Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

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

Mr. Chairman, as you know, this amendment deals with the same clause. We simply want to clean it up a bit. Lines 27 to 29 currently read as follows:

shall offer to transfer all of its interests in the railway line to the governments and urban transit authorities

We would like to replace that with the following wording:

shall offer to transfer all of its interests in the railway line to the governments, transit agencies or similar bodies mentioned in this section for not more than its

When people talk about urban transit, they tend to think of commuter rail systems. However, we want it to be understood that this includes public transit. We believe that saying “transit agencies or similar bodies” instead of “urban transit authorities” would be more realistic. I don't know what you think of this.

[Alain Langlois]

Could I ask Committee members to refer to clause 28? It has already been passed, but I am assuming that if this amendment goes through, we will also have to amend this clause. The term “urban transit authority” is defined in section 87 of the Act, as amended by clause 28 of Bill C-11. It provides an explanation of what is covered by the term “urban transit authority”. It reads as follows:

“Urban transit authority” means an entity owned or controlled by the federal government or a provincial, municipal or district government that provides commuter services in a metropolitan area.

When the bill was drafted, the legislative intent was to find a fairly general term that would possibly cover any public passenger and urban transit organization. That term covers anything that is owned or controlled by a municipal, federal or provincial government. As defined in the bill, the term “urban transit authority” is not limited to regular urban transportation. It is very broad and basically covers everything controlled by a municipal, federal or provincial government.

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

I have another problem with your definition. You are limiting this to metropolitan areas.

Now we are seeing public transit extend beyond the area covered by a CMA, or census metropolitan area, which is defined here. That's why we wanted to ensure that public transit agencies would be included.

I agree with you. If our amendment is passed, we will have to amend your definition. Under your definition, what happens to whatever that is outside the boundaries of census metropolitan areas?

[Helena Borges]

Mr. Laframboise, some companies that provide public transit services, such as in Montreal, are owned by the municipality. If Montreal wants to acquire a corridor for its public transit company, it can do so. That is already covered. That applies to any other city, such as Gatineau. Gatineau could acquire a corridor for its public transit company.

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

Yes, but when it's a public transit agency, such as in Montreal, the city is not the one making the acquisition.

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

It's the Metropolitan Transit Agency, or MTA.

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

The Metropolitan Transit Agency is the one making the acquisition, not the city or the province. It's a non-provincial agency which is managed independently.

You are setting limits. So, I would like our definition to be taken into account. Indeed, when we say “transit agencies or similar bodies”, that includes all public transit services managed by governments, municipalities or groups of municipalities. In some cases, they go beyond the boundaries of census metropolitan areas. Once you go beyond the boundaries of a CMA, your definition no longer applies.

I don't want this to be restrictive, because systems are now being developed that sometimes go beyond the boundaries of census metropolitan areas.

[Helena Borges]

I don't believe the definition includes any such restriction. It give priority to authorities covering several communities, such as the MTA. However, in a small town which may have two buses, the city owns the bus service company. Even here in Ottawa, OC Transpo is owned by the City of Ottawa. The municipality may acquire the entity, but in large metropolitan communities, it's a little different, because many municipalities are involved in providing the service. In that case, it is difficult for one of the municipalities to acquire a portion of the corridor. However, that in no way restricts the options for small authorities.

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

I just want to repeat that the wording we have proposed, which is “transit agencies or similar bodies” is much more realistic than the expression you use in clause 28 of the bill.

[Alain Langlois]

I understand your position on this.

The legislative intent, at the time the bill was drafted, was to allow public transit organizations in large urban communities, such as the Montreal Metropolitan Transit Agency, to receive the offer directly. Urban communities generally have high population densities. In the case of smaller communities not located in an urban or metropolitan environment, the intent, with the definition proposed in clause 28, was to cover that possibility through the municipalities.

Basically, outside of urban environments, a public transit agency cannot directly acquire a railway line. Consequently, as part of the process, a municipality does have the option of purchasing the right-of-way on behalf of the transit agency operating in the area.

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

I want to be sure you understand what I'm saying. Under this bill, the MTA will not be able to extend beyond the boundaries of the Montreal CMA if it wants to make acquisitions, because you are limiting this to urban transit authorities that provide transit services in a metropolitan area. Statistics Canada has defined these areas as census metropolitan areas.

The MTA may need to go beyond the boundaries of the Montreal CMA to make its acquisitions. I don't want the bill to propose restrictions in that regard. A number of public transit authorities may want to join together. Your definition limits the MTA to dealings with organizations within the CMA. But the public transit authority may provide service outside the boundaries of the CMA. That is allowed by governments and supported by the Government of Quebec, and municipalities do piggy-back onto the MTA. We want to be sure that the definition is not too restrictive. We believed that it was too restrictive. Ours is broader because it includes all agencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is it too late to amend clause 28, the “urban transit authority” definition, to be inclusive of what Mr. Laframboise has suggested?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I suspect we can only do that with the unanimous support of the committee, having already passed it.

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

I do understand his concerns, and I think they are legitimate. Certainly it should be restricted enough so as not to leave open a field of nightmares, as Mr. Masse has constantly reminded us of the legal obligations. Some sort of amendment to that would certainly be all right from the government's perspective, depending on the other members.

Mr. McGuinty?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If I understand Mr. Laframboise, he's suggesting that transit authorities are now running lines outside of census metropolitan areas and that we shouldn't be relying on the Statistics Canada definition of census metropolitan areas, although they change and the boundaries change, and they're updated from time to time by Statistics Canada. If I understand the purpose of the amendment, it's to facilitate the acquisition of vacant lines or disposable lines outside the census metropolitan area, outside the borders of the area, in order to facilitate the running of trains.

Did I get that right?

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

Yes, that's one of them.

Of course, Mr. Jean's proposal could be an attractive one if we remove the last line of the definition of “urban transit authority” as it appears in clause 28 of the bill, and specifically the words “in a metropolitan area”. If we did that, an “urban transit authority ” would be an “entity owned or controlled by the federal government or a provincial, municipal or district government that provides commuter services”. By removing the words “in a metropolitan area”, we would cover all such entities.

[Helena Borges]

[Inaudible--Editor] a problem. For example, we know that if the MTA belongs to the Province of Quebec, it serves the metropolitan Montreal area and all the surrounding communities. However, based on what you are proposing, that MTA could decide to acquire a corridor in Toronto, if it wanted to. It would be difficult for a railway to offer a public transit company from one metropolitan area a corridor in another place located further away. That would leave us quite exposed, because the railway company would have to offer that corridor to the government, the municipality, the province or the entity providing commuter or public transit services. That would be going a little too far. Metropolitan areas are very large. They cover a wide territory, and that would be a little difficult. It would be tantamount to giving the MTA the power to acquire a corridor here in Gatineau, for example.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As a suggestion on a way to maybe achieve this, and going back to the definition in clause 28, on that last line, if you were to leave it as it is and just say “in a metropolitan area or other area under their jurisdiction”, does that not address the issue you're raising, Ms. Borges?

[Helena Borges]

If we just deleted, at the end of the definition, “in a metropolitan area”, I think that would work.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That was what Mr. Laframboise suggested. I thought you raised an objection to that by saying it wasn't within their area of jurisdiction, and in effect they could buy one in another area. So if you substituted “in a metropolitan area” with “in an area under their jurisdiction”....

[Helena Borges]

Yes, something like that.

I think Mr. Laframboise is concerned about two things, including the “metropolitan”, right?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, versus the “non-metropolitan area”. And your concern is that one government or one authority should not, in effect, be given the ability to acquire something else, like Montreal buying something in Vancouver, for example.

[Helena Borges]

Exactly, so we're trying to mesh the two.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Instead of “in a metropolitan area”, if you said “in an area under their jurisdiction”, I think that would cover the legal aspect.