Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure there'll be a lot of controversy around this clause.

Essentially, what we are trying to do is provide, once we go the through transfer of a railway line to governments or to urban transit authorities—we know that's a significant improvement in this bill and that the urban transit authorities have been very clear in calling for it—an added category, which would be community organizations that would like to use the railway line for a linear park, or for purposes of bicycle networks within a community.

It's simply giving another option, once we get past government and urban transit authorities. We know that in many parts of this country we've had community organizations that have wanted to acquire rail lines or that have acquired the railbed itself to create linear parks and to create bicycle paths. It adds an opportunity for those community organizations, after the urban transit authorities, to try to acquire that land.

I don't think it's very controversial.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's very controversial.

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

Thank you, Mr. Fast. Okay, this shouldn't be controversial, I'll say instead, because essentially what it does is provide the community with the opportunity to acquire that railbed, and that's very important. That is why we are including it, and I would hope to have the committee's support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, just for the information of the committee, we are dealing with NDP-16, -17, -18, -19, -20 and -21, because again, if this passes, they all pass.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've had a rail abandoned in my community, and I understand the concern. But first of all, the problem with this particular provision is that it gives special rights to community groups, in essence, that usually don't have the financial means to buy something like this. It adds another process to a situation when, quite frankly, these infrastructure corridors are for transportation purposes, such as transit.

Today, in the growing metropolitan areas, especially in small communities, these areas should be maintained primarily for that particular purpose, in the government's mind. Giving non-government organizations special rights under this act would, I think, cause quite a bit of difficulty. Frankly, I think these transportation corridors should be left only in the urban transit mode and for urban transit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I have a few concerns with both NDP-16 and NDP-17.

First, there is the reference to community organizations. What is the definition of a community organization? Can it be two people? Those of us who have been in municipal government know that one or two people can call themselves an association. In fact, one person can. Some municipalities have tried to establish criteria for what a community association is, requiring them to have a certain number of members, to have a public meeting once a year, and to keep a record of minutes, but there are other cases in which groups call themselves whatever it happens to be and come up with a catchy name--“Save the Trail”, or whatever it is--and it can be a group.

Second, unless this is subject to municipal approval in some way, you've got a community organization that has no status and is unelected in effect potentially in conflict with, and maybe in some way in preference to, an official community plan that has been determined through a public process.

That's my concern. I think it's flawed. I appreciate the intention, because I've seen community groups such as the one I can think of on Vancouver Island, a community-based group that got involved with the railway to take on the rail line and maintain the rail service. It wasn't for some other use; it was to maintain the rail service, but in this case, I could very clearly see it intruding into an area of jurisdiction of another level of government--that is, the rights of a municipality. They know first-hand what the community plan is. They go through a process of public hearings, and there's input, and it's not just from organizations; community individuals have a chance to have their input at that time.

I really think it's flawed in trying to bring in community organizations, first because it doesn't define them in terms of the hierarchy, and second because of the potential conflict with official municipal or community plans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier is next.

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

I have the same concerns as those expressed by the last two speakers, and I recognize that the railway lines must continue to be used for public transit. That is the primary goal of this bill.

It would be too risky to add a potential, yet undefined, organization, as Mr. Bell just said. We should oppose this amendment in order to save our railway lines, so that they can be used for public transit, which is sorely lacking even today in our large urban centres.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

The amendment simply says that if the railway line is not used for transportation purposes, it must be returned to the community. I certainly understand Mr. Bell's point of view and I recognize that with the sub-amendment, the community organization's intervention could be subject to the approval of any affected municipalities.

However, there is also the reverse problem. In some communities, railway lines are not used for urban transit. One example would be Arbutus Corridor, in Vancouver: it is not used for urban transit. There is no transfer. Community groups do not use it. In fact, communities are not authorized to use that railway line. It is used neither for transportation, urban transit, or recreation. That's the problem.

That is a real shortcoming in this bill. That is the reason why we are proposing this amendment. If someone wanted to move a sub-amendment that would allow us to better define it, I would be perfectly in agreement with that.

However, based on the principle that underlies the amendment, the communities, with the approval of municipalities, can acquire the railway line precisely because no one else is using it. If it is not used for public transit, it can be used for something else, and that usage must be in the interest of the communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Shall the amendment carry?

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'd like to explore the idea in terms of trying to accomplish what we've agreed in principle we'd like to accomplish, which would be to make certain of these properties available to the community without necessarily making these properties available to communities beyond those that we would wish to do so; we're trying to box it in.

It occurs to me that he's suggesting that...in a case of this falling within a municipality, there would have to be the municipality's approval. That would offer the protection, it seems to me. You wouldn't have to define the community group in that case, because the municipality would make the determination as to whether this was a bona fide group.

[Helena Borges]

I think we need to clarify.

What we are suggesting here is that the municipality has the decision-making authority for any of these groups, and in this process what it's outlining is how the offer has to be made. If an interest group has an interest other than transportation, they go to the municipality, but the municipality has to get the offer and the municipality makes the final decision. Having a community organization without any legal power or any legal authority just--

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think Mr. Julian is prepared to accept that protection, I understand.

[Helena Borges]

Yes, but I think what Mr. Julian is asking us to add in here is yet a fifth level of offer to an entity that is not a legal entity, and we have no idea who they are. It could be, as somebody said, one person, and in the end this entity does not have the financial wherewithal to buy this corridor, right? At the end of the day, these corridors are purchased; the railway is offering it and they may have to sell it at salvage value, but there is a price for this. The municipality could do it on behalf of a community organization or on behalf of a transit entity or on behalf of itself, if it wants to buy it for another transportation purpose, but I wouldn't agree that we can include that kind of wording there. It's legally very problematic for us.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify that in the case of a legitimate community group that was recognized by the municipality, the wording in the bill would not preclude the municipality from acting on behalf of, or in partnership with, that group, or from supporting that group. I appreciate the intent, but the weakness in the specific wording in Mr. Julian's approach means you end up with bodies that have no support or definition. This term would allow virtually any group that the municipality was willing to support and for which they would act as the guarantor to make an application. If a group was in conflict with the municipal council's position, they wouldn't have a chance.

[Helena Borges]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we're forgetting something. This is for public transit and public commuter rail. Those of you who were here to hear the witnesses and who have spoken to the members of the rail industry know that they're very upset that we have stated net salvage value. That value, in many cases, would be below market value, and here we have community organizations with no public oversight that have the ability to purchase this for less.

This is cheap land. They could presumably, down the road, spin it out to the private sector for development. It's essentially expropriation by a non-government body. That's what you're doing. It's a door you never want to open unless you're a raving socialist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I think this begs for much further debate.

The reality, as Mr. Fast knows, is that many municipalities may choose for various reasons not to make that purchase, and community groups--and we've seen this with a whole host of rail bed situations--have actually fundraised actively and locally to make those purchases and acquisitions. We're talking about how it works out there right now, and we've seen case after case in which municipalities, for various reasons, have not chosen to go that route, but community organizations have.

If we add the protection that it is subject to municipal approval, then we are assuring the very legitimate concern Mr. Bell raised, which is a situation in which that community organization is in conflict with the municipality. We don't want that. What we do want, though, is for that to be available to the communities when municipalities can't, won't, or don't make that choice, but do support the idea that a community organization could do the fundraising and make the acquisition.

Now, this is after we've gone through the various hoops that are already situated in Bill C-11. It would mean after the possibility of urban transit has basically been expunged. We're at the point at which the land is there and there is an approval process with the municipalities; the community organizations do the fundraising and acquire that land with the approval of the municipality and in the interest of the community as a whole. I don't see what is so offensive—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This will never withstand a court challenge--never.

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

I don't see what is--

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You're going to be in court on those.