ottawa, Quebec City, Canadian National and the owner of the bridge on July 18. No timetable, however, was put forward and the people in Quebec City are still waiting, and waiting.

It is like this bill that is supposed to amend the Canada Transportation Act. Lots of people have been waiting for it to be adopted for a long time, but it has not yet come to fruition and this may prove to be catastrophic for urban transit, as we will see later.

To begin with, I would like to underscore an amendment that I deem to be important and that was added to the bill’s declaration of principle.

For the first time, respect for the environment is being added to the various obligations of transportation systems. In committee we will see what provisions may be added so that this obligation is really enforced and complies with the Kyoto protocol.

I will give the example of the locomotives. The rate at which the old locomotives are renewed has to be speeded up, since only 29% of all diesel locomotives comply with environmental standards.

Furthermore, we must encourage the use of the Green Goat switchers, a hybrid diesel-electric system tested in 2004. It seems that this hybrid switcher reduces fuel consumption by 60%. These are but a few examples.

There are three measures among the legislative provisions proposed in this bill that particularly attract our attention. They deal with air and rail sectors and concern airline advertising, noise relating to rail operations, and the abandonment of rail lines.

I feel that consumer protection is absolutely vital, and that increasing open competition must not in any way penalize the consumer, who is entitled to greater transparency

In this connection, Bill C-11will amend the Transportation Act in relation to complaints processes, the advertising of prices for air services and the disclosure of terms and conditions of carriage.These new measures will provide for greater control over the sale of airline tickets, among other things by giving the agency jurisdiction over ticket sales advertising.

Licensees must in future display, in a prominent place, the rates for the service offered, including the terms and conditions of carriage. This new condition also applies to services offered on the Internet.

So the terms and conditions of carriage must be made accessible.

The Canadian Transportation Agency will have a new regulatory power allowing it to require, through regulations, that the advertised price of air services indicate the fees, charges and taxes collected on behalf of another person, enabling the consumer to readily determine the cost of the service.

Although it is a step in the right direction, we must ensure that the Transportation Agency exercises this power in a rigorous, proactive way and in the best interests of consumers. Consumer associations have been requesting far more transparent pricing for a very long time.

These new measures to improve transparency will benefit both consumers and the airlines, which will be able to engage in healthier competition.

I would like to raise one point. That is the abolition by the former finance minister of the position of Air Travel Complaints Commissioner in the 2005 budget. The previous government announced at the time that the Canadian Transportation Agency would henceforth assume responsibility for the complaints program.

Bill C-11, as proposed by the Conservatives, no longer provides for the position of Complaints Commissioner and includes this function in the ordinary operations of the Transportation Agency.

We take a positive view of the fact that the Transportation Agency can henceforth order carriers to compensate people for damages caused by a failure to comply with the conditions of carriage. This is a step forward because the previous Complaints Commissioner could only make suggestions.

There are some shortcomings, however. For example, the Transportation Agency no longer has to submit an annual report on the complaints and how they were settled. This report would point the finger at the guilty parties and their failings.

The commissioner was also able under the complaints process to demand a lot of information from carriers, something that the Transportation Agency cannot do. The Bloc Québécois deplores this weakening of the role of the Transportation Agency, which loses its ability to investigate and some of its visibility.

We certainly cannot forget the Jetsgo saga, when hundreds of travellers suffered damages when this airline abruptly ceased operations at the height of the holiday travel season. This must never happen again. The Bloc Québécois severely criticized it at the time.

It is clear that, in the Bloc’s view, the government must assume its responsibilities. In particular, it could help set up a compensation fund which would ensure that tickets are reimbursed when consumers buy them directly from carriers, as happens increasingly often.

Therefore, this bill can be improved considerably in a number of ways.

Besides the legislative changes in connection with air transportation, another very important aspect of Bill C-11 concerns rail transport.

The legislation would amend part III of the Canada Transportation Act by creating a mechanism for dealing with complaints concerning noise and by amending the provisions for dealing with the transfer and discontinuance of operation of railway lines.

For some years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for legislative changes to deal with the serious noise problems faced by many communities. I am referring to the harmful effects of noise resulting from the construction or operation of railways, and the movement of cars in marshalling yards in particular.

In recent years, the public and the railways have often been at loggerheads. The public bothered by noise has no recourse but to complain directly to the railway concerned or to initiate civil proceedings. No federal agency currently has the authority to intervene in such instances.

Hence the importance of legislating in this regard, so that the railway companies feel some pressure and take the initiative to limit the disturbances caused by railway construction or operation.

These legislative changes are a step in the right direction, but I have some amendments to propose. I will try to ensure that the agency's jurisdiction will not be just over noise, but also over emissions or vibrations from rail cars. In this Kyoto protocol era, environmental issues are extremely important.

I realize that rail transport is an excellent alternative to road transport and is key to economic development in Quebec.

However, there must be a balance between such economic objectives and the environment, particularly in terms of respecting the public's quality of life and well-being.

The powers granted to the Canadian Transportation Agency are in no way prejudicial to the railway companies, particularly since the agency will now have the power to issue and publish guidelines, after consulting with interested parties, and to propose a mechanism for the collaborative resolution of noise complaints. Consequently, each party will know the other's limits. The purpose of this is to resolve such conflicts peacefully and without delay.

I am pleased to see that urban transit authorities will now be recognized. A section has been added under which a railway company wishing to sell a railway line shall first offer it to the federal government, the provincial government and the urban transit authorities concerned.

These new provisions are desirable and will provide better protection for the unique transportation network provided by urban railway corridors. I have always considered rail transport to be an excellent alternative to road transport. Such measures, therefore, should be encouraged.

I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation that this bill has been floating about these halls since the 37th Parliament. Not passing it could have irreparable consequences. If things continue as they are, the survival of agencies such as the Agence métropolitaine de transport, which serves greater Montreal, will be threatened. The new act gives them an arbitrator, the Canadian Transportation Agency. They will also benefit from new regulations that will let them negotiate on a more equal footing with bigger players such as CN and CP, which often behave like monopolies in the face of these agencies. The survival of these agencies is important in the context of the Kyoto protocol, and that is why I sincerely hope this bill will finally be passed.

We support this bill in principle, and we will try to improve it by making amendments in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his wonderful address. I have had the opportunity to sit with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. My question for my colleague is simple.

Several members from the Conservative government tell us today that considerable consultation took place and that the proposed bill is a result of that consultation. It is true that considerable consultation took place for Bill C-44, but not for Bill C-11, since consultations are about to begin for this new bill.

In Bill C-44, there was an entire chapter on VIA Rail. I would like my colleague from Alfred-Pellan to describe his experiences in committee during the last Parliament. In fact, Conservative members exerted tremendous pressure to ensure that everything to do with VIA Rail never come to fruition. All of the Conservatives were against developing VIA Rail. This clearly affects Quebec directly, given the rapid rail project for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

I would like my colleague from Alfred-Pellan to explain the situation in relation to Bill C-44 from the previous session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his question.

Indeed, Bill C-44 contained a whole chapter on VIA Rail, to facilitate better performance and ensure improved service everywhere. However, as you know, the bill did not reach the second reading stage during the last session, and all of the thoughtful work and careful study of the bill led nowhere.

We regret that this is still not the case, despite the fact that certain elements of Bill C-11 are important and should be passed. Nevertheless, I share the hon. member's concerns regarding the fact that important aspects of Bills C-26 and C-44 are still missing.

In the meantime, the development of our rail system has suffered and been put in danger because more significant decisions and bills are not being adopted to develop this transportation system.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. Although we support Bill C-11, some elements missing from this bill would be of greater help to our fellow citizens in coping with the overpopulation of the train, which is actually an important ecological means of preventing greenhouse gases. Our fellow citizens often complain about vibrations and blocked intersections. But we do not find these elements in the bill, elements that could have been included.

I would like my colleague to tell me why, in his opinion, this bill did not include these elements, which are of major importance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. Indeed, various points pertaining to the issue of environmental damage and the nuisance of vibration—especially in railway yards—are not dealt with in the bill. All the thoughts expressed today will contribute to the committee's review, during which certain amendments can be added to the bill so as to improve it.

The issue of noise addressed by the current bill is only one of the irritants of rail transportation. By eliminating these irritants, the railway system will be more attractive for all our travel. We spoke earlier about safety, which has not been dealt with in the bill, despite the title it has been given. We have often mentioned the derailments, which have occurred repeatedly, but it has not been addressed. Perhaps we will add these elements in committee with a view to improving this bill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am lucky enough to ask another question of my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who is entirely right. I would like my colleague to explain to us how the procedures work in committee. Once we have decided to send this bill to committee, the committee can make amendments and improvements, which have to come back to the House and be approved by all the political parties.

I would like him to explain to what extent Quebeckers are in good hands, since the Bloc Québécois will be able to make proposals to the committee for amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I do not have long experience with the work of Parliament, I can nonetheless say that the Bloc Québécois makes a point of inviting comments from the people who are most directly affected by a bill and who are of the opinion that it is flawed. We therefore have the privilege, and the advantage, of hearing directly from the people we invite to our working session, who include representatives of the government and all the opposition parties, to provide us with the information we need for considering the bill. Never imagine that a bill introduced by a government is complete in itself and that all possible stakeholders have been consulted.

We will make a point of inviting the Agence métropolitaine de transport, which has told us about the difficulties it is currently having in developing its commuter train service in the greater Montreal region. Montreal is one of the important regions of Quebec when it comes to transportation. There is always talk of adding more highways and bridges in that region, despite the fact that there are rail lines lying unused because of the lack of coordination and cooperation between the railway companies. Those companies sit on their monopolies and their vested rights and refuse to give the commuter trains that could serve a larger population free rein to expand. We will have the opportunity to hear these people at the committee and they may have important things for us to add to the bill.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also congratulate the member for Alfred-Pellan on his speech. He spoke earlier about vibrations and the obstruction of municipal access roads. I thought I understood him to say, however, that he is particularly concerned about marshalling yards and all the activity that they generate.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé asked a question about the obstruction of access roads. I offer the example of my constituency, Chambly—Borduas. Trains, rail lines, go through 10 of the 12 towns that make up that constituency, and one of them, Saint-Basile-le-Grand, has two access roads. Sometimes a train stops at the municipal access roads for a long time. We had one occasion when a train stopped for an hour and a half. If there were an emergency in the municipality, or for some other reason, this would create a major problem. And yet the act already contained monitoring provisions. I would like to know whether the committee has studied this aspect.

As well, is this in fact fuelling debate in order to get the bill amended? As my colleague said earlier, this bill makes no provision in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas.

Indeed, the issue of blocked entrances and main thoroughfares in municipalities has yet to be addressed at committee. What makes the committee's work following second reading of the bill interesting is that stakeholders might be called in by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas or members representing other ridings. This would help generate additional questions which could very well bring about changes to the bill.

I therefore encourage my hon. colleague to identify stakeholders who could meet with us to discuss this issue, even though the bill as it stands, which assigns many responsibilities to the Canada Transportation Agency, could give it the authority to hear any complaint dealing with transportation in general, which is not the case at present.

The legislation does provide, however, that a consultative body may hear all these complaints to arrange for the mediation provided for in the bill. Still, nothing prevents us from identifying the main issues in order to ensure that they will be adequately addressed in one clause or another; otherwise, amendments will be in order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today on the important changes to the Canada Transportation Act in Bill C-11, changes that will help improve the environment for passenger rail services, preserve valuable rail infrastructure in urban areas, and make communities served by railways more livable.

I would like to begin by speaking briefly on the history of CN Rail and the important role it has played in the lives of Canadians for nearly a century. The Canadian National Railway has mirrored the history of Canada for more than eight decades. The company's roots lie in the turmoil and disillusionment that accompanied World War I. In the 1920s and 1930s, CN's fortunes reflected the peaks and valleys of the Canadian economy. During World War II, CN, like Canadians themselves, met challenges that could not have been predicted even a few years earlier.

In the decades after the war, Canada became a supplier of resources to the world, resources such as lumber, which we dealt with earlier today, grain, sulphur, potash and petroleum products, and CN carried them. In the 1990s, when the North American economy became more integrated, CN followed suit as it expanded its U.S. presence and took a north-south orientation.

Because CN was for more than 70 years a government owned railroad, it had a social role in the life of the country as well as an economic one. This role is exemplified by narrow gauge freight and passenger services across Newfoundland, by mixed trains on low density branch lines, and by passenger cars used for schooling and medical services in remote parts of Ontario and Quebec.

There is no doubt that CN and the railways of Canada represent an integral and important part of our history as Canadians. Bill C-11 recognizes the great importance of our railways and focuses on achieving a balance between the modern interests of communities, consumers, commuters and urban transit authorities with those of today's railway carriers.

I would like to highlight the bill's proposed changes in the railway aspects of the bill. The proposed changes to the Canada Transportation Act will help ensure that our railways remain innovative, strong and healthy in the 21st century.

The bill looks at existing policy and regulations from an urban quality of life perspective to see if we can make them work better on behalf of our cities and our communities. At a time when Canadians are increasingly concerned about rising energy prices, particularly prices paid at the gasoline pumps, I am very pleased to be able to say that the proposed amendments will contribute to the well-being of urban transit services as well as intercity passenger rail services like GO Transit and VIA Rail.

Through a number of amendments to the CTA, the government is introducing several measures that will benefit the passenger rail services that are critical for the movement of the growing number of commuters in my community and throughout the GTA with and between our largest urban centres. For example, on the average workday in Burlington alone, between 70 and 80 passenger trains pass through Burlington's three GO stations and one CN station. Nearly 90% of all trains that pass through Burlington carry passengers.

The government recognizes the benefits of providing publicly funded passenger rail services such as those operated by VIA Rail across Canada, the Metro in Montreal, the O-Train here in Ottawa and the GO Train in Burlington through to Toronto and the east side of Toronto.

The government also recognizes that because these services are essentially government mandated, the operating entities may encounter difficulties in negotiating on even terms with the host railways over those infrastructures they operate. To this end, the amendments to the CTA will include new dispute resolution provisions clearly aimed at public passenger services.

Currently, the only recourse available to the CTA for public passenger providers for resolving rate and service disputes with the railways is final offer arbitration. The new provision would replace the existing final offer arbitration provision that became available to commuter and other publicly funded passenger rail operators in 1996. However, passenger rail that is not publicly funded would continue to have no recourse in the final offer arbitration system.

The new recourse will improve access to rail infrastructure for public passenger services, under commercially reasonable terms. The government strongly encourages VIA Rail and commuter rail authorities to conclude commercial agreements with infrastructure owners. However, when commercial negotiations are unsuccessful, which does happen on occasion, these public passenger service providers will be able to seek adjudication from the Canadian Transportation Agency on terms and conditions of operation on federal rail lines, including fees and services charged by that host railway.

Further, since the contracts are entered into by public bodies, in the interest of greater transparency, the amendments of the CTA will require that such agreements are made public for the first time. As such, any future contracts between public passenger service providers and federally regulated railways will be made public. Existing amendments will also be made public unless one of the parties can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the agency, that the contract contains commercially sensitive information and that it would be harmed by its release.

The government also recognizes that preserving surplus rail corridors for subsequent use by urban transit is of growing interest in large urban centres, including my own centre of Burlington. Often these corridors represent the only land available for transportation uses.

Presently a railway can discontinue operations on a surplus rail line only after it has followed the notification and advertisement steps prescribed in the CTA. The objective of these provisions is to promote the takeover of lines of new owners or operators in place of service abandonment.

When a railway is no longer required for freight service, it must first be offered for continued railway operations, then must be offered to federal, provincial and municipal governments for a price that is no greater than the net salvage value. This approach to corridor evaluation will be retained.

However, under the current transfer and discontinuance provisions of the CTA, urban transit authorities, which in some urban areas serve several municipalities, including mine, have no right to receive such offers from railways. In the interest of protecting valuable corridors that may be required for urban transit, the CTA will be amended to require an offer of sale to urban transit authorities before municipal governments.

Also, the current provisions do not apply to railway spurs and sidings, some of which could sufficiently serve the needs of commuter rail services. Nor do the present provisions apply to passenger railway stations. The amendments would require the railways to offer these segments in urban areas and passenger railway stations to governments and urban transit authorities, not for more than the net salvage value, before removing them from service.

As I noted earlier, the CTA currently requires that no interest has been expressed in the purchase of a line for continued rail operation. A railway company must offer to transfer the line to governments for not more than its salvage value. A government interested in purchasing the line must advise the railway company in writing that it accepts the offer. If the government and the railway company cannot agree on the net salvage value of the line, either party can apply to the agency for a determination of such value. In other words, the government is required to accept and bind itself to the purchase offer without knowing the purchase price.

The proposed amendments to these provisions in the bill will improve the notification processes to governments, urban transit authorities and agencies at certain stages of transfer and discontinuance of the process. As well, the amendments will allow a government of an urban transit authority to seek a determination of the net salvage value from an agency when it receives an offer from a railway and before it binds itself to an offer of purchase. Again, this is transparency. This will provide a government and an urban transit authority the necessary information to decide whether it is the right business decision, whether they want to purchase the line or not.

This is one area that is important to me in this bill and important to my area of Burlington and Halton and of the urban transit issues that we face every day.

Another area in the bill that is very important to me, and I have been dealing with on an ongoing basis, particularly this summer, is noise, and noise is addressed for the very first time in the act.

At the outset, I noted these amendments would introduce measures that would make communities such as mine served by railways more livable.

Over the past several years, some members of the House have heard community concerns, and I have heard that from a number of speeches here today, about railway noise and the Federal Court of Appeal decision of December 2000, which ruled that the agency had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to noise from the operating of federally regulated railways, and that is about to change in the act.

A large number of Canadian communities are home to railway operations and disputes can arise from railway noise between residents and communities and railway companies. While citizens adversely affected by noise from railway operations can make a formal complaint to the company through a 1-800 number, which I have received and passed out many times, or seek civil action through the courts, no federal body is mandated to regulate railway noise.

Proposed changes to the bill authorize the Canadian Transportation Agency to review noise complaints for the very first time and, if required, order railway companies to make changes to reduce reasonable noise when constructing or operating railway and railway yards. The agency must be satisfied that the parties were unable to reach a settlement voluntarily of the dispute on their own, which of course is the preference of everyone.

The Railway Association and the CPR have established voluntary mechanisms with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to address noise and other complaints stemming from the proximity to railway operations.

The government applauds and encourages this voluntary approach for resolving these often contentious matters, which I have had this summer in my riding.

However, the government also wants to ensure the agency, and I support this, has the authority to resolve noise complaints if a voluntary settlement is not achievable. The agency is well-positioned to strike a balance between operational needs of the railway, with which I think we all agree, and the expectation of communities and those who live beside the railways not to be subjected to unnecessary and unavoidable inconvenience.

The amendments would require railways not to cause unreasonable noise when constructing and operating a railway, taking into consideration the requirements of operation, services and interests of affected communities.

I want to pause for a moment and talk about a specific example in my riding. GO Transit is adding a whole new line, a new track through my riding of Burlington to Toronto, to provide us with ongoing, everyday, all-day GO Train service. As a GO Train user this summer and over a number of years my wife has used GO Train to Toronto on a daily basis when she works in downtown Toronto, it is a very important thing. The people who live in Burlington understand the need for an expanded GO Train service to Burlington, but do they need to have the railway constructed in the middle of the night with no notice? That is what has happened over the summer.

This past week I had the fortunate opportunity to meet with railway officials, their communications people, their construction people. They freely admit that there are no rules and regulations, that they are basically able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and that is the way the law is.

The new changes that we are proposing in this bill do make changes on the noise side to give us some authority to ensure that, at the bare minimum, the people who are affected on a daily basis due to the changes, the growth in railway, get an opportunity to comment on it. Whether they get to stop it is a different story, but at least they have the knowledge, they have the right to know what is happening in their backyard. I am looking forward to seeing the bill pass so we can start working on those issues.

The agency has been given the statutory power to provide guidelines for what it will consider in deciding on noise complaints, elaborate measures on the noise resolution and require complaints to demonstrate that all voluntary measures are exhausted.

We first want to ensure that the citizens and the railway contact and communicate with each other to ensure they cannot find a solution on their own. They will investigate noise complaints and order railways to take appropriate action to prevent unreasonable noise, taking into consideration the requirements of railway operation and the interests of affected communities.

The amendments I have outlined today go a long way in improving passenger rail service across the country, preserving valuable railway infrastructure in urban areas such as mine and reducing railway noise and complaints in ridings such as Burlington.

Ultimately these measures will reduce congestion in our urban areas and make our transportation system more environmentally sustainable. Not only are we adding railway lines in our area, but the tax incentive for people to get out of their cars, to use GO Transit and to take the mass transit system to Toronto has been a tremendous support to Burlington and to the people of my riding.

We want to improve the quality of life of those who have to live beside the railway lines. They understand that they are there for a reason, that they do have a good public role. However, they also need to be dealt with respectfully and in a reasonable manner. The changes to the CTA will make that happen.

I have been listening very actively today. All parties seem to indicate that they are willing to send this to committee, which is what I would like to see done, where it will be reviewed and some changes may or may not be made. It has had significant consultation. Our friends from the official opposition have said a number of times today that the bill has come to us a couple of times in different formats.

Let us get on with it. Let us get it passed. Let us get it to the transportation committee. If there are any amendments, let us hear them and deal with them appropriately. Let us start helping those people in the urban areas who are affected by transit needs on an everyday basis.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a theme that I have raised now on two or possibly three occasions with the government this afternoon as we pursue the debate of Bill C-11.

The minister spoke this morning very clearly and referenced two or three times that the bill would have environmental implications. My colleague highlighted GO Transit and the notion of public transit support in his riding. We even heard that his wife takes the train, which is a good thing.

I want to raise the fact that there seems to be a disconnect here. On the one hand the government is speaking now about a new environmental platform, apparently rejecting 13 years of our work in this field. This is somewhat exaggerated. There is also a tax deductible transit pass, which does not seem to be supported by the economists.

Where does the bill in any way talk about environmental objectives, including greenhouse gases?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me focus on the fact that the transit pass has been a great asset to my community. I have had numerous calls from people thanking us for that opportunity.

The reason that GO Train is adding a line to the west side is because the volume is there and it is increasing. Any additions to make it a more efficient and effective system, including the bill, will make mass transit a more appealing piece for the country.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to speak on Bill C-11. As others have stated, there is a lot in this bill that makes sense. In fact, it is the third time in the House for most of the contents of this bill. However, tucked within the bill is another huge loss, and this is new, a huge loss for the farm community.

The minority government opposite has taken to inserting in a lot of its press releases and so on, when it can, a quote called “the new government”, but like so much of what this minority Conservative Party does, it is all about deception. There is nothing new in the bill except the one section that I mentioned, clause 43. What this does, quite simply, is trample on the rights of farmers. Let me repeat that: clause 43 tramples on the rights of farmers.

The new government, the new Conservative government, has cut a deal with the big railways and the big grain companies to tear down agreements that the previous government had entered into, agreements reached by the previous government that would have given a little bit of leverage to the grain producers and more control over their destiny as grain producers in terms of dealing with the railways. The issue really relates to the transfer of hopper cars to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, a cross-section of groups across the west that would have had those railcars turned over to them to manage in the interests of the transportation system and in the interests of farmers.

The provisions of this bill, then, particularly clause 43, are really symbolic of the government's real priorities. With the implementation of these two provisions, the Conservative government has, along with its decision on May 4, sold out the farmers of western Canada and delivered an asset of incredible value, once again, to the railways.

The two provisions in question come out of the government's betrayal of western farmers and a reneging on an agreement signed in good faith between the Farmer Rail Car Coalition and the Government of Canada. The agreement signed between the FRCC and the federal government in November 2005 would have seen the federal government hopper car fleet transferred to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. The FRCC was committed to a payment of $203 million for the cars and had ensured that the maintaining of the fleet could and would be done at a competitive rate far less than the unaccounted-for costs of the railways.

The third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, on February 14, 2005, provided one of the key reasons why there had been a lengthy delay between the announcement by the previous federal government to dispose of the hopper car fleet in 1996 and the agreement with the FRCC in November 2005. It stated that “the railways had a right of first refusal to acquire the cars that did not expire until the summer of 2002”.

No action was possible until that arrangement lapsed. It was in a matter of months following that period that the federal government, in spite of less than enthusiastic support from within Transport Canada and continued railway opposition, had taken the final decision.

When it comes to Transport Canada, I have had the opportunity, in a previous life as President of the National Farmers Union, to deal with Transport Canada for some 30 years. Transport Canada has never failed in this country's history, in those 30 years at least, but to come down on the side of the railways as opposed to coming down on the side of the farmers. The previous minister of transport was willing to challenge Transport Canada and come up with a deal that worked for primary producers. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities over here in the so-called new government is selling out those primary producers and catering to big rail in the process.

That is not what we expect from a new government. We expect a new government to stand up for those with less power in this country. This new government in that regard has failed miserably and has really betrayed the farm community in terms of that deal that was signed by the previous government.

Before getting into the specifics of the issue, I would like to speak about accountability, something the government pretends is of importance. The railways, since the issue of the possible transfer of the hopper car fleet, have maintained one consistent position: complete and total opposition to any transfer or sale of the cars to the FRCC. Yet, the railways have never once, even to the Canadian Transportation Agency according to testimony before the agriculture committee, provided their costs for maintaining the hopper car fleet which had been in their control since the 1970s.

For the benefit of those who are not knowledgeable about this issue to a great extent, I want people to understand that the past federal government purchased hopper cars for the railways which the Government of Canada owned and controlled to a certain extent to provide the rolling stock in order to provide the capacity to move the grain out of the western prairie region because the railways were not providing the rolling stock in fact to do it. That is why it was necessary. It is the cars we are really talking about in this particular instance. As I said, the railways really did not provide the costs of maintaining that hopper car fleet which had been in their control since the 1970s.

A Canadian Transportation Agency representative at the agriculture committee stated that even though the CTA made serious efforts to work with the railways, the agency found that “--the railways do not collect detailed information with respect to the maintenance of the hopper cars, which made the assignment or study more difficult--”. That was said at the agriculture committee on May 16, 2006.

The members of the new government, specifically those from rural western Canada, have failed to protect the interests of their constituents. At a minimum, they should be able to stand in the House and state that the decision of the government to renege on the deal with the FRCC is supported by one set of simple facts: namely, that the railways can maintain the fleet of hopper cars at a rate which matches that of the FRCC. They have not and they cannot do that.

On May 4 the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stated that the government's decision would allegedly benefit the farmers of western Canada due to the $2 per tonne rate reduction. The news release of course issued by the minister indicated that the rate reduction of $2 per tonne was a potential target. Really then, the $2 per tonne is not real. It is just potential. It may happen. There is no assurance to the western farm community that this reduction will in fact be made.

In an interview, however, with The Western Producer on May 11, the same Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stated that “the reduction in rates would likely fall in the $1.50 to $2 range”. So even the minister himself is not consistent in terms of what he is saying the potential reduction might be.

The claim by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that farmers would realize an annual saving of $50 million is contradicted by his own news release and by his own statement to The Western Producer, but it is not unusual for the new government to be caught in contradictions. We have seen this from members in question period today. We see it every day. In fact, there is no industry which sees the contradictions as often as the agricultural industry.

During the election the Conservative leader left the impression that there was going to be immediate cash for farmers. Remember that last January and last spring? Did they get immediate cash for farmers? The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development says there was. There were moneys announced last November by the previous government and that is what is being paid out. There was less money in the budget than the previous government had paid out. There was no immediate cash for farmers from the government to this day other than what was announced by the previous government.

The minister may be talking about the options program but the options program is a blame the victim kind of program. Instead of compensating producers for low farm prices, Conservatives have come up with an options program for a farmer who has farmed for 40 years. Maybe HRDC is providing the skills development training program for farmers and they thought it was Agriculture Canada, but I can certainly see the bureaucrats of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada training a farmer who has farmed for 40 years to farm better. I can certainly see that because what the government is doing on the options program is blaming the victim. It is saying the farmer is losing money because his skills are poor. That is what the government is really saying.

May I remind the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development that the problem the farm community has is low commodity prices worldwide which are caused by subsidies by other countries around the world. Low commodity prices are what is wrong.

Just to sidetrack for a minute, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had the opportunity to be in Australia today to meet with the Cairns Group, the group that Canada was an original founding member of, at which meeting the United States and the European Union were going to argue the point that we need a WTO agreement in which there would be better market access and reduced export subsidies and to argue the points that would benefit Canadian farmers. Where were these two ministers? Sitting in the House here today and neglecting their responsibility to the farm community of this country.

When it comes to agriculture, I could go through a list of six items, but I want to deal specifically with Bill C-11. The fact is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the new government as a whole have failed miserably when it comes to dealing with the problems in the farm community.

The claim by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that farmers will realize an annual saving of $50 million is contradicted by his own news release. This means that the Government of Canada cannot stand by the figure it initially proclaimed as going to farmers in terms of a rate reduction and for this reason alone, these provisions of the bill do not merit support.

However, the FRCC has been more than forthcoming with respect to its position with respect to the costs of maintaining the fleet for producers, and this position has been supported by the findings of the CTA in a submission to Transport Canada on March 29, 2005. That document makes absolutely clear that the two major railways, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, have been actively and intentionally overcharging, in other words gouging, farmers for more than a decade, and the government continues to support that gouging.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Who was in government?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member opposite asks who was in government. We made an agreement with the FRCC to prevent that gouging and the new government over there broke that agreement, violated that trust with western farmers and basically sold out to the big railways.

I would like to take this opportunity to read from this report, which incidentally would not have become public if it had not been for a reporter with the The Western Producer who obtained and published the report. The following are extracts from the report, sent by Neil Thurston, director of the rail economics directorate of the CTA, to Helena Borges, executive director of rail policy at Transport Canada. The report was in response to a Transport Canada request to the CTA “regarding the Agency staff’s assessment of CN and CP’s expenditures for the maintenance of the Government hopper car fleet in 2004”.

Based on the railway information, the CTA determined that maintenance costs on the hopper car fleet dedicated to grain transportation was $1,686 per car per year. Under the provisions of the revenue cap, the railways had been receiving $4,329 per car per year in maintenance costs.

There are currently more than 12,000 federal government hopper cars in service in western Canada. Members can do the math: 12,000 cars, actual cost $1,686, yet charging $4,329. Western farmers have been overcharged to the tune of over $30 million annually. The new government is going to allow those alleged overcharging costs to continue to go to the railways and continue to basically gouge farmers. The report I have referenced was tabled, reluctantly, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would add that during the course of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on May 16, Mr. Sinclair Harrison, president of the FRCC, told the committee of additional Transport Canada reports, held in confidence, that support the position the FRCC has held for a number of years. Mr. Harrison stated:

At our request, Transport Canada commissioned a company called QGI, a consulting firm specializing in car inspections, to inspect approximately 1,000 of the 12,000 federal government cars, which is a representative sample. In our opinion, the confidential report prepared by QGI confirms FRCC's observation on the extent of programmed maintenance being deferred.

The dollar figure is in the report here and is in the hands of Transport Canada. Again, perhaps it should be released to this committee. The dollar figure put to the deficiencies in the cars, Transport Canada, and the FRCC agreed, was $35 million worth of work that has not been performed on these cars but was paid for.

The service not provided was purchased from the railways.

The facts are that there was an agreement by the previous government that would have benefited the farm community. The new government came to power and broke that agreement, which is what section 43 of Bill C-11 does. The government has sold out western farmers again to the big railway companies. It has a lot to answer for.

As I said, most of the bill is not new. It has the good points brought forward by the previous government but section 43 is doing what--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque has more nerve than most people in the House of Commons. For him to make the complaints that he has made against our government, which has been in office only a few months, when he was a member of a government that totally destroyed the transportation system for farmers in this country and who did very little that was positive for farmers and more things that hurt farmers, for him to stand in the House and say the things that he has just said is shocking.

He was a member of Parliament when the Liberal government put through three changes that affected transportation and affected farmers in such a negative way. The first was the privatization of CN Rail. It was not the privatization issue itself that was the problem, that was the right thing to do, but at the time that was being done many of our members were at committee and they were calling for the government to bring more competition into the system and to make improvements that would actually benefit farmers. The Liberal government refused to do those things.

The second change was the new transportation act that his government brought in. The Canada Transportation Act had a few things that improved the system but when we called for changes that would bring competition into the system and which would reduce prices for western farmers, it refused to do those things. As a result, things became worse for farmers instead of better when the Liberal government had a real opportunity.

Third was the elimination of the Crow benefit. The Liberal government took $800 million a year from western farmers and did nothing to improve the system. For the member to stand up and say the things that he said against our new government is shameful. The record of his government was atrocious and he should answer for that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when we look at the record in terms of support for the farm community, the new government does not have a leg to stand on. It does not compare at all with the previous government in terms of the positive things that we did for the farm community.

When it had the opportunity to do something positive, such as lowering freight costs and giving the farm community more control over transportation, what does it do in Bill C-11? It inserted section 43 which basically destroys the agreement that was established by the previous government and FRCC to give them some control over the transportation sector.

I would ask the member to go back to my remarks. The fact is that the biggest payments in Canadian history to primary producers came from the previous government. Were they enough? No, they were not. However, in its new budget the government did not even meet that standard even though Agriculture Canada's own figures indicated incomes were 16% lower.

I would suggest that perhaps the member from Vegreville should go back and look at his own comments on the Crow benefit and he would find some strange and startling statements by himself in terms of that debate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to look in Roget's Thesaurus for undermining infrastructure and destroying tracks across this country the words Brian Mulroney would come up, but I do not want to go into the deep, dark past.

I would like to ask the member about the issue of the hopper cars. I sat on the agriculture committee when this plan was brought forward, a plan that was viable, that worked and that seemed to have support everywhere except from the Conservative members on the committee. I was quite naive at the time thinking we were all working together, but it seemed more like a conniving cabal to undermine the transfer of the hopper car fleet.

In fact, the only area where I saw the Conservatives do more to undermine a fair deal for farmers was when we were attempting to find out why the packers got away with such outrageous profits in the worst farming crisis in Canadian history. I think it would be fair to say that the Conservatives on that committee would have taken a bullet for the packers.

I am trying to understand why they have taken such a position to undermine farmers' needs, especially in western Canada. We can look at the Wheat Board as another example.

I am wondering to myself whether this is a conspiracy, ideology or myopia. I am not sure what it is that drives the Conservative agenda to undermine farmers when we are dealing with the packers, when we are dealing with the farmer coalition and when we are dealing with the need to protect the farmer operated Wheat Board.

I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks about that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Timmins—James Bay was a hard-working member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when he was there and he still remains very interested in the cause of primary producers in the country.

Simply put, he is right. What we saw in the agriculture committee a number of times when we were talking to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition, were the Conservative members on the committee, although I am not sure whether they were Alliance, Reform or CPC at that time but they are all one and the same, all from a neo-conservative party with neo-conservative ideas, being obstructionists in terms of giving farmers more power in terms of dealing with the railways.

It was a difficult issue because it was entrenched in the law that the railways did have a first right of refusal to acquire the cars and that did not expire until the summer of 2002. That moved the deadline back, although the intention of the previous government was announced to dispose of the fleet in 1996.

A simple answer to the question by the member for Timmins—James Bay is that the policies of the party opposite, the new government, are strictly based on ideology. That is what we are seeing with the new proposal it has now, which is to take marketing powers away from western producers by undermining the Canadian Wheat Board and taking the single desk authority away from the Canadian Wheat Board and doing it, if I might say, in violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act itself.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the member for Vegreville—Wainwright decided to try to denigrate the hon. member for Malpeque. I can only say that I cannot think of many members of Parliament who have worked so hard and championed the agriculture files and the plight of farmers in Canada and he should be congratulated for his service to the country.

It really is a problem for me to understand how the Conservatives could come in this way when it is their proposal for instance to basically abolish the Wheat Board and to basically permit direct sales that would benefit those who are closer to the U.S. border. It would not be representative of all farmers. Talk about hypocrisy.

I would like to ask the member if he would elaborate just a little on the importance of the Wheat Board to Canadian farmers.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture I had the opportunity to have consultations with the farm industry, based with primary producers themselves, looking at the issue of low farm incomes. There is no question that incomes are the lowest they have been in Canadian history.

While there are some who like to blame the farm community for that, our farmers are the most efficient and productive in the world, but the problem is other factors. I entitled my report, “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”, which is what needs to happen to deal with the problem. We need to empower Canadian farmers in the marketplace.

The new government is doing two things that go in the opposite direction. First, it has taken power away from primary producers in terms of dealing with the railways through section 43 of Bill C-11 by cancelling the agreement with the FRCC.

Second, it is taking away the power of western grain farmers by undermining the single desk selling aspect of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister announced a task force yesterday in which the government will try to achieve that objective without first giving farmers, the people who are under the Canadian Wheat Board, their democratic right, as stated under the act, to have a vote to determine which way they want to go.

The government is moving in the opposite direction by taking power away from farmers rather than empowering farmers as should be done.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill, a bill that has captivated the attention of government members who are taking copious notes and paying deep attention to the debate today. By not presenting speakers any more shows the profound lack of commitment the current government has toward a transportation strategy for this country, for the ability to actually address some of the transportation situations that are going on around our nation from coast to coast to coast.

While most of Bill C-11 occupies what we call the administrative side of things, it is a bit of a housekeeping bill, which I am sure the government will call a progressive and aggressive form of legislation because there is nothing else going on when it comes to transportation, particularly when it comes to sustainable transportation.

I represent a riding in the northwest of British Columbia that relies very much on the rail system to move goods in and out of our communities, particularly processed goods and, increasingly, the entire nation relies on the Port of Prince Rupert. It is a terminus that is meant to be an alleviation of the pressures on the other west coast ports, in particular the Vancouver area ports which have been clogged for far too long, mostly due to government neglect and lack of planning both at the provincial legislature with the Liberals in Victoria, the previous government, and the present government seems to be taking up the charge just as slowly.

With no national public transportation strategy or planning of any kind, communities are left to struggle along as best they can attempting to alleviate the congestion in urban and, in many cases, rural communities.

I want to talk about the need for a strategy. If only the bill, in addressing some of the major aspects of transportation, had within it the opportunity to show what this so-called new government might present to Canadians as a vision for our transportation sector. Instead, it chose to allow that opportunity, like so many others to this point in this hopefully short mandate of a minority Parliament, to pass it by, the opportunity to actually invest in the places that the manufacturing sector has been calling out for, for too many years.

I would also like to talk briefly about Transport Canada and the role that it has played in my community and in communities across British Columbia in particular.

The Library of Parliament did a study for us earlier this year to assess what has happened in rail safety just in the province of British Columbia over the last number of years.

We have what some have called the diabolical sale of BC Rail to CN by the Liberals in Victoria, British Columbia, with little public input and few conditions upon that sale. We have now seen an absolutely dramatic increase in sometimes fatal accidents. These are not simply a slowdown of trains or an inability of shippers to get their product to market. Those things were going on and are going on even more so. What is even more drastic is that when a company comes in it is the responsibility of the government to hold that company and the transportation sector to account for its safety practices but the government has neglected its duties, as the previous government did. The present government is continuing that bad practice and it is putting the lives of people working on that rail at stake. We have seen a tragic loss of life in British Columbia.

We have seen increasing numbers of accidents month in and month out with ne'er a word from the transportation minister and not a murmur from the government at all about the concerns for what is happening in British Columbia along our rail system that, as I said, the entire country is now coming to rely upon, certainly if they want to ship anything to the Far East or to other countries and cannot get it through our currently congested ports. This is an absolute shirking of responsibility.

In researching the accidents, we looked at not only the negligence of the companies involved but of the Transportation Safety Board, again filled with appointments by a previous Liberal government who may or may not have had experience in the transportation sector but they all had at least one thing in common and that was a strong allegiance to a formerly misguided Liberal government.

Now we see the current government proposing appointments for this commission which speaks much to transparency but walks in the opposite direction. We have had no assurances to this point of what that process will look like.

Will it be an open and fair transparent process? Will the public have input? Will there be local community involvement in that commission, or will it simply be people who wrote the appropriate cheques prior to the last federal election and made good with the current bastions of power?

It is important to consider that many Canadians watching the debate will not realize that many of the goods being shipped by Canadian rail are somewhat innocuous in nature. There are parts, widgets and various things, but there is an increasing amount of hazardous materials being transported on the rail system as well. When we combine that reality with a deplorable record on safety, we start to create the perfect forum for not only ecological disaster, but also grave consequences for the communities in these regions. They rely on the ability to trust the government to do what it is meant to do, which is to protect the interests of the public, not the narrow interests of a CEO from Texas running a rail line, but the interests of the people who voted all of us into this place. To this point, the government has not shown a commitment to that.

A rail shipment passes through my riding of Skeena once a month. It passes into a community through shipping, lands on our shores at Kitimat and travels up major waterways, which thousands of people rely on for food sustenance. Businesses absolutely depend on these river systems. These rail systems are now carrying some of the most noxious and hazardous goods we have. Has there been an environmental assessment of this process? Has anyone looked at what would happen if yet another CN car tipped off the tracks? Absolutely not. Has there been any public accounting for what it means to destroy a major tributary or to destroy a major river habitat for what could be years?

The substances contained in some of these tankers are used in the oil and gas sector in northern Alberta: condensates and various substances that are far more toxic than any oil spill could really be. Here we have a government that is hoping it can simply slap the blinkers on, as the last government did, and not account for proper protections. It holds the public trust in its hands.

Recently CN sent letters to the various volunteer, I stress the word “volunteer”, fire departments up and down the rail line to notify them that if there were a major spill on this line, if a hazardous material spilled into a river or alongside a river, they were to hold the fort for a minimum of 12 hours. These fire departments survive and subsist on the many thousands of hours put together by these teams of dedicated people and the donations from our communities. After that point, CN might show up with a hazardous materials crew. It is an absolutely deplorable sense of responsibility.

This is a place where clearly, in the interests of the public, the government needs to step in and say, “We have licensed you to operate a rail system in this country, but we have not licensed you to play Russian roulette with the communities and ecosystems through which the rail systems pass”.

Whether it is through a major urban centre or through the ecosystems and the environments upon which we rely, this company has decided, for the interests of profit and the maximization of that profit, to change the length of cars against Transportation Safety Board recommendations and to lower the amount of braking that these cars can do in some of the most mountainous areas of the world and the government has been silent, allowing this to go on and accidents have happened.

The trust that has been eroded has been dramatic. This goes across all partisan lines and interest groups. People no longer trust the regulators to regulate the industry because there have been accidents after accidents, spills into lakes and rivers near communities where people survive on the drinking water into which this toxic sludge is seeping. The government to this point has been quiet.

The bill does not speak to it. It does not address a need for an increased level of assurance and safety and a clamping down on those companies that refuse to listen to their workers and to the communities. They simply fire off missives every once in a while to tell volunteer fire departments that is it their responsibility, departments that do not have the training nor the equipment to handle a major hazardous spill. CN will relegate all of that responsibility to those communities. It is absolutely unacceptable by any standard and any stretch of the imagination.

The investigations that have come from Transport Canada have laid blame. We are still looking for answers, and I am sure the parliamentary secretary can answer this question. To our knowledge it has not levied any serious fines and reprobations for the company even when there has been loss of life and even when negligence has been proven in the maintenance of the rail system on various bridges, on the capacity of engines to break when going down these mountains. When there has been negligence at that level, what has the punishment been? It has been near to nothing.

The commission appointments that are called for in the legislation must be taken into the public realm. They must be given the clear light of day so communities can feel confident with the few people appointed, of which there are only five to my understanding. They are meant to oversee such a broad ranging mandate and must have the confidence of the public, those who use the rail system, work on the rail system or have a rail pass through their community or environment.

A second and critical point, which we are looking to the government to respond to since the last one did not, is on the required infrastructure developments, particularly for rails like the ones that pass through Skeena. After much browbeating, haggling and demanding the last government at the eleventh hour, it decided in its benevolence to fund in some small way the Port of Prince Rupert. Everyone in the industry and across the country who had anything to do with this issue had asked that the Port of Prince Rupert be given the capacity the country needs in order to ship its goods. The government finally showed up.

In showing up, the government neglected to talk about the other aspects of this deal. Overpasses need to be created. Safety regulations do not exist with regard to carrying double stacked cars through some of the most mountainous regions in the world. The government must step up to the plate. It must join with the citizens in the northwest, the people of Prince Rupert, who have staked much on this development. They want to become facilitators for the trade our country needs so much, in light of the disastrous so-called softwood lumber deal negotiated yesterday, which will rob the communities in my area of their ability to attract investment dollars to manufacture wood products any more.

We have a government that has somehow twisted itself into the perverse notion that self-imposing a tax on Canadian industy is the wise way to create wealth and generate prosperity and jobs, Canadian companies that are lawfully transporting materials across a border, which was supposedly open under a previous government's claims of free trade. If only we could have free trade with our American partners, instead of being dragged into court and being punished over and over again with illegal tariffs. At the end of the day, when we are on the edge of winning important court cases that would mean so much to the communities I represent, when victory is within our grasp, defeat is put in its place.

For the communities I represent, a major infusion of economic diversification dollars is needed if these communities will have any hope whatsoever. According to the forestry council of British Columbia, the effects of climate change ravage our forests with fires and pine beetle infestations and it is because of negligence. The previous governments and governments around the world have refused to act while some of the more progressive and noble ones have chosen to do the right thing and make something happen with climate change.

Due to that fact the communities got kicked in the head once. Now, after years of punishing duties and illegal tariffs, they are being kicked in the head again. They are being told that investment dollars have not been secured for the diversification they need. They are being told that companies wish to invest in Canada, to process some of our wood rather than just ship out raw logs and jobs to other countries. I can remember the slogan in the last election, standing up for Canada.

We are lying down in front of our American counterparts and saying, “Please don't kick us, we will kick ourselves”. We'll pound away happily on ourselves for years to come. If you don't like the deal, by a simple whim and demand of your own decision decide that we are falsely supporting our exports again, you can pull out of this absolutely erroneous and silly deal”.

For goodness sake, the communities of this region finally was able to cajole the previous government into supporting proper infrastructure and transportation investment. We need to move it to the second level if these communities have any hope of surviving whatsoever.

We saw it on the east coast when the fish stock started to collapse. There were calls from members of all parties for the government to step in after so much mismanagement and bad decision-making. The communities simply could not survive. It was just not a fair setting of the table. How can they compete? How can they survive if a government is enacting policies that go counter to the interests of the communities? They are not asking for help.

We conducted a study through the Library of Parliament last year and we asked simple questions. With respect to the federal riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a very proud and hard-working riding, we asked people: Of all the tax money collected and then given back through program spending, what has the ratio been over the last decade? They were able to pull up information between 1995 and 2005. Revenue taken from Skeena was close to $1.1 billion. The federal government has done very well off the mining, resource and forestry sectors in my riding. All transfer payments into the riding through the province was one-tenth that figure. It was 10:1 ratio of tax dollars out to tax dollars in.

The provinces are asking for fairness. Fiscal imbalance is an absolute joke with respect to the resource economies of our country. Canadians work hard, earn honest livings and pay their taxes. Industries pay their taxes, some of them better than others, but when the taxes are paid and when it is time to reinvest back into these communities, the federal government says that it has a lot of pressing needs such as a critical highway between Vancouver and Whistler that needs its immediate attention, or a conference centre that needs to be expanded, or a rail line somewhere else.

Communities ask for some sort of basic notion of investment, investment in the truest sense where tax dollars are collected from the public, invested into an area, returned back to the public coffers and increase economic growth. As if there had been a single economic study by the federal government before it started shovelling money into the VANOC. As if there was any concept of what a dollar was given and what dollars would be returned. The government believed the false promises of VANOC and the Gordon Campbell government as to what this thing would actually cost. So much for prudence. So much for true fiscal imbalance.

The government claims to listen to Canadians. The bill talks about noise, traffic congestion and the need to listen to Canadians. Here is an opportunity to listen to Canadians. This is an opportunity to finally get serious about a national public transportation plan, a strategy that would allow the country, as vast and broad as it is, to realize its full economic potential. This would allow those regions that have for so long contributed to the public coffers, that have so long supported the growth of our cities and enabled the folks, who push papers from one desk to another in those cities, to earn a living, the places that the hewers of wooden haulers of water, it has often been called, the places that generate wealth in the truest sense of the wealth of this nation, to receive wealth in return.

Here is an opportunity for the so-called new government to move away from such misaligned and inappropriate actions like those we saw in the former Mulroney government. We now see our current Prime Minister doing his best to emulate what it is to sell out, what it is to lay down. This is an opportunity for our country to grow, to prosper and to achieve the dreams of all Canadians.

The legislation needs a bit of work. We need some answers from the government. We ultimately need a plan and a strategy for the country and for regions like mine to prosper. It needs to come from this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member and I thought about my own constituency in north eastern Alberta. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12 billion comes out of that area per year in taxes. I would like very much to bring that $12 billion back to my constituency for infrastructure and transportation in the area.

We are one country and we must, as a country, bring ourselves together to support other areas that are not as well equipped as far as resources and other interests such as manufacturing et cetera are concerned. We are one country and we have to support each other. The argument that the member used was interesting, but we have to come to more logical conclusions. We have to support each other.

I did have the opportunity as parliamentary secretary to travel in the Lower Mainland. In fact, I put some 3,000 kilometres on my vehicle travelling, looking at railroad crossings, highways, infrastructure and transportation initiatives taking place in that area. There is a need for some huge investment in the area, both from the province and we will see from the federal government. This government has already committed major dollars to the area in the way of the Pacific Gateway initiatives.

I would like to bring to the member's attention the fact that a report is being done by myself for the minister as far as what is taking place in that area and throughout Alberta. The minister and the government are very interested in having someone from the government on the ground looking at what is taking place, solving the problems and issues for Canadians. Our agenda is to solve the issues of Canadians.

I know the member expects miracles, as most Canadians do after 13 years of neglect by the Liberal government, but we have been sitting in the House for five months as government. I would ask the member to be patient and wait for us to do the job for Canadians in the best interests of Canadians.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, patience is indeed a virtue. It is a challenge only in the respect that this government now has been claiming to have been a government in waiting for some number of years.

When we take a quick gander over at the climate change file, I can remember standing in this place and the former environment critic for the Conservative Party was very knowledgeable on the issue. I asked him if he had a climate change plan ready. Of course he did. His party was the government in waiting.

The Conservatives shifted into government by the narrowest of margins and lo and behold there is no climate change plan whatsoever. It was a ruse, a farce. It was a misleading notion. It was a notion that in fact the government in waiting was a little more interested in those drive by smears that we watch back and forth and now the roles are reversed. It is quite amusing I am sure for some Canadians, mostly disappointing to watch, who were looking for earnest and honest debate. Patience is required, but we do not have a lot of it. We need the investment dollars now.

The Pacific Gateway is an excellent example. The parliamentary secretary referred to this $560 million or some figure that is meant to be rolled out. We have asked for the commission or the committee or whatever form it takes that will be appointed by the government to be an open and public transparent process to allow committee members to be placed on that panel to decide where all of this money is going to be spent, to not be partisan, to not be concentrated in Vancouver, and to have a diversity of views.

We have yet to hear that commitment from the government that there will be anyone from the rural sectors and anyone from even outside the Lower Mainland. That type of accountability and transparency would show walking the talk.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for transport it is enlightening to hear an evolving NDP position on the bill.

I would like to go back to a theme the member raised and put a couple of questions to him. He did raise the question of transparency and accountability and then really took it quite hard to the government in terms of its accountability and appointments process. I have a hard time reconciling those comments with the activities over the past six months of his colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has been in large part the stalking horse and the apologist for this government on its Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

I would like to remind the member about some of the wonderful appointments taken on by the previous government in the past, including the appointment, for example, of Stephen Lewis, for whom we fought tooth and nail to get appointed as Under-Secretary-General to the United Nations. There was the appointment of Ed Broadbent for seven years as the President and CEO of Rights and Democracy in Montreal and, of course, my very good friend Mike Harcourt, the former NDP premier of B.C. who was appointed on three separate occasions by the Liberal government to take on some very important public policy work.

My question for the member, now that he has raised a number of issues which I am looking to discern through to find out how we can improve the bill, is the environmental question. There is no greenhouse gas reference in this bill whatsoever. This is at a time when the government purportedly is in the process of devising some sort of new environmental plan or strategy. I guess it will go along with the theme of a new government, a new environmental policy. I am not sure where it is. It has been seven months, to correct the record. How does the member take the fact that under Bill C-11 there are no environmental measures, no greenhouse gas references and, clearly, no effort to deal with the environmental and climate change challenge?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a former member of the environment committee who worked very hard in the previous government to see an actual climate change plan come to fruition with hard targets, auto emission standards and various things that were unfortunately not delivered.

Quickly, on the appointments process, I can also recall bringing before the committee one of the failed Liberal candidates who was appointed to the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment. I entered the committee meeting with an open mind, asking the appointee some questions about the environment.

As it went round the table and question after question was simply not answered or there was no knowledge of the issue, this person who was meant to be taking over such a critical educational and core institution as the national round table was not up to the task.

We brought the motion back to the House that this person might not yet be appropriate for this and that the government should go out and find another one. The motion passed. The government ignored the will of the House stunningly.

In terms of greenhouse gases and this government's intentions, it would not know greenhouse gases if it was suffocating on them. There is no intention at the core and the fabric of this party to actually address climate change.

In a couple of weeks we will see a so-called green plan that will try to blur the issue. The government will try to confuse Canadians about what is actually happening with respect to climate change. The proof is in the pudding, if there is any true determination to aggressively go after a real revision of our economy, we could take the energy sector. We have a government that purports to roll out a green plan in two weeks, but still coughs over $1.5 billion or more per year to the oil and gas sector in the tar sands to retrieve more.

The most profitable companies in the country are receiving government largesse. They are receiving money from the taxpayers of Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. When all these people buy a candy bar, they are helping out EnCana make a little more profit. It is absolutely bizarre and hypocrisy to a profound level.

If the government wishes to do something about the environment, then the economy must be transformed. In order to do that the government simply cannot keep subsidizing the practices of the past.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the great opportunity to travel from one end of this country many, many times in my previous career. When one travels across the length of Canada, one realizes how spread out we are, how small our populations are, and how vast the distances are between them.

It has always struck me as absolutely bizarre that we do not have a national transportation strategy. On top of that, we have seen undermining of transportation policies. This is not strictly a partisan issue. The previous Liberal government undermined its commitments to regional airports causing problems for communities across this country.

When the Conservative government came into Ontario, it cut norOntair on the principle that the private sector could step up and fill the gaps that would allow for proper transportation into isolated regions. Nothing filled that gap. People are not being served.

We see more and more pressure on our highways. I live on highway 11 in northern Ontario which is the national transportation corridor. When anyone travels from Europe and sees this two-lane piece of moose pasture and they are told that is the Trans-Canada Highway, two lanes with rock cuts on either side and little crosses all along the way, that is the extent of our national corridor.

I would like to ask the hon. member why he thinks, in a country as vast as ours, we have not committed to infrastructure to maintain the ability to transport not just goods but people across this country?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins speaks to the true heart of these decisions that get made. Time and time again when there are dollars to be spent, certainly it has been for no lack of money over the last decade, this country has increasingly been doing better and better. We have been in a boom for some time. The government had all sorts of dispensation to spend money.

The current government is looking at another surplus that by every news report seems to be growing. So in this overtaxed world, there is an opportunity to spend money and invest and truly invest. For the price of one of those more elaborate pieces of art at the Toronto International Airport that somehow was sloughed onto the taxpayers, decided by a previous government costing some billion dollars or more at this airport, we could have had a thousand foot extension on a runway in northwestern British Columbia to allow a $500 million mine to go ahead, producing all sorts of wealth not just for the region but for the entire country.

Instead, for political partisan reasons of these various committees and commissions that get appointed, decisions get made and money gets put into all sorts of silly little pet projects rather than where it is really needed in our infrastructure to make this country stronger.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-11. This bill is about 60 pages long and is one of those bills that we cannot read in isolation. We have to have the existing legislation there so we can follow the amendments. Unless the House is prepared to give me an extension of about two hours, I am not going to address the whole bill. I will address certain aspects of it.

We are talking about the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. There are certainly many provisions of interest in this bill and they have been debated and discussed by hon. members through this debate, but I would like to look at a couple in particular.

Bill C-11 proposes that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be allowed to regulate the advertised pricing of airfare. This is an issue which is of great interest to Canadians, considering the recent history and volatility within the airline industry. It remains to be heard from the minister what his specific intentions are with regard to future airfare advertising regulations.

The whole question of regulations is kind of interesting to note for all hon. members. When we debate bills and vote at the various stages, we do so without the regulations, which do not come until after the legislation is passed, has gone through the Senate, received royal assent and is proclaimed. Then we get the regulations. There always has been this issue about whether or not there is this creeping problem where we have executive-made law, where the cabinet is enhancing what the insinuation of the legislation is through the regulations. It is the reason why we have the scrutiny of regulations committee, a joint Commons-Senate committee, to look at those regulations as they come through and to ensure that the regulations are authorized by the legislation.

I thought I would put that in because it is a very important aspect as it relates to this bill and it is incumbent upon the committee to do this. I am sure we will see this bill go to committee for review. We have to ensure that we get an indication from the government, from the minister, about the intent. What is the intent here? How can we, from an informed point of view, make decisions with regard to appropriate amendments to the legislation, if necessary?

The bill itself provides hints but no guarantees, and that is the issue. That is the problem with the regulations. Subsection 86.1(1) states:

The Agency may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting advertising in all media, including on the Internet, of prices for air services within, or originating in, Canada.

Subsection 86.1(2) of the same clause suggests that the minister may require that prices should include all costs to the carrier and all charges, but it does so without limiting the generality of the minister's power to regulate under subsection 86.1(1). Again it is this uncertainty, as a consequence of having the details, and the devil always is in the details with regard to regulations.

Members may recall that the issue of airfare pricing attracted a great deal of attention a few years ago when airport improvement fees and security charges became prevalent throughout the airline industry. At that time, the Liberal government recognized that protecting consumers was of utmost importance. Much of the materials we find in Bill C-11 are the provisions of the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, which have been presented in bills in prior Parliaments, but which did not proceed through the full legislative process due to the call of an election.

The provisions that are in question today were inherited from the previous legislation. There are too many situations right now, quite frankly, and what we are trying to address is that every day Canadians are faced with misleading and simply false information. That is the reality that we are faced with when we are trying to decide, as consumers, how to spend our hard-earned dollars.

The wide range of fees and taxes on airfare can be particularly confounding as well. Charges vary depending on which airport one is in, the airport of origin and the destination, then based on whether it is domestic or international. Even then, in some cases when a flight connects through certain particular airports rather than others, there are other complications, so the comparabilities from airline to airline are in some difficulty too.

Then, of course, we cannot forget the taxes. When all the charges, fees and taxes are summed up, the actual price of an airline ticket can be substantially above the base price, which is usually the advertised price. Let me repeat that. The base price, without all those add-ons, is the one that usually appears in the advertising. The consumers really get a surprise when they see the add-ons.

The right to set regulations could simplify these charges into a single tax-inclusive number, which when advertised by one airline would lend itself to comparison with other advertisements by other airlines. It is possible to take for granted the importance of advertising in our society. Market economies depend on competition. The competition itself depends on the ability of purchasers, in this case the Canadian consumers buying airline tickets, to distinguish between prices in a meaningful way.

I would go so far as to say that the efficiency cannot be properly encouraged in a market without clear pricing. That is the issue. We do not really have clear pricing, at least in the eyes of the consumer.

We must see prices clearly in order to choose based on price. Only when we choose based on price do we encourage businesses to offer a better deal. This is competition. That is the purpose of healthy competition. It is to ensure that there is fair pricing. Competitive pricing means that there is a win-win.

Clearly we are supportive of the principle of price advertising clarity. However, we do not know precisely what kind of price advertising regulations the minister intends to undertake. This is a problem and it is something that I encourage the committee to address exhaustively when it looks at this legislation.

Specific types of regulation can certainly have some unintended effects as well. Forcing airlines to disclose a certain amount of information in their advertising may in fact interfere with the message in unproductive ways or confuse the consumer. If we go a little too far we may find that people do not focus in on exactly the key elements of the pricing mechanism.

We have all seen the commercials for automobiles, which contain a great deal of detail. That is an example of listing all these little things. In fact, many Canadians would argue that they contain too much detail to be of much use. Calling on the airlines to display a similar level of detail may in fact not be where we want to go. I think this is another issue that the committee should address very carefully.

As we know, industries are thoroughly interconnected. I am not just talking about the airline industry. When we think about it, even the advertising industry is obviously affected. Depending on what our requirements are, certain modes of advertising are more desirable, more productive or effective than others, so that depending on what we do in this legislation may have some consequential impacts on other industries. We have to ask ourselves whether or not new regulations will cause one type of media to take a greater share of advertising dollars than another type. It could have any number of effects, all of which we can only speculate about.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities began his remarks by outlining some details. We will be required to do our jobs, but full disclosure in any event is certainly essential. We do not know what regulations the minister will be eventually bringing forward. It is going to be difficult for us to assess some of these finer points in terms of the impacts on the industry and related industries or linked industries.

This brings me to another important point. As parliamentarians, we obviously have a duty to consider legislation very carefully, but the government is understandably anxious to more forward with certain priorities. This is one that we cannot rush. This is one that we have to be very careful of. We know it has taken some time to get to this point yet again. When we start the House every day we say prayers and one of our pleas is that we make “good laws and wise decisions”. That is always the case. Certainly we want to make sure that Bill C-11 ultimately makes the necessary amendments to make the Canada Transportation Act a better law.

Whether the bill is the size of Bill C-2, the accountability bill, which is five times the size of a normal piece of legislation, or whether it is like Bill C-3 on international tunnels and bridges, a very few pages, we cannot forget that when we give a bill our approval it eventually becomes law, with consequential effects for Canadians, whether we have had the foresight to see them.

This bill in particular has some potential pitfalls that are going to call on those responsible for scrutinizing the bill at committee to do their very best, to engage the best possible witnesses, to try to foresee, to try to identify some of those pitfalls and to absolutely ensure that the legislation does not have unintended consequences.

In terms of Bill C-11, we are asking the government and the minister in particular to take the time to properly address the many questions that flow from the amendments it proposes. The Minister of Transport spoke about another provision in Bill C-11 that is of interest. He indicated that he intends to amend the Canada Transportation Act to create a mediation process for disputes concerning federal transportation matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

This is very interesting. It is an evolution that was previously found in Bill C-44 in a prior Parliament. Proposed subsection 36.1(1) would require a unanimous agreement of the parties in order to proceed, but in those circumstances it would seem to be a very useful process.

Any time that we can provide for alternatives to litigation in the area of transport, we do a favour to the parties who are looking for win-win solutions. We would like to explore that as fully as possible as well. The process suggests a quicker timeline and would inevitably be cheaper than lawsuits. That usually is the case. Many of our legal friends in the chamber certainly remind us of that from time to time, although for the life of me it really makes me think of the softwood deal and some of the dynamics that have occurred there.

To go back to this bill, in February 2004 CTA chairwoman Marian Robson wrote that 95% of matters that had been referred to mediation by the agency were resolved to mutual satisfaction. We can see that the history is very good in this regard.

Entities that fall under the domain of the Canadian Transportation Agency are more than likely parties that have ongoing contractual relationships. By its very nature transportation infrastructure is not particularly fluid and there may not be many possible alternative commercial relationships. Quick, amicable resolutions free up resources and ultimately lead to better prices and better services for Canadians.

My colleagues and I are supportive of these measures and commend the minister for bringing back these elements of amendments from previous Liberal bills.

Finally, I would like to dwell very briefly on the issue of corporate governance. It is a subject matter that has attracted quite a bit of attention these days and the CTA is a very important agency. The agency is responsible for balancing divergent interests in a fair and open manner. It licenses air and rail carriers and resolves complaints between shippers and railways regarding rates and service. It approves proposed construction of railway lines. It even participates in international bilateral negotiations and administers bilateral agreements.

Eyebrows were raised in the House when the minister asserted that changes to the makeup of the Canadian Transportation Agency will provide for cost savings. I think people's eyebrows usually go up when governments say they are going to save--it is almost like “show me”--but these are initiatives through which, if they are sound in terms of their operational impact, that is possible, and we certainly would like to see that.

It appears that the current board made up of seven part time members will be replaced by a board of five members in the full time employ of the CTA. These five members would be located here in the national capital region. The minister talks about efficiency of centralization, noting that more than one member must sign off on decisions the agency takes, and I would like to hear from the minister about how the agency will do its job better.

As we know, the bill is the third attempt to bring forward legislation on these particular matters. Let me say that Bill C-11 is made up of many, many amendments, some 60 pages of them. It was very difficult. I compliment all hon. members who took the opportunity to do the necessary work, the due diligence, to review the legislation so they could bring an informed debate to the House at second reading and so we could move the bill on through the legislative process with our eyes wide open with regard to the key elements that are of concern to parliamentarians and to consumers and the service providers as well.

An important part of our review was the statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act. I was very interested to hear the Minister of Transport, standing in his place earlier, mention that he would be tabling further amendments addressing the subject of rail shipping disputes. Certainly we have had a great deal of discussion on that. I know that the committee is going to be very cognizant of the concerns raised by all hon. members.

He talked further of consultations that are now complete and new conclusions that the Conservative minority government has drawn. I should note that Bill C-11 requires another statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act, something that makes a lot of sense given its primacy in an area, namely transportation, that is of broad importance to Canada and certainly to all Canadians.

As my hon. colleague from Ottawa South, the opposition critic for transport, has stated, we are looking forward to seeing the bill examined and revised as necessary at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all fully recognize that all of us on this side of the House are very interested in transportation, because transportation is the keystone of our economy. We certainly need changes in terms of the matters that the bill brings forward, but we also have to be concerned about the reviews, which apparently will be a report to Parliament once every three years and, second, a complete review of this change within the transportation system by a commissioner after an eight year period.

In Atlantic Canada, transportation is very, very important. I know that the minister responsible for transportation has to be concerned about some of the factors that have been affecting transportation, especially with the ferry between Digby, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick. For those living there and doing business and wanting to travel to western Nova Scotia, that ferry has operated for many, many years. In fact, it gives our industries and our fishery groups in western Nova Scotia an opportunity to get their goods to the Boston market with efficiency and with the good transportation that people in the New England states would require. I hope we will look at that when this bill gets to committee.

As the previous speaker has indicated, we have to be concerned about air safety and the selling of air tickets and the good air traffic that we need for this country, but railways are important. I believe it is section 53 that talks about relationships with provincial railway companies. I would hope that if the minister is to regulate and bring forward regulations dealing with his connections with our provincial railway companies, the federal standards and the federal methods will be applied to the particular arrangements that might be made.

We want to see good legislation. We will work in committee to improve it. Hopefully, those users of our transportation sectors, those who may complain about being captive shippers or others who are concerned about matters relating to their industry, their region, their city or their province, will make their requests to appear to the committee. I know the committee will work in good faith to make sure that Bill C-11 reflects a high standard of legal documents and will provide a good transportation system to all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Miramichi for highlighting yet again for the House and for Canadians the integration of our transportation network and the vital importance in terms of so many areas, whether it be efficient operations or safe operations. We have talked about the transportation of dangerous goods. The member for Malpeque did a wonderful job in laying out the issue of our wheat system, the hopper cars, the transfers and some of the other issues. The member for Miramichi kind of wrapped all this together.

We are talking about an integrated transportation system which is very vital to Canada. It is important that the committee be cognizant of the excellent summary he has made of the points to keep in mind as we move through the legislative process and hear from witnesses to make sure that we make the best possible laws for Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague about the need to have a transportation vision. Rail is part of that, but so are air and roads.

I am particularly concerned about the fact that it was the Liberal government that decided to walk away from regional airports across this country, leaving many regions to scramble. After the SARS outbreak and the downturn in the economy, many carrier services particularly in northern Ontario stopped servicing smaller airports and they were no longer eligible for any kind of support.

I use the example of the Earlton Airport in Armstrong township, which is a class one facility. It is central in a region where there is a very large and growing mining exploration boom happening, but it needs an airport. Without an airport in that region, development will not happen. That airport is left on its own.

We have been working to find a new carrier, but the federal government under the Liberals said that it had no interest in maintaining these pieces of vital infrastructure. To me it is the same as walking away from the train system, saying that we are not going to maintain the trains or the roads.

How do we develop an economy that is vital for the rural regions of the north if we do not have a federal presence in areas that have been identified? I am not talking about every little puddle jump along the way, but areas where we can clearly identify the importance of maintaining some sort of regional transportation infrastructure. The government walked away on those decisions and the community simply cannot make up for the loss.

If we are going to maintain a country with an economy that is growing, particularly in the rural north, we need a transportation vision and we need the federal government at the table. I would ask the member if he does not believe at this time that the federal government should look again at that decision to walk away from regional airports in light of what has been discussed here today and maybe put forward plans to start rebuilding our federal commitments on regional development in transportation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the member. I understand and we all understand what happened in terms of the airline industry and the impact, some of the tragedies and the failures that have occurred within the airline industry. They negatively impacted on regional airports.

In Canada not only is the health care system a common bond of association but the transportation network links Canadians. When things happen such as what happened with Earlton Airport, we understand that is a negative in terms of linking Canadians together.

I hope the member will bring that same enthusiasm to the debate when we talk about Bill C-20, which the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has on the order paper. If he thinks that the impact on regional airports in the recent past has been bad, I would encourage the member to have a close look at Bill C-20 to see the further serious damage that Bill C-20 is going to do to regional airports. We look forward to working with the NDP to make absolutely sure that Bill C-20 is a better piece of legislation than is being proposed.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want to point out at the outset that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. Naturally, more in-depth consideration is advisable in order to grasp all aspects of the bill. Amendments will likely be necessary to improve it. But on the whole, as I said, the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle.

I want to make clear that my remarks will focus exclusively on the part of this bill dealing with railway noise, specifically clause 29. As we all know, the racket made by trains is a widespread problem. My riding of Drummond is unfortunately faced with such a problem.

Located close to Drummondville, the community of Saint-Germain de Grantham in particular is seriously affected throughout its jurisdiction. This is a rural community of nearly 4,000, with five railway crossings. The railway goes through it over a stretch of 8.5 kilometres, running alongside hundreds of homes.

Train whistles can be heard from one end of Saint-Germain de Grantham to the other at all hours of the day and night. There are engine noises, bells, squealing brakes, vibrations, smells, and the sounds of iron hitting iron. One can easily imagine what residents of that municipality must put up with. And because Saint-Germain de Grantham is in the middle of a boom, the problem is only getting worse. More and more residents are forced to endure this noise pollution.

Everyone recognizes that rail traffic is a necessity and that it contributed to the development of several municipalities. Everyone also acknowledges that rail safety is very important. However, the rights of those residents affected cannot be ignored. Solutions to this noise problem exist and must be brought forward. The quality of life of citizens must be considered in this debate. The interests of rail companies and the pursuit of economic development cannot be the only acceptable arguments. We cannot ask the people of Saint-Germain de Grantham, who are my main concern here, to pay such a high price.

What power do they have against the rail companies? The power to discuss and negotiate, but that may not be enough. When the power to make decisions lies only with the other party, abuses can occur.

Let us review how Saint-Germain de Grantham has attempted to deal with this problem.

In 1993, residents wrote to CN to complain about the noise. They received no response.

In 1994, the municipality requested that train whistling be eliminated, at least at night. In its response, CN said that each level crossing would have to be inspected.

In 1996, three level crossings were inspected, and it was found that constant warning time devices and barriers would have to be installed.

In 1997, these devices were installed at two level crossings.

In 1999, the municipality asked me to intervene on its behalf to have the devices installed on the third level crossing. The minister responsible at the time said that even though the crossing was near Saint-Germain's urban area, it was not considered a priority. At the same time, CN demanded a $2,000 dollar report on the possibility of enacting a regulation to eliminate train whistling.

Work was done on the third level crossing a few years later.

In 2004, at the municipality's request, I wrote to CN asking what more Saint-Germain de Grantham had to do to put a stop to train whistling within municipal boundaries. A stakeholder meeting was arranged, and it turned out that improvements would have to be made to yet another level crossing to fulfill the requirements.

Steps were taken to get this done, but funding was delayed and still has not come through.

So, the municipality is waiting. In the meantime, the train is whistling away, and the people are suffering.

In fact, early in 2006, a citizen wrote the city council, reminding it that the people of Saint-Germain de Grantham have been asking for 13 years that trains stop whistling. We can only sympathize with their frustration and despair. “When can we hope to finally be free of noise pollution from trains when we sleep?”, she asked the council.

In bringing up such representations, we realize that there really is not much the municipality of Saint-Germain de Grantham and its residents can do. What can one do against a giant like the CN?

They are also dependent on government decisions about grants, because this kind of work is very expensive. At the same time, it is important to point out that all this work is designed to enhance public safety, thus improving the railways' quality of service. Following the same logic, this work also has to help ensure that the quality of life of our fellow citizens is respected.

These people need a mechanism through which they can make themselves heard. They need a mechanism to increase their strength and add weight to their legitimate demands.

The provision contained in Bill C-11 which deals with railway noise is giving these people some hope. Clause 29 of the bill gives the Canada Transportation Agency the authority to investigate complaints about unreasonable noise, with a view to forcing railway companies to make changes to prevent unreasonable noise.

This clause gives the Canada Transportation Agency jurisdiction to weigh the need to allow railway companies to operate against the right of those living alongside railroads to quiet enjoyment. The agency will therefore be able to force rail transportation companies to make changes to limit the noise associated with their operations.

The municipality of Saint-Germain de Grantham has carried out all the work requested over the years. Major changes have been ordered over the past 13 years. After the work was completed, more was ordered.

These men and women are right to be angry today. They want their questions answered. This little game of delays and grant requests has to stop. The time has come to show them some respect. I hope that Bill C-11 will make that possible.

They have been patient enough. They have paid enough.

In 2005, l'Union des municipalités du Québec prepared a brief regarding Bill C-44, which was also introduced to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

The Union claimed that:

Railway companies under federal jurisdiction are not subject to any legislation governing damage caused by their activities. They are like aliens in our regions. This situation was confirmed in a December 2000 decision made by the Federal Court of Canada in Oakville, Ontario, which deprived the Canada Transportation Agency (CTA) of its power to make decisions concerning irritants, such as the noise arising from railway activities.

The Union des municipalités du Québec also pointed out the fact that a number of municipalities have failed to reach agreement with the railway companies and Transport Canada on the requirements for a no-whistle by-law. In this respect, the UMQ recommends that the CTA be given authority to examine any request to prohibit the use of train whistles within the limits of a municipality in the event that the municipality, railway company and Transport Canada fail to reach agreement concerning the requirements and conditions of a no-whistle by-law.

I wish to conclude by indicating that I am in favour of the principle of Bill C-11 as it will give citizens of Quebec and Canada some power in dealing with railway companies.

I am in favour of this bill because I want the citizens of Saint-Germain de Grantham, after 13 years of negotiating, searching for solutions and hard work, to be heard and to have their rights acknowledged.

I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to provide such legislation. It is our responsibility to meet the legitimate expectations of the residents in our ridings

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for her comments on Bill C-11.

I would like to ask her a specific question. The minority government has been saying for some months now—in fact, since it was elected—that it intends to present a new environmental plan for Canadians and to share this new approach. Apparently this is “Canada's New Government,” as we now see on the Internet.

The government has also cut funding for the Pacific Gateway in western Canada. The minority government is in the process of compromising our relations with China. It has come to a point where even the Ambassador of China refuses to attend official meetings with the government.

Could the hon. member help us understand the following? How can the government talk about new environmental strategies when there is no reference in the bill to greenhouse gases, no reference to an environmental strategy and no reference to the Kyoto protocol except in the preamble of the bill, which mentions the word “environment” just once?

Yesterday we heard the Minister of Transport tell Canadians that apparently Bill C-11 would have a rather positive impact on protecting the environment. I believe he was referring to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Could the hon. member help us understand how it is possible for us, as parliamentarians, to reconcile what the government is saying with how the bill is currently worded?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my Liberal colleague had asked me whether this bill is enough, I would have answered obviously that the bill is not perfect.

I said that we supported the bill in principle. In my speech, I focused on the important issue affecting my constituents: the noise that trains make in my riding. Obviously, the bill is not perfect.

For example, the bill does not limit nuisances other than noise. We feel that the agency that will be created to resolve disputes related to complaints has enough credibility to be given broader jurisdiction and handle complaints about oil, gasoline and vibrations. I also think that the noise from train whistles, along with all the other noises I mentioned earlier, constitute what is called noise pollution.

I hope that the agency that the government wants to set up at the Transportation Agency will have teeth so that it can resolve these disputes.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, air travel has been of great interest to many of our constituents across the country because it is something many Canadians engage in quite frequently and security is very important.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the future of the Air Travel Complaints Commission. These are trying times and I know it has been very difficult for the airline industry and for individuals to work in the post-9/11 era but it has also been difficult for travellers at times. They have had complaints, sometimes justified and sometimes not, but it is very important that these complaints be answered in an effective way and that an oversight mechanism that works in a functional way be there for them.

We know that changes will be taking place with respect to the Air Traffic Complaints Commission. Would the hon. member edify for us whether these changes will be useful or not and offer solutions to ensure this commission works well?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said to my colleague who asked me a question earlier.

This bill is not perfect. Certainly we will still have to discuss some things. It will be sent to committee. Then it will be up to us to improve it, to make amendments and to put it to a vote in the House.

Obviously I hope that it will be as perfect as possible as regards both air and rail security.

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address this House since the tragic death of our friend and colleague Benoît Sauvageau. I would therefore like, on my own behalf and that of the people of my riding, to extend my most sincere condolences to his wife, his children and his entire family. I may not know them very well personally, but I know that they are people of great courage and great value. I hope that they will find the comfort they need as they go through this difficult time. For me, as a newcomer who knew him for too short a time unfortunately, Benoît will remain a model, an example of what a parliamentarian should be. In his work, he always showed respect for others. His strength and determination were exemplary. Benoît, you will remain in my heart and thought for a very long time.

I would now like to talk about Bill C-11, specifically the annoyances caused by railways operating in residential areas. I used the term “annoyances” because, unfortunately, this bill refers only to noise. Other annoyances are caused by railway operations, and I am being extremely polite in using the term “annoyances”. I often talk with people in my riding. When I meet with them, they tell me about the horrors and the problems the railways cause them. They often use much less polite, much cruder and more colourful language, which is certainly not appropriate in this House. This problem causes a great deal of frustration.

This is especially true because railway operations take place largely in the middle of residential areas, many of which are highly populated. That is the case in my riding, especially in Pointe-Saint-Charles, but also in Saint-Henri. There are historical reasons for this, since workers would often live near the railways, marshalling yards and companies that were set up in the area.

Today, in these residential areas, obviously fewer and fewer people are employed by the railways or work at related activities, but residents are still faced with these problems, because railways are sometimes just a few metres from their homes.

We must deal with this problem now. I have divided railway annoyances into three main categories. The first is noise, obviously. Vibrations also pose a problem, but I will come back to that. With regard to noise, it is not difficult to imagine the noise a train makes as it passes by just a few metres away. This noise is even worse on curves. In Pointe-Saint-Charles and Saint-Henri, where large curves run through almost the entire area, the metal always squeals. One of my constituents told me that his dog nearly went crazy every time a train passed by. The dog would jump up and down because the sound was so loud and hard to bear, especially since the dog could likely hear sounds humans cannot hear. That proves how serious a problem this is. People are not talking to us about it on a whim.

But that is not the worst of it. There is also the problem of locomotives accelerating. Companies are always looking to improve their profit margins, so the trains are getting longer and longer and heavier and heavier. Trains now need two or even three locomotives to get them moving, and that makes a deafening noise. Some of my constituents invited me to go see a train start up in Pointe-Saint-Charles, and I have to say that the noise those diesel locomotives make is impressive and astonishing. There are no electric locomotives in my riding.

It is astonishing, and much worse than a train moving at a constant speed. But even that is not the worst of it. The clash of cars as the trains are being hooked up in the marshalling yards is even more deafening.

Nowadays, thanks to innovation, this process is automated, so the cars connect more and more violently, making even more noise. This problem is all the more worrisome because the rail yards are continually switching cars night and day. For people who are trying to sleep, this is a much greater inconvenience than a constant noise, such as a highway or a river.

There are problems. A number of rail yards in Montreal have been closed. As a result, this kind of activity is concentrated in a few spots, which aggravates the issue. Railway companies have even been using lines in the middle of residential neighbourhoods to switch cars. This means the noise problem is affecting these neighbourhoods even more.

We hear the same thing everywhere from the oldest residents of the area, those who have been there the longest. They all tell me that the noise problem is getting worse and that it is nowhere near resolved.

There are problems with noise and with vibrations. This bill does not address these problems. Often, a row of attached houses will act as a wall of sorts and block the noise for people who live in the second or third row in the block. The vibrations, however, are felt through the ground and go much further. We know that this can cause all sorts of problems—particularly problems sleeping, when the house suddenly shakes in the middle of the night. This is the first kind of problem or disturbance I have identified among my constituents.

The second kind of problem has to do with health concerns and hazardous materials. Unfortunately, issues in relation to the transport and especially the storage of such materials are not addressed in this bill. Yet, these are a major concern to my constituents.

More and more trains and tanks of hazardous materials are stored right on the tracks, either on the edge of a residential area or, in some cases, right in the middle of the neighbourhood. This is very worrisome. Perhaps the engineer in me wants to conduct a risk analysis. Personally, if I absolutely had to direct hazardous materials through a residential area—and there were no way around it—I would at least ensure that such materials would spend as little time as possible in a residential area and that they would not be stored for several hours, let alone days, on the edge of such neighbourhoods. Children playing told me that they recognized the skull and crossbones and other symbols that identify toxic and hazardous materials, because they see them on tank cars that are practically parked in their yards. This is quite worrisome.

The third group of problems I have identified relates to maintenance of the land and infrastructures owned by the railway companies in local communities. This is of particular concern because a lot of railway companies regard themselves as being above the law.

They are right, in practice, because they do not have to comply with provincial laws and municipal bylaws. However, it seems to me that as good corporate citizens they should feel a moral obligation to abide by them. That is plainly not the case, however.

Let us take ragweed for example, the plant that gives a lot of people hay fever. In Montreal, all residents are asked to remove ragweed plants growing on their property. And so people make an effort to pull out the four or five or six or even ten plants that they have on their property, while across the street or down the block they see kilometres of rail lines, huge expanses of land, with ragweed reproducing at an unbelievable rate and no one doing anything about it, and the railway companies feeling no need to do their job as a good citizen and eradicate these weeds.

There are also examples where trees and shrubs on the edge of a railway company’s property intrude on the public roadway and impede visibility for drivers and pedestrians. People in the neighbourhood ask the company to do something, but plainly no one can find a way to send an employee out for an hour or two to clean it up and solve the problem.

This lack of concern means that the railway companies do not seem to feel a need to contribute to the local community and make the site where they are operating a pleasant and peaceful place for the public as whole.

I will conclude with another example, which I am familiar with because I lived for several years in the Saint-Henri neighbourhood which the rail line crosses. When I went to catch the Metro every day, I walked under the viaduct. I would always feel a little shiver, because there were holes pretty much all over, indicating that concrete had fallen off. I was always a little afraid that a piece would fall on me. The railway company never felt a need to repair its viaduct, to reinforce it, or paint it, or cover up the graffiti.

These companies clearly feel that they are above the law.

And so, in my riding, I decided to get the public involved, the people who were living in the midst of the problem and were affected by the situation. I had an opportunity to consult with the public, sometimes formally, by holding meetings, but sometimes informally, when I went door to door or took part in various activities. Nearly 100 people gave me their formal support and asked the Conservative government to act, to enact legislation that would have teeth and that could be used to solve the problems I have described. In the course of doing this, I also met with members of the Pro-Pointe group, which works to reduce the nuisances associated with railway operations in Pointe Saint-Charles, hence the name Pro-Pointe. I also met with people outside my riding, residents of Outremont, who are having the same problems. It is quite interesting to note that ultimately, everyone is affected by this. Regardless of social class, whether someone is rich or poor, whether they live in a big house beside a railway or a little apartment near a switching yard, noise is a factor that affects everyone, that wakes everyone up, that assails everyone. It is a problem for the public as a whole.

I also discussed this problem with local elected officials in the district. They stated that they feel powerless because it is impossible for them to resolve the matter and force railway companies to observe certain standards, and also because of the lack of response and conciliation which often are required in such matters. This is the attitude of many railway companies and creates a great deal of frustration.

Many people believe that railway companies are very poor corporate citizens.

I do not know if this holds true for all railway companies. I ask for nothing better than for them to prove me wrong. But that is the general perception. For this reason, people want more than just empty words. They want a more binding law, one that has some teeth. Many believe that it is no longer possible to achieve satisfactory results by taking the traditional and simple approach of asking in good faith that railway companies do their part.

In my opinion, there is important work to be done by the committee. I urge all parliamentarians from every party to respond to our constituents' call to do something to strengthen this law. If we do and if all parties work together to improve this law and to solve these problems, the general view of politicians can only be enhanced. We will have truly helped citizens and, as you know, that is our main reason for being in this place.

What exactly should the committee do to improve this legislation? First, we have to add some muscle. I will read an excerpt from clause 95.1, which contains the main anti-noise provisions, stating:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise, taking into account:

It is already a rather loose concept. Nonetheless, this is the first point I will make about this issue. As I was saying earlier, there are other annoyances than noise. There is also the problem of vibration, the problem of hazardous materials being stored or present on the ground. We must also include the entire issue of good corporate citizenship, the proper maintenance of the land and infrastructure in the local communities. We must find a way to include all that.

What aspects should be included to determine whether a company is making unreasonable noise? This is what it says in the subsequent clauses:

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

(b) its operational requirements; and

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place.

I must say, when I consulted the public, this part left them a bit perplexed to say the least. They wondered whether these provisions were for the public's benefit or for the railway companies' benefit.

Paragraph (c) says we must take into account the area where the construction or operation takes place. What conclusions will the Canadian Transportation Agency draw from this? Will it say that if a railway company is operating in a residential area it must be more careful, or will it conclude that if people live near train tracks they should expect to hear more noise, and that under the circumstances it is normal, given where they are located?

The same goes for operational requirements. There could be a potential loophole. From the moment a railway company says there are operational requirements and that it has no choice but to go through these areas in the middle of the night, to make certain manoeuvres or to store its products in a certain location, this would look like a pretext to everyone.

In my opinion, this bill is a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, there is still a lot of work to do in committee. I believe that all parties have the political will and I invite everyone to make their contribution in order to make this bill more effective. Will it cover things other than noise and will it really respond to the concerns of the public who expect us to something about this?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for interrupting his intervention on questions and comments. He will be able to resume in a moment.

There have been discussions and I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to Standing Order 32(2) for a brief moment, so that I may on behalf of the government table in the House two copies of Defence Construction Canada's 2005-06 annual report, as well as two copies of Defence Construction Canada's corporate plan summary for 2006-07 to 2010-11, which includes the operating and capital budgets of the 2006-07 budget years. I missed my moment in the Standing Orders. I would ask the House if I could table these now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the testimony of my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, as he is living daily with the problems created by railway operations. It is a privilege to have his testimony, since he has been directly confronted with this problem, and in my opinion, that is what makes us most keenly sensitive to the passage of legislation that will improve the situation.

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber has conducted various consultations, for example with the elected municipal officials who are directly concerned, for we know that, in the municipalities, it is the elected officials who are directly called when there are any problems relating to life in society.

Would the city’s municipal officials be interested in coming to testify to their concerns or their desire to make improvements to the bill we will be studying in committee? As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, I would be interested in hearing these comments directly, and also, when they appear, I would like their presentation to include the component on the urban planning by-laws.

My mother-in-law lives in Montreal close to a railway line, and I am still surprised when a freight train passes and makes her house shake. This very thing will be regulated by the new bill, except that on the other side of the street, some fine residences have now been built even closer to the railway track. How will those people be able to bear the noise when the trains pass, noise that is already intolerable from the other side of that street?

So we see there is an interrelationship with the municipal by-laws on railway operations. Was this matter mentioned during your meetings? Could they offer some clarification when they appear before the Standing Committee on Transport?

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

Mr. Speaker, representatives of the City of Montreal are definitely interested. At least, I know that Mr. Dauphin has already met with district representatives to deal specifically with this issue. The representatives and municipal elected officials who have talked to me are all extremely concerned, and I believe I am not wrong in saying that they would be very happy to come and share their views and concerns with the Standing Committee on Transport. I have often sensed the frustration they feel because they lack the legal ability to deal with this issue, make real decisions and impose real restrictions on the railways. Their frustration is palpable.

Like all of us, they have to live with public pressure. They would like to do something and are ready to do something, but they cannot do anything within the current legal framework. I cannot make any promises on their behalf, but I am certain that, within such a framework, they would be glad to meet with the Standing Committee on Transport and share their views on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber on his eloquent speech about what people expect of the railways and of a law that has been a long time coming and that does not seem to measure up to our own expectations.

I would like our hon. colleague to explain that because it lacks standards, this law cannot really contribute to lasting change. I would like him to comment on the fact that a five-member agency is certainly less strong that a government that would include noise, vibration and pollution standards in its law. As well, it would be interesting to hear what my colleague has to say about tax incentives.

Could the government incorporate tax incentives into this law that needs improvement, something that the Canadian Transportation Agency will not be able to do if the government does not give it the opportunity?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. I will respond first to the second part, on the incentives, whether tax incentives or others.

The government has to consider this question seriously. This week, in the Standing Committee on Finance, a spokesperson for the Canadian Association of Railway Suppliers, answering one of my questions, said that equipment that is not as noisy will be available in a few years. This will allow for the installation of infrastructures to resolve some of the problems we are facing, which I outlined earlier.

To encourage the railway companies to work towards this option, we could consider certain possibilities, such as accelerated depreciation for rolling stock that specifically represents an improvement of the noise situation. I invite the government to seriously consider this option. When we want real results, we have to give ourselves the means to achieve them.

As for regulations, I agree that the principle of refraining from unreasonable noise is rather vague. This seems to me to be handing off the hot potato to another group; we do not really know what this represents, and we do not want to issue an opinion on the subject. We do not know if this group will be as firm as it needs to be. It would be preferable for parliamentarian committee members to establish the standards. That is what is done elsewhere in the world.

The WHO has already proposed certain regulatory avenues on this subject. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, has produced many studies on the matter. In France, the 1992 bill, the so-called “Royal” or “noise” bill, constitutes a first enactment representing an effort to standardize and regulate noise. If we did this, we would be sure of getting results, and that would remove the pressure that certain people are under. As parliamentarians, we would set certain rules. We would also ensure that the spirit of the legislation we vote on and the intention we ascribe to it as legislators are confirmed in fact, for we would incorporate the necessary provisions in the legal text.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. As already mentioned, this legislation does address some important issues. However, it is not a transportation strategy and so represents a missed opportunity. Canadians will have to wait a long time to hear about the reduction of greenhouse gases and other matters. I therefore pose the question: where is the national transportation plan?

What we see in this bill is a hodge podge of measures to solve these nonetheless important problems, and I would like to talk about that this morning.

I would like to touch on some issues of concern to my community. The bill presents amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Act. A terminal in my community, according to federal authorities, presents some security issues.

Projects having been going on In my riding of Victoria to build a new terminal as an entrance to the city. After 9/11 the federal government intervened and made some requirements to improve security measures. This created financial problems. When the federal government imposes new security measures relating to transportation, it is important that it not just download responsibility but provide funding for the community. We have been waiting for years, through the previous governments and now the present government, to have these issues addressed but they have chosen not to.

It is important to consider transportation security as a whole when considering these entry points and to provide help to cities dealing with this issue. I would like to call upon the government, when dealing with these amendments and looking at security issues, to be attentive to the needs of the community.

I was pleased to see amendments or provisions regarding the railway lines in particular because it has posed problems in my community. Years ago a major federal rail company was discontinued and pieces of the right of way were sold when the community tried to preserve the integrity of the whole right of way as a cycling-pedestrian path. It was with great difficulty that we were able to get back this piece of the right of way that had been sold to the private sector.

The provisions regarding the discontinuance of rail lines becomes very important. This piece of the right of way was sold to a private company and it was left to local government to negotiate beyond what it was able to do financially to get the piece back.

Similarly, reversion rights need to be clarified, which the bill attempts to speak to on pages 24 and 25. However, for years CP Rail, after obtaining a great deal of land from the federal government in the early days of this country in exchange for running a railroad in perpetuity, had slowly become disinterested in running a rail company, not only in Victoria but throughout the Island, and the service became progressively worse. CP allowed the infrastructure to deteriorate and it became difficult for communities up and down the Island to work with CP Rail without much help from the former Liberal government to prevent the rail service from being absolutely discontinued.

Again, it was local government all the way up and down the Island that worked together to ensure that the rail service was not stopped. It is a concern when the federal government is not there to support communities' needs that are well articulated and presented in a thoughtful manner, as was the case in the issue of E&N Rail.

Eventually municipal governments got together and a non-profit foundation agreed to continue the service. This is what is happening right now, but the question of discontinuance or abandonment of rail service becomes crucial in communities that have put in serious investments to continue the rail service.

Here is what I would ask for when the bill goes to committee, if it does. The principle of the bill, as much as it does not include all the norms and the mechanisms that we would like to see in a more complete act, nevertheless does provide a mechanism for communities to talk to the transportation agency about some key issues. Until now there have been few mechanisms to deal with these issues as they come up, whether they be noise or other issues.

I agree with other colleagues who, in talking about the bill, have criticized the absence of any real environmental protection in the bill. Again, not only is there no reference to greenhouse gas emission reductions, but there is no real protection for communities through which rail service runs.

We know that on Vancouver Island there have been cases of spraying of pesticides that have run into salmon-bearing streams, resulting in serious environmental impacts. I think these are issues that should be considered and should be integrated and discussed seriously at the committee level.

Again, talking about the federal government being more present to support communities that want to have a rail service that functions well, where is the infrastructure money? Where has the infrastructure money been and where is it now? This is an area that I would like to see the federal government looking into as it brings the bill to committee.

Finally, there are some issues that I think need to be looked at in more detail. I mentioned the rail right of way that should be serving the communities. One of the issues that has been very important on Vancouver Island and in British Columbia generally has been the rate of accidents that have occurred. As some members may know, BC Rail was privatized two years ago and the rate of accidents has increased considerably. This is something that we are concerned about not only because of the loss of lives that has occurred but also for the environmental impacts of derailments.

This is the last point I want to deal with when the bill goes to committee, if in fact it is supported to go to committee. At the moment, the provisions for transfer of the rail line in the case of abandonment of a rail line or discontinuance simply say that it will go to urban public transit. I think that is too limited. I think it can be used for public transit, but there are other public goods that need to be considered in the case of a rail line being abandoned.

One that should be considered, for example, is the Trans Canada Trail, in which many people have shown a great deal of interest. Certainly on Vancouver Island and in Victoria, bike paths and pedestrian paths should be considered as one of those valid uses. I will be strongly suggesting to my colleagues when the bill is discussed at committee that there be a legal mechanism found to include that use, along with urban transit.

On that, I will take questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly admire my colleague for her commitment to her constituency. What struck me in particular is her last point about abandonment of rail lines.

I would like to ask her if we believe today that abandonment of rail lines is a normal occurrence, or does this happen because of legislation such as this bill that does not want the government to help companies survive.

Since 1990, year by year, there has been an average increase of 2.3% of railway use. One year, the increase recorded was 6.5%. Thus, railway transportation has been kick-started. We cannot imagine that rail lines will be abandoned and sold to make bike paths or for other uses. It is fine to talk about urban lines, but there is another aspect. Some lines will help regional development.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the fact that, in 2006, we can even think of abandoning railway lines.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that our future depends on how governments—this one and the ones to come both at the provincial and federal levels—will be able to help and implement meaningful infrastructure programs to ensure the continued existence of railway lines.

Bicycle paths might be considered. In Europe, however, France, Germany and Switzerland have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible for railway lines as well as bicycle and pedestrian paths to coexist.

It was not my intention to suggest that railway lines should be sold to be converted to something else. I simply wanted to point out that, if, for whatever reason, a line was no longer viable, the best thing to do might be to just sell it. It think that continued operation of railways must be protected, with governments not selling parts of them for purposes of development or other purposes. As the hon. member mentioned, the need for public transportation is recognized and will keep growing.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but rise in this House and comment on the great work you have done for your constituency of the great town of Winnipeg with regard to CN Rail over many years.

My colleague brings up a very valid point about her city of Victoria.

In Halifax, of course, we have a large infrastructure for container ships coming in and out of our port. The only way to get most of them out is through one rail line, CN Rail. When the shipping industry wishes to increase ship traffic in and out of the harbour, it of course needs increased rail traffic in order to expedite the railcars in and out of the city, but when that happens people tend to complain about rail noise and everything else.

My question for the member is quite simple. Does she believe that the federal government plans to move ahead in this particular direction? Instead of just operating in a vacuum on its own, it should take into consideration real consultation with the municipalities and the provinces when it comes to enhanced transportation by the railways.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the hon. member's great question. One is that real consultation has so often been missing. We have seen it recently in the way the government has consulted on post-secondary education. The government called it consulting by posting an announcement on the web and not advising the people who are most impacted by the subject, i.e. students. Even some university presidents were not consulted.

I certainly agree that when there are issues such as noise and environmental concerns the federal government needs to be more present in working out these issues with communities. I believe that by withdrawing from so many important areas of social policy, the government is giving the wrong signals about the way it consults.

The hon. member raises another issue, that of noise, and I do believe that is a valid concern. That does not mean eliminating the rail. It means consulting and finding solutions. As I listened to the debate yesterday, I understood that there are mechanisms to really address the noise question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill provided that it can be improved. I would like to speak about some improvements this morning.

First, I want to point out that there is a marshalling yard in my riding in the town of Farnham. It is a very big yard because all the trains that come from Montreal, from Quebec City and from Toronto are marshalled there before going to the United States, to New Brunswick and to all the other Atlantic provinces. The marshalling takes place at Farnham. So it is a very big yard that has existed for many years and is growing because rail transportation is growing as we have just heard. We therefore have a problem with noise, pollution and vibration. People naturally complain about what they hear the most, that is the noise, and they have been doing so for years.

The previous government did nothing; even though it is a federal line under federal responsibility. Nothing was done. Thanks to this bill, we hope to be able to accomplish something. However, we wonder why the government has not included noise standards in decibels, as is done in England. It is easy to do. With government help, the railway companies could install sound barriers around their facilities, which would greatly reduce the noise and bring about better management of marshalling yards. It would make a tremendous difference in terms of noise.

At present, the locomotives can easily marshal cars to assemble trains at five or six kilometres per hour. However, if they were required to assemble trains at a speed of one kilometre per hour or less that would impose a car-coupling speed limit on the train engineer and the noise would be greatly reduced if not almost eliminated.

So, there are two steps for improvement; the sound barriers to reduce noise and management of the operation. That should be written into the bill because the residents of Farnham have had enough of this situation. They would like to see the railway yard relocated.

As we know, it is not easy to relocate a railway yard. It costs a great deal of money and the company that operates the railway there, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway Limited, may not necessarily have the money to invest $10 million to relocate the yard. We notice as well that the bill does not offer any incentive to railway companies, which we believe should be in the bill.

At Farnham, in addition to reducing the noise, there could be other changes — and I will come back to that — on the noise pollution standards for locomotives that are used in the railway yards to assemble trains.

There are new locomotives that are called Green Goats. These locomotives are around now and are often made from old locomotives. The diesel engines, which are 30, 40 or even 50 years old, are replaced by diesel fuel injection engines. So they are very modern and make amazingly less noise. Actually these engines are recent and newly made. The level of noise and also pollution is limited since they are hybrid. That means they have 500 batteries in them. Every time they brake, they recharge the batteries. Also, since the engines are smaller, there are fewer problems stopping them. They stop immediately, as soon as they are not being used, instead of going on running.

In a railway yard, they say that a Green Goat locomotive uses 57% less diesel fuel. As you can imagine, that is huge. That represents a saving of over half the diesel fuel.

So that is half the pollution and, of course, half the noise too. Locomotives, even when they are idling, make a lot of noise in a railway yard.

These new Green Goat locomotives could therefore be proposed in a bill like this one and be just what is needed in all Canada’s railway yards.

There is something else about such a bill that seems surprising and that is that it does not talk about sustainable development. It does not mention that trains should comply with sustainable development., even though this theory has been developed for train and rail.

I would remind members that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development says the following in her report, which she will submit next week:

For the government, the sustainable development strategies of the federal departments and agencies are important tools which it can use to further sustainable development. We review the progress made by 21 federal departments and agencies to fulfil the commitments made in their sustainable development strategies.

But, as we can see, this bill contains no commitment to sustainable development. This is really very bad. Sustainable development is not just about protection of the environment; it is also concerned with social development. In other words, it takes into consideration the people who live close to railways, it takes account of railway transportation, which uses fewer resources and, obviously, development.

We get the clear impression that Bill C-11 is meant to be a turning point for Canada’s railways. It says that it “enable[s] competitiveness” In clause 2, which replaces section 5 of the previous act, I read that it also supports “economic growth in both urban and rural areas throughout Canada”. But nowhere in the text do we find out how that is going to take place. We are constantly referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency. In fact, five people, who can be easily influenced by the railway companies, are given full powers to develop the regions.

It is well known that regions cannot be developed without major inducements and without help for the railways. There is a railway in the Gaspésie in Quebec that is gradually dying and is being financially supported by the Government of Quebec on a temporary basis. This kind of thing is going to happen over and over because, for the last 50 years, we have only had programs to support truck transport.

Truck transport is highly polluting and dangerous, although fortunately it is finally becoming a little more expensive. It does not pay for the highways; it does not pay for one five-hundredth of the damage trucks do to the roads. It does not even pay for new roads. Trucking companies do not even pay enough to cover the damage for which they are responsible.

Truck transport is heavily subsidized by government. Yet we do not want to subsidize or even talk about incentives for railways, which would be less polluting, more efficient, etc., and do not have to go where the cars are, nor at the same time.

We cannot continue favouring trucks at the expense of trains. Trains are important to Canada and must be developed.

The bill speaks only about competition and market forces. We know very well, though, that they cannot take us very far. That is made crystal clear in a very interesting paper published in the United States by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which examines how trains should be developed in the United States. The government always seems to be looking to the United States, so why did it not look at this paper before introducing the bill? Now we will just have to amend it.

Ensure the level of federal involvement necessary for financing and system integrity,

Provide a stable system for funding rail passenger operating costs; and,

Create a dedicated, sustainable source of funding for intercity rail passenger infrastructure improvements.

It is obvious that in the United States they want to help the railway companies. They even say:

The history of passenger rail service in this country has led some to think of it as essentially different from other modes of transportation that serve the public. As a result, some think that rail service must be profitable to justify its existence. It certainly must be financially viable, but judging passenger rail strictly on its financial performance or its success in minimizing financial demands on the federal government is a test no other mode of transportation is asked to meet, nor can meet.

It is plain for all to see. The subsidies that the federal government is preparing to give to the railways in the United States could not be more evident. They add up to $17 billion over the next six years and $60 billion over the next 20 years—including the first six. People could say that the United States is very large, but it is not a lot larger than our country. It is important, therefore, for us to subsidize the Canadian railway companies if we want to ensure the sustainable development of rail. We cannot, therefore, rely solely on market forces, and it is unfortunate that this bill gives the impression that rail transportation can be developed in this way. That is not the way to succeed.

This bill talks about the “environment” but without ever saying how it could be protected.

This is, however, a very important factor. In a paper written here on the environment and development, it says that the sulphur—or smog—from fuel that accumulates near railways yards and wherever trains go in Canada amounted to 2,184 million litres in 2004, or a 4.9% increase over 2003. We are headed, therefore, toward an increase rather than a decrease in pollution that would enable us to breathe cleaner air.

In Canada, only 37.2% of the locomotives on passenger and freight trains completely meet the Tier 1 and Tier 0 standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, in the United States. The United States government has adopted standards, under the EPA, while in Canada it is the Transportation Agency that protects our environment. If the agency likes an idea, it will do it, and if it does not like the idea, it will not do it.

Why do only 37% of our locomotives in Canada meet the Tier 0 or Tier 1 standard? The answer is simple. Because, since 37% of our locomotives travel to the United States, we are obliged to meet that standard. If they operated only in Canada, it would be 0. Why? Because we have no standards and no commitments, nor are there any commitments in this act that tell us that we have to protect the air we breathe.

“Bringing locomotives in service up to EPA Tier 0 could be achieved in three years, if that were the law.” That is what it says.

Let us consider greenhouse gas emissions, GHG, in CO₂ equivalents. We know that CO₂ is considered to be a major factor in GHG, but methane is 21 times more powerful and NO_x, which comes from diesel fuel, is about 230 times more powerful.

In 2004, trains emitted 6,714 kilotonnes of GHG, of CO₂ an increase of about 1,000 kilotonnes over 2003. That is huge.

I will be told that there are more trains. That is true. As I said earlier, the number of trains has indeed risen. Nonetheless, we are not requiring that trains be more efficient nor that they respect the environment.

The problem does not arise only when the engines are operating at full power to pull the locomotives. For 83% of the time, the locomotives on freight trains are operating at idle or low idle. Why? In fact, they operate 24 hours a day during the winter, because it is too expensive for the companies to put antifreeze in the engines, and so they use water.

Instead of using antifreeze, they leave the diesel motors running, and they can consume up to 110 litres in a single night when they are idling. When a motor is idling is when it pollutes the most, because it is not burning the gases efficiently. When it picks up speed, it burns them, even though the smoke it emits is very black. Locomotive engines are being left idling like this. There is nothing in the act that says that all locomotives must have an automatic shut-off device, a device that is already available. They are already installed on some locomotives.

We have had pollution standards since 1990. Pollution has risen at an unbelievable rate, in all sectors: there have been increases in NO_X, in SO₂—the sulphur I was talking about—and in CO₂.

Here, the discussion is in terms of grams of fuel used. The problem is not that more is being used, but that the engines are less efficient than before. Why? Because they are not being maintained. Maintaining an engine is expensive. Because there are no standards, the preference is to keep them running until they break down. And that is when they pollute.

Anyone who has travelled to countries that do not have standards for truck transportation will have seen just how black the exhaust those trucks produce is. In other countries, the exhaust is cleaner even though they are using the same diesel. Why? Because there are maintenance and pollution standards in place.

Here, goods transportation contributes 94.8% of NO_X emissions produced by railways in Canada. Total NO_X emissions from rail transportation have risen from 109 kilotonnes in 1990 to 111 kilotonnes in 2003 to 117 kilotonnes in 2004.

This increase is constant, and it is due not to an increase in the number of trains, but to the fact that we let companies do whatever they want instead of helping them. Not all of these companies are raking it in. They do not all have CN's means. The company operating in my Montreal riding, the Maine and Atlantic Railway, does not have a lot of extra cash. It is breaking even, working well and hoping to make more money in the future.

I would like to end by talking about greenhouse gases. The transportation industry produces about a quarter of Canada's GHG emissions. Railways account for 4% of these emissions. This is a significant percentage, so we have to have increasingly strict standards for locomotive emissions monitoring—better known as LEM. As I said, emissions are not rising because there are more trains, but because trains are not maintained as well as they used to be. Their CO₂ emissions per revenue tonne-kilometre must be lowered to acceptable levels. Such standards exist. This act has to say that, now that trains will be less polluting, we will develop them more.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I was very impressed by his address and his statistics. I do have a question for him, however.

First, when one builds a house near a golf course, one expects golf balls. When one builds a house near an airport or a rail yard, one expects noise, which is not to say we should not do something about that when we can. However, people should wonder why they got such a great deal on their house.

There are some great ideas. I was not aware of the green coaches. First, does my colleague know how much they cost? Second, who should pay for things like that or for any sort of improvements that would ameliorate some of the issues about which he talked? Should we pay through tax credits to private companies to encourage economic growth or should we pay directly, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, to organizations like CN?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking this question, which I find very interesting.

First of all, I would say that, historically, people chose to live near a marshalling yard because they worked there. People could not be expected to build their houses in the suburbs, five or six kilometres from where they worked. It made sense for people who had no cars, only horses, to settle near the marshalling yards at that time. I am referring to the Farnham yard, at any rate, in my riding. Nearly all the houses date back to the 1800s or early 1900s. Later on, this became an acquired right.

If my hon. colleague is not familiar with urban development in relation to the railroad, I suggest he read some Canadian history books.

Let us get back to the cost of the Green Goat. A new Green Goat costs $700,000 and one that is rebuilt costs $234,000. Yes, I think that all Canadians should pay for such things, because they represent a social benefit for the entire population. Everyone, for the most part, pays for roads and vehicles. Why would everyone not pay for trains to be more ecological?

Indeed, the word "ecological" implies sustainable development. Of course the entire population should pay, because the entire population would benefit considerably.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for the excellent presentation he has just made and in particular for the environmental aspect of the debate that this bill prompts today.

We support his bill because we consider it to be a step forward. However, we would like to see it greatly improved. I hope that the suggestions offered today by our colleague fromBrome—Missisquoi will be listened to in committee.

In my riding, I see a problem with these railway yards, especially in the region of Saint-Joseph-de-Sorel. My colleague has examined the bill in depth. Often the problem comes not from the proximity of the railway yard, but from the time of day when the trains are assembled. For examples, the cars are moved from track to track at five o’clock in the morning or at midnight, when the railway companies should exercise some discipline and use the tracks earlier in the day to make these transfers or adjustments. That would satisfy a municipality such as Saint-Joseph-de Sorel, as well as the Tracy area, near Papineau street, both of which have endured these situations and which have fought for a long time to see some discipline imposed on the railway companies.

There is another aspect to consider. In my riding, in the Bécancour sector, especially in a small municipality like Aston-Junction, it sometimes happens that trains stand idle for half an hour on a track. That track is the only track connecting that tiny municipality to the main line leading to the larger urban centres. In the event of an accident or in a case where an ambulance or fire truck needs to enter the village, the street is completely closed.

It is my colleague's opinion that, when a single track separates a village from the rest of the main streets, a train should not be allowed to stand idle.

There is also the whole question of safety concerning the transport of hazardous products. My colleague spoke about that. It also occurs at the Bécancour industrial park. We recognize that security is very well organized at present and that there has never been an unfortunate accident. However, increased prevention is always a good rule when it comes to transporting hazardous materials.

I would like to hear from my colleague on the question of the time of day for assembling trains and also on the problem of access for small municipalities that are sometimes deprived of essential services that they need because a train is preventing vehicle circulation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for having raised these fundamental points.

The first point I would like to talk about is that of railways that cut municipalities in two. We have this problem in Farnham. This structural problem the city has is very hard for everyone, and has been for years, since the trains bang into each other and move back and forth day and night, around the clock. In the daytime, when we want to get across the city, we have to wait 20 minutes before we can do so. Access to ambulances and other vehicles is also more difficult then.

In my opinion, there should be incentives for there to be alternatives for getting across town. Moving the rail yards costs a lot and does not always correspond to the needs of the yards. We cannot instal them hundreds of miles away or even a few miles away. Sometimes this is not consistent with their needs. I think there should be bypasses, overpasses or raised crossings to have access from either side, without affecting the trains.

As far as the matter of the times rail yards are used is concerned, that is very complex. It would be a good idea of course if this were mentioned in the bill. But to my mind that cannot apply to all rail yards, since some of them need to operate 24 hours a day.

I think that if we instal hybrid locomotives that do not produce noise, if we put up sound barriers and if we set speed limits for coupling railway cars, the noise level of the trains will go down in decibels. This decibel standard would help us to achieve these results, even at nighttime, in some cases. Actually the rail yard at Farnham operates mainly at night since the trains leave early in the morning. In fact, they work 24 hours a day there. That would place enormous pressure on the company and would force it to work just in the daytime.

In my opinion these things have to be considered case by case. Still, if we are talking about a decibel standard, I think this problem would be settled for all rail yards across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member recognizes that we have inherited a tremendous 13 year mess from the Liberal Party. As such, it will take some period of time to fix all the issues, if we ever can, but the minister is committed. As well, the minister and I had conversation yesterday about green coaches and the benefits they provide to Canadians.

I can assure him that the minister is very concerned about Canadians. We are looking for the input of all members of the House as well as all Canadians.

Is it the member's intention that we follow in the footsteps of the United States on this issue? We and the minister recognize that we have a unique culture. Canadians are unique. The member has given many examples of the United States. Is it his intention that we follow in the footsteps of that country in relation to the transportation industry or is it necessary, as our minister and Prime Minister think, to have a Canadian approach because we care about the environment. We want to be world leaders on the environment, not taking actions or steps that other people take.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has asked me to clarify our intentions.

In addition to the Green Goat, something else should be included in the legislation.

Currently, even if we get hybrid locomotives, we are unable to use light and heavy trains on the same tracks. And yet, light trains are less expensive and create less pollution because they pull less. The former Bill 50 was unclear on this. I think the new legislation should now specify that, given the quality of the rails, light and heavy trains should be able to travel down the same tracks. There is no longer the risk of collision as previously thought. We now know that both types of train can stop within the same distance, so there is no risk. There are brakes that can make heavy trains stop just as quickly as light trains. The problem preventing both types of train from going down the same track no longer exists. It is important for this to be included in the legislation.

I, in fact, did not cite the U.S. as a model—far from it. I could have given the United Kingdom, France and all the European countries as examples. I only referred to one government, among others, that helps railway companies directly through incentives, by investing money directly. It would appear from the current bill that the government wants to withdraw all its help. However, this principle of help is not Canadian, it is neo-liberal. It is a neo-liberal approach that exists throughout the world, except that it should apparently not apply to rail. This approach is not Canadian, it is just neo-liberal and outdated.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House would agree that the government should bring forward Bill C-11. Dealing with the transportation act and railway safety is an excellent opportunity for the public to engage, through the committee to which the bill will be referred, in a debate on some of the very serious issues that have evolved around railway safety and in fact around the whole matter of transportation planning in Canada.

The comments made by all of the speakers thus far are excellent points and provide guidelines for the committee to look at: matters related to sustainability, environmental planning, working with municipalities, the whole gamut of strategic planning and, most important, engaging Canadians in a major debate with respect to how important all transportation modes are and how the Parliament of Canada views the input from Canadians.

As an example of that, we are involved in the Pacific gateway discussions. Through those discussions, as a sort of strategic overview, to compare it to the present legislation, Parliament is attempting to galvanize the Canadian public to see the opportunities to have a competitive and integrated transportation system that will funnel into the major ports of Canada and revitalize and put a keen edge on our economic competitiveness in a changing global economic environment.

Having said that, I note that the task, the challenge, of Parliament is to shape the issues through this legislation such that the committee in fact can embrace Canadians and involve them in that discussion. There are two issues on which the legislation falls somewhat short, I think, and where the committee could perhaps improve the legislation.

There are two areas. First is the noble challenge and objective that is stated in the bill to achieve that competitive edge and to bring those modes together into an integrated transportation plan. The legislation outlines steps on how that in fact should be achieved. That is the first point. The second is that the bill acknowledges that private-public partnerships are going to be important with respect to the future possibilities of attracting capital to invest in our railways, our airport systems, urban transit and all forms of transportation.

However, I would like to share my experience with the House. A proposal that goes through York South—Weston and in fact goes right through the GTA really represents a case study for comparing what the legislation is saying and whether or not the legislation will improve what is happening in York South—Weston and the greater Toronto area.

For the information of members of the House, York South—Weston presently has a private sector proposal to share the Weston subdivision in Georgetown rail right of way for a Pearson Airport-Union link to operate at the same time as improvements to the GO transit system, which is the major inter-community commuter urban system in the greater Toronto area. At the first meeting, when people were made aware with respect to this proposal, there were over 2,000 people.

I have an invitation for the member of the government who stood up earlier. In answer to a question about how people should be consulted and whether they should be consulted, or whether they should be very happy that they live next to a railway line and should look at any changes as absolutely positive regardless of whether they create noise, environmental emissions and so on, he said we should just remind them that they live close to a railway line. I would invite him to tell that to 2,500 or 3,000 people who felt a little different about the process. I say that to point out that people have a right to have input and can make substantive improvements through that input.

It is against this background that we all agree that a strategic plan with respect to how the modes of transportation are integrated is in the interest of communities and in the interest of the country. I want to point out some shortcomings, though, with respect to how that in fact is supposed to be done.

With respect to the present proposal that is going through the greater Toronto area, as I have described, there was very little initial discussion with the community. There was no talk of how the federal-provincial environmental assessment process should work. There was no notification that there was a private sector proposal and what its advantages were against a public sector proposal that would utilize the railway.

The reason it did not happen is that there was no integrated plan from the municipality or the transportation authority that would act as a guideline for the government to make a decision as to whether there should be a consultation at the beginning of the process. None of that was available.

The onus is on local government to make available what its integrated plan is. That was not there. The government should have insisted that this be presented. Otherwise, we are building roads to everywhere but we are not being tactical or strategic in terms of the utilization of the resources that are being made available or are asked for from the public, in this case the railways, to make their lands available for the use of this private sector proposal. That is the first thing.

When I look at this legislation, I see it as being very loose in terms of the role of municipalities when there is an application for a private sector proposal. There is very little in the way of rules or the availability of an integrated plan that would guide the government or, in the case of the railways, the railways, in deliberating whether that is in their interest or in the national interest.

As for the legislation stating that every three years the minister shall prepare a plan and report reviewing the state of transportation, it is not realistic for the minister responsible to then have another eight years in order to come back and make recommendations and so on. I think the immediacy of this challenge requires much tighter timeframes.

I want to take the balance of my time not only on that requirement to have an integrated plan, but to look at the section that deals with the process of public-private partnerships. Under proposed subsection 53.1(1) “every person is required to notify the Commissioner of Competition” that they intend to present an application for a private sector transaction. In proposed subsections 53.1(4) and 53.1(5), it is stated that if the minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, the minister simply has to notify the company or whatever that such is the minister's opinion. This does not delineate the degree of public consultation that must take place.

To go on to proposed subsection 53.1(5), the bill then states that if the minister is of the opinion that there is public interest involved, “the Minister may direct the Agency to examine those issues under section 49 or appoint and direct any person to examine those issues under section 7.1 of the Department of Transport Act”.

The point that I am making against what is happening in York South—Weston with respect to a private sector initiative, which may or may not be a good initiative, and there are many who feel it is not, is that there is not the same degree of due diligence on the minister to state what the public interest is and whether the private sector is able to meet that public interest requirement.

Those are the points that I believe the committee members should take into consideration. I hope that they will reach out and look at some case studies of private sector applications that are made, so that the legislation could be tightened up, both in terms of the requirement for integrated transportation plans and the process of notifying the public and protecting the public interest.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention with interest. In terms of rail--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. whip for the Bloc Québécois on a point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just realized that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre was true to form. I was getting ready to rise on a point of order to remind him that buttons of any kind are prohibited in this House. The hon. member did not have the courage to face a point of order and removed it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry but I cannot see what the hon. member is displaying, but I would ask him, out of respect for the opinion of his colleague, to refrain from displaying it and ask his question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleague for reminding me that I just came from a press conference all about the effort to ban trans fats. I am very enthusiastic about this issue and my enthusiasm for banning trans fats motivated me to wear my button into the House of Commons.

In the interest of banning trans fats, I do thank my colleague for pointing out the fact that the whole country should be seized of the issue. We want to ban trans fats in all of Canada, including Quebec. There is a great deal of interest in the province of Quebec about banning trans fats. I notice that every time we raise it, it comes up on the front pages of all the newspapers in the province of Quebec. The public wants to see trans fats banned, so that is why I wore this button today and I did in fact wear it into the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Point of order, the hon. whip for the Bloc Québécois.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether we are talking about trans fat or Bill C-11 on transportation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The point of order is well taken. I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to address the matter that is before the House at the moment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if there are not any other interruptions about what I am wearing, I would be happy to talk specifically about rail transportation safety.

I would like to ask my colleague about his remarks regarding transportation safety. Would he agree with me that there is a compounding effect if we ignore rail transportation safety?

A lot of us want to get the freight off the highways and back onto the railways where it belongs. The compounding effect I am pointing out is that the lack of action on rail transportation safety leads to less safe highways because there is freight. Anybody who has driven the Trans-Canada Highway lately will share the frustration that I do. One is just bombarded, almost swarmed, by transport trailers, by 18-wheelers, when that freight should properly be on the rail system.

Would he agree that this is an important integral element that we have to deal with when we talk about transportation safety?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the importance in terms of the basis of that question, an integrated transportation plan is based on the premise that the overall origin destination of goods and the transport of goods has to be balanced against the ability of the road system to distribute.

I think we all know, in urban areas, that rail has shifted to the periphery of the downtown areas. Intermodal connectors are very important to then bringing the ability of the road system to, one, have buses that can move along it, but also to have the trucking industry distribute the goods that the intermodal connectors would anchor.

What I was trying to say is that in the GTA, for example, there should be a master plan with respect to having each transportation system do what it is designed and engineered to do. If that is not the case, then there will be an increase in the hazards that accompany the use of the arterial road systems and road systems that are not built to carry heavy trucks. In fact, there should be an emphasis on intermodal connectors that would be part of an integrated plan.

The member is absolutely right from the premise he comes from. Canadians cannot help but be better served if the national government insists that there be partnerships across the country that plan their systems in order to achieve the objectives that the member has outlined.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill contains an interesting provision, whereby railways may be offered to transit authorities when they are no longer used to move freight and can be assigned. This will have an impact on public transit.

It will also have an economic impact on the contribution that can be made to improving public transit. For example, Bombardier's facility in my riding produces subway cars, and can also produce railway cars.

I would like my hon. colleague to tell me something. In the same spirit, would it not have been worthwhile for the current government to integrate in this bill what Bill C-44 provided for, which enhanced VIA Rail Canada's ability to develop its operations? We want transit authorities to be able to make the use of public transit more widespread. Should the provisions concerning VIA Rail not have been included and should the rapid rail concept not have been given a chance to be developed, as was attempted in the past with the high speed train? There are also other forms of activities in support of that.

Should the government not have included that in the bill it has introduced and which is before us now?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that aspect of the previous Bill C-44. I take it that my colleague is. I would suggest that this issue be taken to the committee.

The role of public operating agencies, whether they are intercommuter or commuting longer distances, and within those major corridors connected by rail and shared corridors, be it high speed or interurban systems, cannot help but serve the country better. When we look at the Pacific Gateway concept there is the opportunity to connect up those hubs with the best transportation mode that connects up into the overall gateway.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising on Bill C-11, which deals with two facets of transportation. The bill has some provisions on railway transport and others on air transport. In view of how little time I have, I decided to focus more on railways. My colleagues will probably have an opportunity, if they have not already, to speak about them as well.

I want to be the advocate in this regard of a resolution stemming from Quebec City. My colleague, the member for Québec, will surely join me in saying that the Bloc Québécois fully supports this resolution from the Quebec city council. I have here a copy of the resolution passed at the city council meeting on May 15, 2006. It deals directly with Bill C-11, which is before us today.

The resolution, introduced by councillor François Picard, seconded by Ms. Francine Bouchard, and passed unanimously by the city council, highlights a problem that has been going on for a good number of years. It has to do with the peace and quiet of people who live in the immediate vicinity of the Sainte-Foy marshalling yard.

Long trains are hard to make completely silent. However, I think that railway companies have a responsibility to be good corporate citizens and show some respect for the peace and quiet of people who live in the immediate vicinity. I know that just-in-time delivery, excuse my Latin, has always existed.

Mr. Speaker, you represent the riding of Winnipeg—Transcona and I know, because I have been there, that it is a major hub in railway transportation in western Canada.

I know that it is impossible to confine railway traffic to nine to five. Trains, by definition, are made to roll on rails and can arrive at any time of the day or night. However, most of our fellow citizens sleep at night. The railway companies should therefore be good corporate citizens and show some respect for the vicinity in which they are operating.

The Quebec city council is literally at wit’s end with a situation that has been going on for years. I am sure that the city council of Sainte-Foy, hometown of the current mayor of Quebec City, Ms. Boucher, has made many representations to the railway companies. Unfortunately, with the economic imperatives being what they are, the companies tend to maximize the return on their investments. I do not want to generalize and say that they always do so, but the financial and economic imperatives sometimes win out over the needs and expectations of citizens.

Unfortunately, it should not always be this way in our society. Companies operate in places where people live—women, men, children, families, senior citizens and people who have insomnia problems or are light sleepers.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to the Quebec City municipal council. In the last election campaign, we said that we, the Bloc Québécois members of this House, would be here in Ottawa to be its spokesperson. That was the purpose of my speech this morning, which was shared by my colleague from Québec City.

Quebec City is asking Parliament to classify night-time noise as a major nuisance that can affect public health and quality of life, in particular by disturbing the sleep of residents living near switching yards. One of the switching yards we are talking about is in Sainte-Foy, as I mentioned earlier.

I should have said, at the outset, that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, which will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Like most of the bills that come before us, it can of course be improved. By that I mean that it can be brought more in line with the public’s actual experience. Unfortunately, the vagueness introduced by clause 29 of the bill, which says, on the question of noise:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise—

By definition, the word “unreasonable” refers to a subjective idea. What is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to one of my colleagues. To another of my colleagues, it may be slightly unreasonable or, by his or her standards, extremely unreasonable. To someone with a more flexible frame of mind, it may be very reasonable.

A bill is composed of clauses that must consist of objective measures. It would be wise for us to improve this bill by rectifying this idea of unreasonable noise.

The Quebec City municipal council is also asking Parliament for clear and express wording to govern railway companies’ performance of their responsibilities in relation to the environment and the quality of life and health of people living in urban areas.

We should perhaps think of other types of nuisances. We are talking about noise, but what about oil and gas fumes? Is a railway car, a locomotive with an oil tank—oil being necessarily extremely polluting—that drips for hours and hours while it is parked and before the train is assembled a nuisance? We should ask ourselves that question.

The bill would benefit from improvements. We should not focus exclusively on noise. Certainly pollution from soil infiltration is as harmful as noise pollution, if not more so. We also have to consider that a locomotive weighing several hundred thousand kilos is pulling a very heavy train. When it rolls down the track, it creates vibrations. A vibration in a house or a bedroom can also be a nuisance, just as ambient noise is. This is therefore another aspect that it would be wise to rectify.

The excellent Quebec City resolution concludes by stating that the mayor or a member of the executive committee will present a brief, in Ottawa, and will ask to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Our transportation critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, is a member of this committee. Before being elected, he had the opportunity to learn about this matter.

I am sure we agree that this problem is not restricted to the Sainte-Foy marshalling yard. I am convinced it is found throughout Quebec and Canada.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the Quebec City municipal council on passing this resolution.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in Bill C-11 in the area of air transportation safety. I notice the bill does deal with the complaints division of air transportation issues. I want to know if my colleague has had similar experiences or if he has knowledge of experiences that I have had in being on a do not fly list that is maintained in the United States but which Canadian airlines have to pander to.

In other words, there is a sovereignty issue and a jurisdiction issue that somehow my name is on the United States' do not fly list so I am not allowed to have a boarding pass in my own country to travel from my hometown to Ottawa where I work. I know I am not alone. I know my colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, is also on this ridiculous do not fly list, but there is no way to get off it because we do not control it.

In the context of Bill C-11, could we not have addressed this basic, fundamental sovereignty issue that we have a right to determine in our country who is considered a risk? Canadian members of Parliament who have already cleared basic security checks should not be put on that list and be denied the right to fly on a Canadian airline domestically within our own country. It is absurd.

By way of background so my colleague can answer more thoroughly, I know there is no way to get off the list because I phoned the 1-800 number in the United States and I was told to send my passport, my birth certificate and my marriage licence to them and then six weeks later they will rule on whether my name shall be cleared. I am not prepared to get on my knees and beg the Americans to stop inconveniencing me.

Does the hon. member agree that Bill C-11 or at least the House of Commons should take some steps to protect the interests of Canadians as it pertains to air transportation safety?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may seem somewhat ironic that my colleague, the member from Winnipeg, is asking me to defend Canada's sovereignty when I personally support the sovereignty of Quebec. However, when it is a matter of strengthening Canada's position vis-a-vis the Americans, then I must agree with him.

ThisPrime Minister should take advantage of his visits to the United States. Today, he is in New York where he will address the United Nations. I do not know whether or not he has done so as I speak, but the current Prime Minister and the Conservative government should take advantage of the opportunity to distance themselves from the Americans rather than parroting them or agreeing, without saying a word, with everything the Americans say. I agree that this bill provides a wonderful opportunity to reaffirm that air transport in Canada is done differently than in the United States.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support what my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has said about the problem of the noise caused by the marshalling yards. There is a yard in the district of Sainte-Foy—Sillery, and this problem also exists in Charny, where the citizens are about at the breaking point and say they have had enough of the pollution, as my colleague the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord was saying.

Those citizens were recently the subject of a feature story on Radio-Canada. Bill C-11 is precisely designed to address the noise pollution caused by the marshalling yards. We have a resolution of the Quebec City municipal council. This resolution proceeds from the local council for Sainte-Foy, where the noise is happening. Many citizens from my riding have spoken to me about this problem, because the residents of Quebec City and Sillery are neighbours.

The municipal council has read Bill C-11. Its members say they will come to make presentations to have amendments made to it, for I believe that BillC-11 does not meet all of their expectations. I would like my colleague to tell me whether this bill truly meets the expectations on night noise. Quebec City is asking for a statement that night noise constitutes major pollution that can affect public health and quality of life. In its resolution, it is also asking for a clear and explicit formulation of the responsibilities of the railway companies, to set a framework for this initiative.

We are told that the Canadian Transportation Agency will have all the necessary latitude to meet the needs of the population of Quebec. Can my colleague fromMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord tell us whether this bill will meet the objective we want to achieve, and if it will meet the needs of the population and residents whose quality of life and sleep are being affected by this noise?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clause 32 of the bill in fact grants the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to examine noise complaints, so as to oblige the railway companies to take certain measures to prevent unreasonable noise. I spoke earlier about the terms “reasonable” and “unreasonable”. The bill could be improved in this regard.

However, it is worrying that the bill stipulates that the Canadian Transportation Agency, in its arbitration, must take into account the economic imperatives of the railway companies. This means that the Railway Association of Canada lobby will have to be prudent when dealing with the government and when making representations to the Canadian Transportation Agency, because the latter is a quasi-judicial agency, with the same powers as a superior court.

Even if the Railway Association of Canada were to recognize that there is noise and that certain aspects of the railroads are detrimental to the quiet of places and persons living close to the marshalling yards, it would remain guided by economic imperatives which do not permit it to resolve this problem. So we have to know how to establish a balance between the economic imperatives and people’s peace and quiet.

Which side will we come down on? Will we side with people, individuals and families, or with economic imperatives? The question remains, and it is our view that this bill should contain certain clarifications as to the power of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, since I have a railroad yard in my riding. It is not surprising, since Montreal was one of the first industrialized cities.

Allow me first to take a couple of minutes, since this is my first speech in the House since our return. First, I want to wish all my colleagues a good return to Parliament and a warm welcome to the pages working with us.

I have sat in this House for 13 years now—less than you, Mr. Speaker—and I believe this is the first time we have had pages who are twins. They are Alain and Joël Dupuis. One is studying management and the other communications and political science. Their parents are Diane and Régent Dupuis from Sudbury.

I thought this was worth mentioning. We have twins in the House of Commons working on the floor at the same time. I am a twin and I thought it worth mentioning. I would like to give them a warm round of applause and I ask all my colleagues to join in. That being said, Alain is here and he would be pleased. Now back to the matter at hand.

I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the Bloc Québécois whip. He was quite eloquent when he spoke of the trade-off between economic imperatives and the reasons we are here in Parliament. Our first loyalty is to the quality of life of our constituents.

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is in eastern Montreal and is a former working-class area. It is therefore not surprising that a railroad was set up there at the end of the 19th century. It was established in relation to the first industrialization.

Industrialization began in my neighbourhood. St. Lawrence Sugar, a refinery still operating on Notre Dame Street, was the first company established in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Back when this company set up shop, the city of Maisonneuve—which was then quite distinct from Montreal—offered tax breaks to attract more industries. We tend to forget that Maisonneuve was a very prosperous city. Some even called it the Pittsburgh of Canada. There were textile and shoe-making industries, as well as the Vickers shipyard. These industries produced a generation of specialized workers who earned a very good living and raised large families in six- or eight- room apartments in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Generations spent their lives there and benefited from local industrialization. Of course, the railway was an important factor in the economic growth of big cities.

The problem with railways and their operators is a lot like the problem with the Port of Montreal. There comes a time to reconcile economic imperatives and quality of life concerns. CN-CP has thought of itself as a city within a city for a long time now. I remember having certain conversations with its senior executives. With all due respect, I did not get the impression that quality of life figured very prominently among their priorities. I know that many of my House colleagues have the same complaints I have raised on behalf of the constituents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

We are under no obligation to accept anything in the name of economic development, jobs in the community, or bringing people in to work where they live. It is not right for railway companies to operate 24/7.

Railway tracks can be found near Moreau, Wurtele, and Lespérance streets and Place De Léry, where up to three trains pass by every day and operations go on 24 hours a day; we can only imagine the situation. We can imagine what it must be like for someone to be awoken from a deep sleep after working all day, after getting up at 6:30, putting in an honest day's work, coming home at 5:00, making supper, giving the children a bath and putting them to bed, but not before their homework—of course the homework must be done—getting ready for bed, and then at 2 a.m., a train goes by or a whistle blows or engines are switched.

I have seen worse in my neighbourhood in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: locomotives sitting idle for two or three hours, like it was nothing. As for pollution and oil, I have been told that the windows in the residential areas are always covered with a thin blackish film that is very difficult to remove.

Things have changed since the days of Émile Zola. It is no longer necessary to completely separate economic needs from quality of life. It makes no difference whether one lives in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve or elsewhere in Canada or Quebec, it is entirely reasonable to ask lawmakers to intervene.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We can most certainly rely on the spirit, determination and wisdom of the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, our transport critic, a man of the law. Although he did not write his bar exams, he is a notary, and therefore has a legal background. He is a former mayor who has experience as a spokesperson for a national association, the Union des municipalités du Québec. This man is very concerned about land use planning and the regulatory powers of municipalities. However, he also shares the same primary concern as every member of this House, that is, the quality of life of our constituents.

I know that there have been many class action suits. I am aware that class action suits were launched by Blainville and the former city of Outremont—no, at the time the city had been incorporated into Montreal but now it is a city again, so I will say the city of Outremont. These two cities were convinced that, as the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, the Canadian Transportation Agency, as a quasi-judicial body with comparable authority to a superior court, could hand down decisions and require the various transportation companies to take mitigation measures.

We were extremely surprised—not to say disappointed—when the Federal Court of Canada declared ultra vires the authority the Canadian Transportation Agency thought it had. If I am not mistaken, this is the third bill we have had about transportation. My colleague from Laval, who has been very involved in transportation issues, will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the third time this bill has been introduced.

I also recall that the leader of the Bloc Québécois sincerely hoped that this bill would be a priority in the previous Parliament. And we would have been happy to make amendments to it. The bill could be greatly improved. We could go much further. At least it was a starting point, and for the first time we had a bill stating that the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body, had conciliation and arbitration authority and could receive complaints from members of the public experiencing all sorts of problems. Obviously, we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, do I have one or two minutes left?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

You have less than a minute left.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I feel that we must beef up clause 29 of the bill and define what we expect in the way of reasonable changes.

I think we have to beef up this bill. In conclusion, I repeat, we need to give the Canadian Transportation Agency more muscle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Hochelaga for bringing attention to the nuisance caused by the railway in terms of noise.

Earlier, others mentioned problems regarding the fumes and vibration from the railway. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I will certainly take these things into account when we prepare amendments to this bill.

However, I want to point out that, in its declaration of principle, this bill takes into account, for the first time, protecting the environment. Nonetheless, the environment is limited to this single declaration and there is no mention of any enforcement or restriction or any reference to the Kyoto protocol, which the government does not even want to respect even though Canada is already a signatory to the protocol,

I want to know what my colleague thinks of this approach: a mere declaration of principle, with no reference to the restrictions or the programs that the government has yet to implement. Does he think it is democratic to add such a clause with no scope or restriction?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague for his involvement at committee. If I am not mistaken, transport is the fourth most important department here, in Ottawa. It has its work cut out.

I do not mean the government any disrespect when I say that it lacks backbone and is rather insensitive and indifferent when it comes to environmental protection. I am stating a fact. It is clear that Canadians and Quebeckers will judge this government on its extremely negative record with respect to the environment . Never before has a government had so little backbone where environmental matters are concerned. It is obvious that we cannot rely on the leadership of the current environment minister, who is an international laughing stock. Canada has lost any way, shape or form of credibility it might have once enjoyed in various international forums in connection with the Kyoto protocol.

Why is a policy statement useful? Because, in the event of court challenges, the judiciary would have a clearer picture of the lawmaker's intention. We always hope that bills will escape challenge, but that is nonetheless a power that some of our fellow citizens have. It comes with democracy. Living under the rule of law means that the laws put in place under various parliaments can be challenged.

Naturally, it would be especially great—as something binding on the government and eventually the courts of law—if reference was made to the Kyoto protocol, this international treaty about which a very wide consensus has been achieved in Quebec. Perhaps our colleague could put forward a motion asking the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to testify as an expert witness. His knowledge of the issue is so comprehensive that we could only benefit from his insight. I suggest that he invites the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is the Bloc Québécois' green conscience. In Quebec, the values of environmental protection and sustainable development are at the top of the list of collective concerns.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to new clause 5(b), which speaks to strategic public intervention, only if it is necessary, for socio-economic and environmental outcomes, but it does not reduce the inherent advantages of one transportation medium over the other.

I like what I have heard from the Bloc on the issues surrounding improving the environmental conduct of the railway. We have to look at road transportation as well. The idling of large semi-trailers is endemic across the western and northern parts of Canada. There are very viable cheap technological solutions to this. This question should be answered for all manner of transportation.

What is my colleague's point of view on this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has done a good job of understanding what we stand for as parliamentarians. We have always supported public transit. The member for Jonquière introduced a bill, as did the member for Longueuil.

We will do everything in our power to support a bill on this issue. I am somewhat proud of the fact that I do not have a car. I use public transit, and I am no worse off for it.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has a lot in common with a bill introduced by the previous government, but it covers only part of what was in that bill.

However—and I will emphasize this from the very beginning of my presentation—some of the improvements in this bill justify our voting in favour of it.

First of all, it gives mass transit companies the right to use railways when freight transportation networks decide not to use them. Until now, transit companies did not have the right to use these lines to expand public and rail transportation networks, particularly in cities.

I think this major improvement is also an element of the transportation improvement policy we need to develop, especially in our large cities, to improve the environment. This measure would also require fiscal incentives.

This morning, the Standing Committee on Finance heard presentations by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. The association said that the government should make ongoing, long-term commitments and invest in public transit. If the government acts on this recommendation and incorporates it into the bill as it now stands, public transit and commuter rail will expand and ridership will increase. Ultimately, this will mean less pollution.

This is an interesting proposal, particularly since it will also stimulate economic development. When public passenger service providers exercise this right, they will need to purchase locomotives and rail cars. Not only large cities, but rural areas as well can benefit from such investments.

For example, in my riding, the Bombardier plant that will manufacture the cars for the Montreal subway will also be able to manufacture rail cars. This type of action would be part of a structured rather than piecemeal approach. We are glad that the current bill provides for this, but more is needed. That said, this improvement deserves to be supported on balance.

The other worthwhile improvement concerns noise. As a member from a rural area, I have heard many times from small municipalities that have problems with whistles and other noise associated with the rolling stock currently in use, a situation they find both unsatisfactory and extremely frustrating. What the bill proposes is not ideal, but it would achieve a better balance between the interests of the community and those of the carrier.

Let us hope that the Canadian Transportation Agency, with its new mandate, will be able to improve the situation so that people in some communities no longer have to put up with excessive noise.

I hope that when the bill is examined in committee, we will be able to extend the Transportation Agency's decision-making authority to other nuisances such as oil spills and the like. Two significant improvements have been made.

I would have liked to see this government maintain VIA Rail's expanded mandate, as planned by the previous government, for it represented a valuable tool to improve the quality of the environment by offering rapid rail services, for example. This alternative could also contribute to improved air quality, since it pollutes less than cars or planes. Moreover, it would have given VIA Rail the opportunity to diversify its products, which could have been interesting. We are told that the government is still studying this project. Let us hope it comes to fruition.

In addition, offering rail services promotes the use of equipment made in Quebec or in Canada and, at the same time, still contributes to improving the quality of the environment. I see this as another positive aspect.

What this bill is missing, and what especially affects me, is something to address railway accidents and what happened a few years ago in Sainte-Hélène-de-Kamouraska in my riding, and in Montmagny the year before my arrival as the member for this area.

There were some accidents and we realize that the safety network is inadequate, either because there are not enough investigators funded to implement the necessary corrective measures or because there is not enough pressure on the companies who own the networks. We are left to accept a network that has many negative results and risks of accidents that could cause serious environmental damage. In Montmagny, it was very dangerous when a train spilled its chemical load into the river. The same thing happened in Sainte-Hélène and we were just barely able to prevent a serious ecological disaster.

In this bill, I would have liked to have seen some measures to tighten regulations, monitor companies more closely and make it possible to take action when corporate responses are inadequate. Since being privatized, CN has operated within the existing legislative framework and has not adopted safety measures that exceed those imposed by the government. We live in a competitive world. It is government's role to ensure that the company's operations are carried out safely. In this regard, there are some gaps that should have been filled by this bill but have not.

I hope that the government will introduce another bill to remedy this situation. If legislation is not considered, then at least increase the budget for the inspection service so that it will be taken seriously by the major companies that operate the railway network.

Bill C-11 reintroduces certain proposals made by the former government, and some are positive. The bill also touches on various aspects of the air transport sector.

This afternoon, I wish to focus on the railway network. In Quebec and Canada, as we know, the popularity of our railway network has been very cyclical and 20, 15 and even 10 years ago it was not keeping up with the times. With the advent of containers and environmental concerns, it is possible to develop transportation that fulfills the requirements of sustainable development. The measures proposed today, particularly those affecting transportation companies, are interesting and positive.

We are pleased to see that this bill speaks to the noise issue, which is about decreasing one type of pollution. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois intends to support the bill. It also intends to propose amendments pertaining to, among other things, rulings and decisions regarding noise. Local authorities could be given sufficient powers to obtain satisfactory decisions and to provide a better balance of power in those cases where corporations are too powerful.

In view of the overall context, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this legislation and will seek to improve it in committee, in clause by clause study, after witnesses have been heard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is always concerned about farmers in Quebec, but there is a clause in the bill in which the new government has really sold out western prairie grain producers. Clause 43 of the bill breaks the agreement that was made by the previous government with the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. In other words, the new government basically sold out to big rail, which it is also doing with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is selling out to big grain.

I wonder if the member from the Bloc Québécois would have any comment on that. Would he be concerned about western farmers and the approach of the new government which is basically undermining farmers' marketing power and their ability to have some control over their own destiny by taking ownership of the railway hopper cars? Instead, the new government broke the agreement made by the previous Liberal government.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was my angle in looking at the possibility of studying this bill in committee.

I think it will be appropriate to hear witnesses at that time, determine what might be the best solution ultimately and see if the scope of the current legislation covers that and how this should be done in the future.

It is obvious, however, that this bill must not be made to create impediments to agriculture in Quebec and Canada. There are already enough complex situations and enough outside competition. We know what is hanging over the heads of our producers. Let us hope that we will not make things worse for them and that the legislation resulting from this bill will adequately meet their needs and support agricultural development.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)