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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 12 motions in amendments standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-11.

Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the French version, lines 23 to 26 on page 1 with the following:

“national compétitif et rentable qui respecte les plus hautes normes possibles de sûreté et de sécurité, qui favorise un environnement durable et qui utilise tous les”

(b) by replacing, in the French version, lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following:

“domaine de la sûreté et de la sécurité”

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-11, in Clause 4, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

“(3) If a member appointed under subsection 7(2) ceases to hold office, the Chairperson”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 9 on page 3 with the following:

“members under subsection 7(2) or up to three”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 4 with the following:

“parties III ou IV ou sur l’application de prix ou”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 13 on page 7 with the following:

“ment et qui résume la situation des transports au”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-11, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 5 and 6 on page 9 with the following:

“(2.1) Les lignes directrices sont élaborées de concert avec le”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-11, in Clause 29, be amended:

(a) by replacing, in the English version, lines 4 and 5 on page 20 with the following:

“way, a railway company must cause as little noise and vibration as possible, taking into”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 14 on page 20 with the following:

“95.2 (1) The Agency shall issue, and publish”

(c) by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 20 with the following:

“vibration complaints relating to the con-”

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-11, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 41 on page 20 and line 1 on page 21 with the following:

“estime raisonnables pour faire le moins de bruit ou de”

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

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 12 on page 41 with the following:

“portation Agency under subsection 7(2) or”

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Motions Nos. 1 to 12 that are on the order paper, some of which come from the government and some of which come from the New Democratic Party.

I should begin by saying that Bill C-11 was supported by all parties. There were some important elements within Bill C-11 that needed to be brought forward. A very healthy process took place throughout the fall. All four parties in the House of Commons worked together to improve the initial legislation that we supported in principle and brought amendments forward that would make this legislation even better. This was done with the cooperation from Conservative members, Liberal members, my colleagues in the Bloc, and myself representing the New Democratic Party.

We worked over the course of a number of weeks to improve this important legislation. We succeeded in a number of different elements. There is no doubt that the bill coming back from committee is much better than it was when it came to Parliament. We were able to make important improvements.

I do want to flag a number of areas, particularly the area around representation within the Canadian Transportation Agency. This was brought forward by the New Democratic Party. We thought this was an important element to change as we were endeavouring to modernize the Canada Transportation Act. We wanted to make the kind of changes that would help to address some shortfalls and deficiencies within our transportation system.

A number of components of Bill C-11 do this, but one important component is missing and that is having the best possible people from across this country at the Canadian Transportation Agency. To ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency is not an Ottawa centric organization, the NDP endeavoured to bring forth an amendment to allow essentially important members of the Canadian Transportation Agency to reside outside the national capital region. There are two important reasons for this.

First, by broadening the pool we can get the best qualified people, regardless of where they live. It is not true that every Canadian wants to live in Ottawa. It is not true that people from British Columbia can simply deny their family ties, uproot their family and move to Ottawa if they want to work in the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is important that we have the broadest possible pool of potential candidates, the best qualified people in the transportation business to ensure that we have the safest transportation sector and transportation elements in the world. Second, and this is perhaps even more important, we want to ensure that those who are appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency, who will play an important role within our country, actually understand the regional variations.

Over the past few years we have seen an increasing rate of railway accidents. I can cite some of the more well known examples of high profile and tragic railway accidents in places like Wabamun Lake in the Fraser Canyon of British Columbia, Wabamun Lake in Alberta, and Cheakamus River in British Columbia. These are issues of transportation safety and the viability of our transportation system. These are important components of the Canadian Transportation Agency among many other things. We need to ensure that the people who are appointed to these positions actually understand the regional requirements in B.C., the prairies and Atlantic Canada.

We brought forward these amendments simply to allow that broad pool of potential candidates, not shutting out most Canadians who do not come from Ottawa and would prefer not to live here.

Second, is also to have that regional expertise. When we talk about regional issues, whether it is British Columbia or Atlantic Canada, members appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency would have the regional expertise and could contribute to enhancing our transportation system.

Because the Conservatives refused that very logical and sound approach, what we have before us a requirement in Bill C-11 that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency to reside here. It says, “The members shall reside in the National Capital Region”.

We are essentially centralizing the Canadian Transportation Agency in such a way as to not have that regional expertise and understanding. At the same time, we are narrowing the pool of potential candidates for the Canadian Transportation Agency. It does not make sense.

I do not understand the opposition of the Conservative Party to broaden that mandate to ensure we get the best qualified people wherever they live in the country. In addition, the bonus, particularly coming from western Canada and this should be understood, is we would have a broader understanding of western Canadian transportation issues. It is simply logical. It simply makes sense.

The government refused that amendment. It has put before us instead a requirement that those appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency “shall reside in the National Capital Region”.

For that reason, the NDP is moving to delete the requirement that individuals appointed to the transportation agency have to live in the national capital region. As a result, we have a number of consequential amendments.

The four motions all deal with this important factor; that the Canadian Transportation Agency should not be limited to those who choose to reside in Ottawa. We should not exclude the vast majority of Canadians who may want to contribute or who may have real talent and real skills to contribute. In addition, we should endeavour to have individuals within the agency that have the regional expertise.

It has often been said that British Columbia is perhaps the most remote of the provinces to Ottawa. We certainly have to fly across the country to get to Ottawa. B.C. members of Parliament are honoured and privileged, particularly the 10 B.C. MPs who represent the NDP, to do that.

I cross the country twice a week. On Sundays, normally, or Monday morning I fly to Ottawa. I fly back on Thursday evening or Friday morning. My family is very understanding, as are the families of the nine other B.C. NDP MPs who represent our province in Ottawa.

It is very clear, and there is no doubt about this, that sacrifices have to be made. Many British Columbians would love to participate and provide their expertise to the transportation agency. Yet they are being told that they cannot do so unless they reside in the national capital region. That is simply unacceptable. That is why we are offering the opportunity for the government to address an important issue, one that it should have allowed in committee.

The government should have simply said that it made sense to provide for the best possible expertise in the country and not limit the pool to only those who would choose to live in Ottawa. It should have said that it would attempt to do the recruitment in such a way that it would have regional expertise, that those individuals in the mountainous areas of British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean with that expertise would be encouraged to be part of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

As we know, the way the bill is currently configured, they do not have that choice. The government has simply said that they do not have that choice, that they have to live in Ottawa. That is unacceptable.

That is the element of the motions the NDP has brought forward. We are essentially supportive of much of the bill.

I would like to mention the work of Brian Allen and the Quayside Community Board in New Westminster, British Columbia. Mr. Allen, as did mayor Wayne Wright, both testified before the committee and provided valuable feedback as well on the issue of railway noise, which is another area of weakness in the bill.

Despite the fact that the bill is less strong on the issue of railway noise, we are hopeful we will see improvements to government policy over the next few months so people in the quay area of New Westminster and in other urban communities can finally get a good night's sleep. Mr. Allen was indispensable in providing support to ensure that the committee did deal with railway noise. Although we are disappointed with the results in that area too, we do have some hope that over the course of the next few months we will see action finally.

We are supportive of Bill C-11 and of many of the amendments that the NDP and other parties brought forward. It was a collaborative effort. There are a couple of weaknesses and we hope they can be addressed at report stage, particularly the area around the Canadian Transportation Agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the good work that my colleagues on the committee have done. I am a new addition to the committee, but not new to the issues of transportation. You and I served on the committee that eventually led to some of the issues we are debating today. I will have more to say about this in a few minutes.

Could the member clarify the urgency of having to ensure that people not necessarily reside here if they are part of a functioning board? Certainly they would bring expertise as well as regional perspective. They would also work to ensure that those regional issues and regional perspective were brought into an environment that would coordinate all the perspectives nationwide, those which should be brought to bear on railway policy to the benefit of all Canadians.

While I am at that, would he clarify for us the understanding on Motion No. 10 in the French version? Perhaps the Bloc might want to do this more than others. He is talking about the amendments that he identified as ones that might be acceptable. There is a change which says:

“estime raisonnables pour faire le moins de bruit ou de”

In his understanding of that amendment, would that lead someone to conclude that less noise is the same thing as absolutely no noise?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for his new position as transportation critic. I look forward to working with him and our other colleagues on the transportation committee. We have had an initial meeting. I look forward to working productively together to advance Canada.

Regarding the member's first point around the issue of the Canadian Transportation Agency and residing in Ottawa, he is right to say that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency need to meet occasionally in Ottawa. Our opposition is not to the occasional meeting in Ottawa, that is an indispensable part of the job.

Our concern is that members are forced to reside in the national capital region, which means two things. First, obviously it reduces the number of applicants for this kind of position. Many Canadians would choose not to live in Ottawa for a variety of reasons, family ties being one of the most important ones. Second, it is difficult to uproot people's immediate families and in a sense have a country dividing them from their larger family, in British Columbia, for example.

Essentially he is right that the meetings should take place. Our argument is that there should be no requirement to live in the national capital region. That would be better for the Canadian Transportation Agency.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster could be helpful if it were not for the fact that this is simply a rehash of what has already gone on at committee.

As members know, the process that the House follows is that a bill moves through first and second reading and is then referred to committee for a thorough discussion.

At that committee, numerous witnesses from across the country gave input into the bill. The hon. member had an opportunity participate. In fact, I have the transcript from November 23, 2006. The hon. member took part in the discussion regarding the very clauses that he now wishes to delete. What he is conveniently forgetting to tell the public in his comments is the fact that he originally made a motion to increase the number of members from five to six, not to seven, and there was some confusion in committee and our clerk confirmed that.

I also want to highlight the fact that over the last two years the member knows the Canadian Transportation Agency has operated with five members. The focus here is efficiency.

He had also suggested that it was unfortunate that we could not recruit people from across Canada. They were not willing to move to the national capital region. That is already happening with many other governmental organizations. The Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court and even the CRTC have a requirement that its members live in the national capital region.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry, but the time has expired. I let the member go on, but I cannot let him go on and on. I have to give the member a chance to answer.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has changed its speech.

I can remember a few years ago when the Conservatives would stand up for western Canada, but obviously that has changed. Now they are saying, “Come to Ottawa. We are not going to make any changes”.

The hon. member is well aware that the Canadian Transportation Agency currently has seven people on its statutes. The NDP amendment was to have the chair reside in the national capital region, but the six other members could reside outside the national capital region. There is absolutely no doubt, and the hon. member should know, coming from British Columbia, that, yes, it reduces the pool of applicants for those positions. We cannot simply say to people that they have to uproot their families, leave British Columbia and come to Ottawa because that is the only way they can work for the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The Conservatives, their old party, the Reform Party, used to speak up for western Canada. It is sad that it is no longer the case. Now they speak up for Ottawa.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the hon. member's riposte. I will simply continue to focus in on the things that the bill does, the things that we as a committee agreed to do.

The big beneficiaries of Bill C-11 are of course not only those in the transportation industry but Canadians across our great country.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard from a wide range of witnesses, as I mentioned earlier. We studied the legislation in detail and considered a wide assortment of amendments from both the government and the opposition parties.

For Canadians, transportation is a vital aspect of daily living. Indeed, railways and ships were critical in building our country. Most of the opposition's proposed amendments were, I believe, put forward in the best spirit of non-partisanship with a view to improving the bill and making better legislation. Very few suggested amendments were posited for the opposite intention.

Perhaps it is best to start from the beginning and review how thorough the committee's analysis of Bill C-11 was.

Every effort was made to study the potential impact of the bill upon all the relevant stakeholders. In addition to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and officials from Transport Canada, witnesses included representatives from the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Travellers' Protection Initiative, and citizens groups from across Canada. In fact, there were citizens from the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, whose member spoke up just a few minutes ago.

The large majority of the witnesses supported the bill, or specific provisions of the bill, and encouraged its quick passage. Many witnesses sought improvements to the bill to make it work better. Based on the testimony from witnesses, I am pleased to note that the committee presented and accepted a number of amendments, which I believe strengthened the bill. I thank the committee members for taking the opportunity to hear from witnesses and for their thorough review, due diligence and cooperation in improving the bill.

Let me summarize the main amendments.

First, we addressed transportation policy. Our aim was to simplify and modernize transportation policy in Canada. The policy statement provides broad guidance to the development of transportation policy programs and direction to the Canada Transportation Agency and the courts in resolving disputes.

The amendments to Bill C-11 will strengthen references to safety, security and sustainable transportation and improve the language that pertains to the role that transportation rates and conditions play.

We also believe that reducing the number of permanent members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five and locating them at national headquarters, instead of across the country, makes good common sense. It saves taxpayers' dollars and it does not rely on unnecessary travel.

In the bill, we also addressed mediation. The committee has shortened from 60 days to 30 days the period in which mediation needs to take place. The purpose of this was a general agreement that transportation in a country as large as ours is a vital component of daily living. Transportation is not only in the national interest; it is often the national interest.

Disputes often have a profoundly negative impact on the lives and jobs of thousands of Canadians who rely on the transportation sector for food, clothing, merchandise and supplies of all kinds. We as a committee believe that it is in the national interest to resolve transportation disputes in a timely manner.

We also addressed the whole issue of reporting, of making sure that the Ministry of Transport reports on a regular basis and in an effective manner. We have proposed that the current annual reporting by the minister on transportation activities be replaced with a major report every five years.

The chief difficulty with data management is not so much its collection but its analysis. The data must be appropriately assessed in order to justify its gathering. Furthermore, it is environmentally responsible to find ways of using less paper and to find alternative ways of disseminating the information through the website.

The requirements for annual reports for transportation were put in place in 1987. Those provisions have never been updated. After some 20 years of experience, it has become very clear to our government that trends in transportation are more easily detected when reports cover longer periods of time. With that in mind, we introduced a five year reporting requirement, and the committee agreed to that.

That said, the committee also amended the bill to maintain the annual reporting requirement, the only change being that in the future the report will provide only a cursory review of the state of the transportation industry, leaving the comprehensive analysis for the more significant five year report.

We also addressed the issue of mergers of different transportation companies. We have existing provisions that relate only to airlines. By changing these and expanding them, we are covering all modes of transportation.

This will require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau and send a recommendation to the governor in council on whether or not to approve the proposed merger and, if appropriate, what conditions would apply. Again, we believe that this would be in keeping with the best interests of all Canadians. For example, if a merger adversely affects access to transport in a given region of the country, then that is going to be a factor that the minister may want to consider.

Many sectors of the transportation industry are served by a small number of enterprises. Mergers in these sectors may raise issues of regional and national interest that fall beyond the scope of reviews conducted by the Competition Bureau.

A new merger and acquisition review process will cover all transportation undertakings over a certain threshold level of assets and revenues. The process we are proposing will involve, first of all, that applications for mergers would be required to address specific issues set out in review guidelines. If the proposal also raises sufficient public interest issues related to national transportation, the minister could appoint a person to review the proposed transaction. Finally, any proposed merger would result in one government decision, to avoid duplication. Public interest concerns would be addressed by the minister and competition concerns by the Commissioner of Competition.

The amendments to Bill C-11 will also require the minister to publish guidelines on information related to the public interest that must be included in the notice given to the minister by companies proposing a merger. The amendments will also require the minister to consult with the Competition Bureau in developing these guidelines.

We also addressed the whole issue of air complaints: consumers who are using the airlines and have beefs. As we know, many Canadians travel long distances and use air travel to do that. The industry's growth has resulted in an increasing number of complaints.

However, even if complaints are properly addressed by the airlines, it is incumbent upon the industry to keep a record of what these complaints were and how they will be or were addressed. A lesson is learned only if the action taken to rectify the complaint is duly recorded and available for use again.

Therefore, the committee added a requirement that in its annual report the agency must report the number and nature of complaints filed with the agency for each carrier, how the complaints were dealt with, and systemic trends that the agency has observed.

Complaint letters sent to the agency now increasingly relate to matters within the agency's core regulatory functions, such as the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of flights. With the recent implementation of the air travel complaints program, the agency has successfully demonstrated that it can address the need to respond to travellers' complaints, allowing agency staff to continue to respond to complaints in an informal manner. The agency already publishes information regarding many important airline consumer issues in its annual report and on its website.

We also addressed the issue of airfare advertising. The committee added this requirement. Arguably, no other form of transportation contains as many hidden expenses as does air travel. Bill C-11 requires airlines advertising airfares to indicate all fees, charges and surcharges, to allow consumers to readily determine the cost of their flight.

We also addressed railway noise, something that was of great concern to communities across the country. We believe we have introduced complaint mechanisms and mediation processes that will address this.

In short, committees often represent the best of the parliamentary process, whereby members from different political parties work together to improve legislation. That is what the committee did in this case. We believe we have done this and that is why it is time to move the bill forward.

Stakeholders are interested in the passage of the bill. They have been patiently waiting for the bill to become law. We are now one step closer to doing that. I encourage members of the House to support the amended bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from Abbotsford is absolutely right to say that there was cooperation from all four corners of the House to work on this bill and that there have been substantial improvements. There is no doubt about that.

Let us get back to the essential consideration before us now, which is the amendment motions that have been brought forward by the NDP regarding the compulsory nature of the Canadian Transportation Agency in forcing people to live in Ottawa and eliminating or lessening the potential pool of candidates for the Canadian Transportation Agency. The member certainly did not explain why he opposes the idea that a person from Abbotsford who has the best possible qualifications but does not want to live in Ottawa, for obvious reasons that should be evident to anyone from British Columbia, should not be able to apply and be appointed to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

He has not explained why folks from Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley who are perfectly qualified, people who have all the qualifications and certainly would be assets to the Canadian Transportation Agency and to Canada, are excluded from applying for those positions unless they want to live in Ottawa. The bill is very clear: “The members shall reside in the National Capital Region...”. If the member could explain, because we have this one area of disagreement--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government is not going to force anyone to move to Ottawa. I think the member is being somewhat crafty in making that suggestion. In fact, I would respond by saying that if we look at clause 5 of the bill, we see that it specifically provides for the governor in council to actually make arrangements that perhaps would expand that residency requirement. This is not cast in stone. It says that the members of the Canadian Transportation Agency will reside in the national capital region unless otherwise determined.

I also suggest to the member that he had an opportunity to make those arguments at committee. I do not think he is going to deny that. That is what the committee process is for. I would suggest that what he is doing here is essentially thwarting the democratic process. He is known for his filibustering on the softwood lumber agreement. Now he is trying to raise issues that were already dealt with at the committee stage. Let us get the bill done. Let us move it forward. Let us serve the interests of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, section 95.1 addresses the noise made in railroad yards by railway companies. This bill truly addresses the noise problem. The railway companies have to make as little noise and vibration as possible, among other things by taking into account the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

I would like my Conservative colleague to confirm that the people who live next to the Moreau station in Hochelaga, the Joffre railroad yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, the Farnham railroad yard in Brome—Missisquoi or those who live next to the Pointe-Saint-Charles railroad yard in Jeanne-Le Ber can be assured that the Canadian Transportation Agency can intervene to prevent companies from making excessive noise. They must cause as little noise or vibration as possible.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at committee we had a very fulsome discussion about railway noise. It probably took up most of our time. There were suggestions made by Canadians from across the country. We had people from across the country giving input. We even set up special teleconferencing to enable people from the west coast to participate in this process. They made one thing clear. They support the transportation system in Canada. They support railways, but they also believe that railway noise must be put in the context of quality of life.

I know that the hon. member from the Bloc played a very critical role in making sure these concerns were raised. I think he would agree with me that we have come up with a very good compromise bill. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a significant step forward in addressing the issue of railway noise. I appreciate his support in committee and in the House in supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know you are only going to give me a few minutes before you cut off debate and everybody is transfixed to hear what I have to say.

My first reaction is: What a wonderful bill. Another week and another Liberal bill recast as a Conservative initiative.

Members will know this bill because it appeared in the previous Parliament as Bill C-44, and it was for a wider transportation policy to address a series of issues. Now, Bill C-44 has been broken down into three parts, and this is one.

I am going to speak for about 10 minutes to ensure that everybody understands the benefits of the bill. I do not want to be too critical, but I noted that there are some members here who are particularly interested in one aspect of this bill that merits reinforcement; and that is, those agencies, corporations and entities that are engaged in commuter railways and commuter traffic and who depended on a change in the national transportation policy are addressed to ensure that they were included in transportation issues to the benefit of all consumers and commuters because they are one and the same. The bill in its initial format, and now repeated again, addresses issues that are of concern to them.

One is access to federally regulated rail lines that might be declared surplus, or not, but certainly to have commuter agencies at least access them so that they can be maximized in their utilization for the purposes of consumers.

Second, to establish under this act opportunities to arbitrate on what amounts might be charged by the tier one railways to some of these commuter lines. So, to have not only access but to arbitrate on a fair process of remuneration in order that these agencies function in an economically feasible environment. I think I have that right.

Then, finally, to have, when there is a disposition of these access lines, the valuation process be one that makes it feasible for commuter agencies to acquiesce the purchase process and then to make the application for commuter use in an environment where there is a valuation process that makes it fair for those agencies to function.

Members must remember that I am talking about federally regulated rail lines and federally regulated agencies.

What we had envisioned under Bill C-44, and now repeated in Bill C-11, was a process whereby the interests of the user, the end user, in this case the commuter as an end user, be part and parcel of transportation policy.

I know that the debate so far on these amendments has focused on where a member of the board of directors would live or not live and who would get the advantage in terms of getting employment. I think that is nice. It is fine to do that. However, the most important issue is to keep in mind how we develop railway policy throughout the country.

When I said that this is another Liberal bill being re-presented and cast by a minister of transport who is accustomed to borrowing good ideas from the Liberals, it makes one wonder if actually he is a Liberal. Hold on. I think he was.

Nevertheless, we can become once again what we were generated to be, at least through the ideas and legislation that is going to help Canadians everywhere. I think that there were three sections especially that were presented to committee members. While I was not there, they are issues that are--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, but he will have six minutes left in a 10 minute speech when the House takes up this topic again.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Transportation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence had six minutes left when we last visited this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we were talking about Bill C-11, a transportation bill that was born out of much policy development by the former Liberal government. I complimented the current government for having had the wisdom to adopt the bill that preceded this one and was divided into three parts in order to secure speedier passage in the House. We have done that already with one bill. This is the second one. There is a third one coming up.

I know that my colleagues on the transport committee are busy in committee right now. I am not suggesting that they are not here and therefore that it is bad; I am saying that they are involved in the business of the House in another place and it is left to me to carry the load, as it were.

The last time we spoke to this bill, we addressed one aspect of the importance of Bill C-11. What we were looking at really was establishing a mechanism for resolving disputes between public passenger service providers and railway companies. In other words, we were looking for access to rail lines for those commuter companies, especially in main centres like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, so that they could have an opportunity to develop commuter services on lines that were already existing. They wanted to have access and this legislation provides for their getting that access.

They also wanted to have an appropriate mechanism for arriving at an acceptable market driven and public policy driven price for that access. They were looking for mediation. This legislation provides it, as did its predecessor.

Finally, when rail companies are in the process of divesting themselves of the assets, they would be offered up to the commuter companies on a predetermined basis.

The last time we were discussing this in the House we talked about the importance of this as public policy. It is integrated into the legislation and for that purpose the legislation demands our support. In fact, it should have our support.

There is a series of other important issues here. My colleagues know that if we can pass this legislation expeditiously, we will have seen the fruit of the labour of at least two governments.

The Liberal government, in which I was proud and privileged to serve as a cabinet member, had come forward with transportation policy that reflected the real needs of the day some 24 months ago. There has been a different government for well nigh on 13 or 14 months, and here we are, still here with that same piece of legislation that would have authorized the government to put in place the kinds of things that consumers, the industry and the Canadian public as a whole demanded and which the economy needed to have in order to ensure there would be an efficient, safe transportation network around the country. Whether it involved rail or air was immaterial. The issues were those that required the opportunity for government to intervene to ensure that the efficiency, security and safety of those mechanisms be always there.

Safety is defined of course as all Canadians always define it, that the security and safety of the person always be first and foremost, but it includes as well the security and safety of the movement of goods and services. I know that my colleague from Montreal agrees with me, being a former justice minister who at the time was a consultant on the language of the legislation. I am sure he is pleased to see the realization of the sum of his thoughts.

It is true that we have finally as parliamentarians come forward with something that addresses, as I said, the economy and the consumer.

For members of the House to think about anything other than passing this piece of legislation would be a disservice to the entire Canadian commonweal.

Some members are making suggestions about a series of amendments that ought to take place. We have accepted a good number of those amendments. I say that we have accepted them not because we are presenting the legislation. We originated the legislation, but we are not the ones who have proposed it to the House. We did propose it, and the opposition parties of the day turned it down, especially those on the extreme left of the spectrum. They are on the extreme left of this House too and they have almost disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will not be offended by that because you are one of the few who has been here longer than I have, and whose hair is greyer than mine, and you are always interested in transportation issues. Those transportation issues are absolutely crucial to the proper functioning and the economy of this country. The infrastructure cannot move along without a good infrastructure in law and that is what this bill is supposed to represent.

We support it. It is not ours, but it comes very close to what we wanted to do. We always want to look out for the interests, safety and security of Canadians and the proper, efficient functioning of an economic infrastructure that would allow us to profit by our own enterprise.

I will take 10 seconds to note that the rail strike by CN has gone on for far too long without government attention. I deplore the fact that the Minister of Transport has not addressed this issue. It cries for government attention, but the government is being inattentive and inactive.

I leave on those very careful words. We hope that the government will become active on and attentive to an issue that is crucial to everybody. I know the hon. member will agree with me when I say that all members on this side of the House, the good guys, want immediate action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's presentation about how much he wants Bill C-11 to be adopted.

I would like to review the history of this bill because it is a nearly word-for-word copy of part of Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Liberals in the previous Parliament.

One of the reasons Bill C-44 never went through, that is, was not adopted before, is that the Liberal Party itself decided to block its own bill. Bill C-44 had a whole section devoted to developing VIA Rail. It wanted to change VIA Rail from a Crown corporation to an independent corporation to enable it to grow. Among other things, the bill promoted VIA Rail's growth and development. VIAFast would have made it possible to build a high-speed train from Quebec City to Montreal and from Montreal to Windsor.

My question is simple: Why is the Liberal Party in such a hurry today? Why was it not in a hurry when it was in power during the previous Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. The member need only look in a mirror. The answer can be found in the power of the member who asked the question.

If his party had had the opportunity or wisdom to say that it was a very good bill and that they would support it, we would already have this legislation and the legislation on VIAFast.

However, the Bloc Québécois, their NDP friends and the Conservatives wanted an election rather than legislation that would have given Canadians everything they now want for the citizens of Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada.

It is a very simple answer. Had those members accepted what we presented some 15 months ago, we would not be talking about this legislation because we would have already had it implemented. They wanted an election instead. They had it and now this is what we have. They wanted change and they deplore it now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague. As he very well knows, the Liberals were divided and the Chrétien team definitely wanted VIAFast and the bill concerning VIA Rail to be passed, while supporters of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard wanted simply to abandon that part of the bill.

Once again, my hon. colleague's memory fails him. As he very well knows, the Liberal Party itself did not want the VIAFast project to proceed. However, the Bloc Québécois always supported the VIA Rail option and Bill C-44.

I hope my colleague will be able to make the distinction, now that he is transport critic. He need only read past editions of House of Commons Debates to see that it was not the Bloc Québécois that prevented the VIA Rail project from proceeding, rather it was his own party.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is far from the truth. As you know, 18 years ago, I was one of the first members in this House to want a VIAFast system, as it is known today. At the time, the costs were estimated at $2 billion. Just imagine.

He speaks of the Chrétien team project. It was the Liberal team. A feasibility and viability study with a price tag of almost $12 billion was being considered. We were discussing the feasibility of such a cost for a project. The Liberal team had already accepted, in principle, the project establishing a VIAFast system between Quebec City and Windsor.

We are not altering history. I am living it. It is the present. We want Canadians to have access to high speed rail. I am here today to support a good project. It is not the best project, because the best project was the one proposed by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government 16 months ago. Unfortunately, today we must accept the second best, but we have to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As hon. members could see by the exchange I had with my Liberal colleague earlier, the Bloc Québécois was in favour of Bill C-44, which preceded Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, Bill C-44 did not make it through the legislative process because of the infighting within the Liberal family, namely whether VIA Fast would see the light of day or not. The leadership of the Liberal Party changed and VIA Fast did not see the light of day. In the meantime, an entire section of Bill C-44 was devoted to making VIA Rail an independent corporation that would be able to ensure its own development. Today, once again, the railway sector is stagnating.

However, Bill C-44 was divided into a number of bills, including Bill C-11, which is now before us. Since the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has been very interested in the development of this bill for the simple reason that it includes several sections—I am not saying they are big sections, just that they are very important—on the problems that some of the population might experience, the noise problem in the rail road sector, among others.

The purpose of Bill C-11 is to help all citizens, all Quebeckers, who are experiencing problems with noise. There are some major problems with noise, such as the noise generated by the big railroad yards, the Moreau yard in Hochelaga, the Joffre yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, formerly Charny, the Farnham yard in Brome—Missisquoi and the Pointe-Saint-Charles yard in Jeanne-Le Ber in Montreal's east end.

With the new technology, jobs have been lost. Employees have simply been replaced by remote controlled technology. This causes an infernal noise when the cars are being connected to the locomotives or to other cars.

With the arrival of this technology, in the 1990s, jobs were cut to save money. What was once done by hand, more intelligently and less noisily, was replaced by technology, and no one has yet found a solution to the problem of remote linking. It takes a lot of momentum to join cars together. People living near marshalling yards have to put up with a terrific amount of noise, not to mention locomotives running practically day and night, even during cold weather.

All this causes problems for the people living near marshalling yards, in addition to all the other noise and vibration problems.

I would like to read clause 95.1 of the bill:

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

Previously, the bill mentioned noise only, and the Bloc Québécois worked very hard to have the word “vibration” included. Now, the bill requires that companies cause as little noise and vibration as possible. We hope that the bill will be adopted.

I will continue to read from clause 95.1:

—taking into account

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

(b) its operational requirements;

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

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

The bill amends the act by adding provisions that state that companies operating a railway must cause as little noise and vibration as possible and must take into account the impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

For the first time, the Transportation Act is being amended to enable the agency, under clause 95.2, to issue and publish guidelines and receive complaints. This was not allowed previously. Courts ruled that even though the Transportation Agency had wanted to get involved in the complaint process, it did not have the authority to do so. In one case in Ontario, the courts told the agency that it did not have the authority to intervene and that even though it issued recommendations and acted as a mediator, it could not force the company to comply with those recommendations.

That is where the law stood. Obviously this prompted a lot of people who objected to join together and organize to express their opposition. When they became aware of the judgment of the Ontario court, they decided that there was no point and they were spending their money for nothing.

All of these communities got together and wanted to challenge this, and tried to get the railway companies to change, in particular, as I said earlier, the Moreau switching yard, the Joffre yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, the Farnham yard in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi and the Pointe-Saint-Charles yard in the riding of Jeanne-Le Ber.

The people who live near those yards decided to step back and try to reach an amicable agreement. All the Transportation Agency did was arrange a meeting. They met with representatives of the railway companies. The citizens' groups tried to explain their problems to the companies, and in some cases, some of the companies adopted some solutions.

However, when it came to noise, when the noise was a problem for people, the companies came up with all sorts of reasons. When it cost the company a bit too much, they did nothing. And if they were presented with good recommendations, they did not apply them or did not follow them, even though, in some cases, agreements had been made between the company and the citizens' groups.

I myself have met with members of the public, with citizens' groups, and even with representatives of the company, in particular in Hochelaga, the riding next to the Moreau yard. Even though we showed good faith, when we took part in that meeting—my colleague from Hochelaga was there—nothing came of it.

In any event, before the railway company representatives left the meeting, they said that the complaints merited consideration, but they never adopted any solution after that.

This is what people want and what this bill provides that is new: that from now on, the Transportation Agency can receive complaints and make and publish recommendations, and compel the companies to abide by them.

Obviously, it must be understood that we would have wanted more from this bill. It refers only to noise and vibration; it says nothing at all about environmental damage or the other requests that a number of my colleagues had made to me. Even though the railway companies make huge profits, they are not always inclined to comply with environmental standards, to pick up their garbage or what have you. As well, when they lay new tracks, they often leave all the wood lying there all along the rail line. They are in no hurry to clean up.

We were very aware of that and we wanted to propose some amendments. Yet the government went ahead and tabled its noise bill. Since we are on the subject today, we have to be very careful when we propose amendments: amendments that change the spirit of the bill are not allowed. As such, our amendments were automatically dismissed by the legislator or counsel representing legislative services here in Parliament.

Our colleagues submitted good changes and good amendments that they would have liked to have seen reflected in the act, but their amendments were found to be unacceptable by counsel for the legislators here in Parliament.

It is not that we did not try; it is that the law did not let us. Clearly, the government only wanted to address noise. Consequently, we could not move on other problem areas. We managed to include vibrations because they can be considered a noise problem.

As to the other interesting and intelligent amendments proposed by members of the Bloc Québécois and others, we could not move them through; the legislator found them to be unacceptable because they would have altered the spirit of the bill.

This bill includes other provisions concerning air travel complaints. There is to be a complaints commissioner who will address these issues directly.

As I am sure hon. members are all too aware, there have been a lot of complaints about Air Canada. So the complaints commissioner's office will also include a section to address complaints from citizens who were not served in their official language when using Air Canada services or who have experienced other problems related to airlines.

This will make it easier to file a complaint, and, once again, the office of the commissioner will have the power to intervene. We hope that this bill will be adopted swiftly.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and do not disagree with many of the remarks he made. I know that he was an active participant in the construct of this bill.

I also agree with him when he says that our rail system is stagnating. I know he is aware that we in the NDP have been aggressively trying to champion the state of our national rail system. Many of us believe that we should be making a conscious effort to get the freight off trucks and back on the rails where it belongs.

In fact, I have heard you, Mr. Speaker, make that very point in this chamber many times over the years.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster put forward some amendments to this bill, which I think were seconded by my colleague from Western Arctic. I am hoping that the Bloc can see fit to support these amendments when it comes time to vote. Specifically, they are Motions Nos. 2 and 5 and Motions Nos. 3 and 11. We are optimistic that we can count on the Bloc's support.

On the issue of noise, let me simply say that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is bordered by a significant rail yard where the hostlers are constantly putting trains together. I am well aware of how residents feel about the noise in the night as the hostlers couple the trains. Sometimes prairie trains are 200 and 300 cars long. A significant amount of that goes on.

However, that inconvenience is offset by the enthusiastic support that we as Winnipeggers feel for our national rail system. We lament and in fact we terribly regret and even criticize how the rail system in Canada has been dismantled systematically by years of neglect. It has been dismantled by successive federal governments that are not in favour of a national rail system and prefer to put the freight on the road, much to the expense of the environment, jobs and everything else that goes with it.

Having said that, I hope we can count on my colleague's support for the motions that the NDP did succeed in putting forward to amend Bill C-11. Perhaps he can give us that assurance today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the first part of his question.

With regard to rail transportation, I hope that my colleague realizes that there is another staunch supporter of the railway system, the Bloc Québécois. I agree with him insofar as the rest of Canada is concerned, but in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois defends the railway system.

From the very beginning, when Minister Collenette tabled the bill—a bill pertaining to VIAFast and a high-speed train between Quebec City and Montreal and Montreal and Windsor—the Bloc Québécois has been in favour of the project. That is why we are supporting this bill today.

The New Democratic Party has tabled motions to amend or remove, among other things, clause 3 of the bill, which states that the Transportation Agency shall have five members. There were seven and that number has been reduced to five. The witnesses heard by the committee clearly showed that it was possible.

First, the agency has been working with five members for two years for various reasons, including the fact that other members were not replaced and budget constraints. We feel that it has been proven that the Transportation Agency can deal with the number of files it has with five members.

I regret that I must say that we cannot support them in that regard. We can understand the government's budget constraints. We can work with the government as long as the budget constraints are reasonable. In this case, we thought that reducing the number of members of the Transportation Agency from seven to five was reasonable. Obviously we will be voting against the NDP amendments.

I am also aware of the last part of the question posed by my hon. colleague, concerning problems facing the railway sector. Yes, there are some safety problems. Yes, trains are now too long. This bill probably should have had some provisions in that regard. Trains are now so long that, in certain areas of the country—including Quebec—it is difficult for firefighters and paramedics to ensure the safety of citizens because roadways are so obstructed that emergency service vehicles cannot get through. This could not be included in this bill because the government had not listed it and thus it would have changed the nature of the bill.

This issue was covered in the amendments proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Yes, we would have liked to ensure that emergency services were able to travel more freely. We would have also liked to be able to limit the length of trains. We must force the government to introduce another piece of legislation or introduce private members' bills, which we could try to have adopted here in the House. Nonetheless, the amendments we proposed would have changed the nature of the bill and therefore were ruled out of order. Thus, it was not for lack of trying.

I understand my hon. colleague's problems. Things are going so well in the rail sector. As I said earlier, they are making plenty of money. We do not understand why they have not resolved the noise problem. Nevertheless, we will have to address the issue of long trains some day, because they are creating problems in certain areas of Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

(Motion No. 3 negatived)

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 4 agreed to)

The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 5 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 6 agreed to)

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 7 agreed to)

The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 8 agreed to)

The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 9 agreed to)

The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Motion carried on division.

(Motion No. 10 agreed to)

The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

Seeing no members rising, I declare the motion lost.

(Motion No. 11 negatived)

The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 12 agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The vote on the motions stands deferred until today after government orders.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-11.

The question is on Motion No. 2.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present this evening voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is against this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting in favour of this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is voting against the motion.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be included as voting in opposition to this, as well.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #120

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 2 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think of you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the votes just taken to the motion presently before the House.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #121

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.