Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

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

Just take out “metropolitan” and change it to “in that area”. Remember, the “urban transit authority” definition goes to a lot of other sections in the act as well. Just taking out “metropolitan area” and saying “in that area” is pretty straightforward. It's very common-sense. I think our interpreters could come up with that pretty easily.

[Helena Borges]

It's just that because this wording comes up several times in the provision, we're going to have to go with the drafters and look at how it applies. In essence, we don't disagree with that, but can we leave this for the end and come back to it if we have time, or maybe work with the drafters? We'll see if that works, but we understand what you're getting at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

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

I would like a clarification. My colleague was discussing his apprehensions with respect to the definition proposed in clause 28, because of the extension of lines outside the metropolitan area. That is the future. Right now, there is a project underway in Montreal which is intended to provide service to people living as far away as Saint-Jérôme. I don't know whether Saint-Jérôme is part of the metropolitan area, because I haven't checked that, but that could be one case. The fact remains that even if it is serving populations located outside the metropolitan areas, the transit authority is still required to serve the metropolitan area. Given that fact, would an urban transit authority in a metropolitan area that wanted to serve a population outside the area be covered under the definition we have now? It seems to me that the term “metropolitan area” is quite significant in terms of our main objectives here. My feeling is that service provided in a metropolitan area would be included in the definition proposed under clause 28.

[Helena Borges]

I believe it is covered under the definition of “urban transit authority”. The owner of the MTA is the province. It's the same thing in Toronto, with GO services, and in Vancouver as well. I believe it's covered both ways —by the offer to the province and the offer to the urban transit authority. That is the intent of this provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I ask then that we perhaps stand this and have some of the department look at all the consequential amendments that may follow. With agreement, we'll stand clause 39 until the end and ask the department to check into where that change impacts throughout the bill.

(Clause 39 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to)

(On clause 42)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

For clause 42, go to page 38 in your program. We have a Bloc amendment, BQ-9.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Are we on clause 42? All right. This amendment replaces lines 21 and 22 on page 26 with the following:that it plans to dismantle, except for sidings and spurs

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry, Mr. Laframboise, there was no translation. Would you repeat yourself, please?

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

There is no difference. Pardon me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Moving right along, Mr. Laframboise, will you withdraw that amendment?

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

Mr. Chair, actually the English version is different. It says at lines 21 and 22, “that it plans to dismantle”. It would take out “and that are located in metropolitan areas”. So the English version is different.

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

It's to correct the English version. Sorry about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to remove the words “and that are located in metropolitan areas”. So, the idea would be to update the list of all the sidings and spurs to be dismantled, and not only those located in metropolitan areas. That makes sense, because it fits with your previous amendment, which was intended to expand the area of coverage.

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

You're right. The amendment is intended to remove the words “and that are located in metropolitan areas”. The idea is for there to be a list of all sidings and spurs to be dismantled in the entire area, not just those located in metropolitan areas.

You're right. Thank you, Mr. Julian.

[Helena Borges]

I just want to explain the difference between a railway line and a siding.

Without a railway line, sidings are of absolutely no use to a public transit company. If we include all sidings in Canada, it will create a lot of administrative problems for railway companies. Here, we want to assign them to public transit companies. That's the reason why we want to limit this provision to sidings located in metropolitan areas. If we broaden the geographical area that's covered, the definition will include a siding located in Northern Ontario, for example, where no one lives. That would create a lot of regulation within the system.

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

Yes, but the purpose of this, once again, is to operate a public transit service. The principle is the same one as previously. If we want to go outside metropolitan areas, we will have to ensure that development can go ahead outside the boundaries of CMAs, because that is the point we're at now.

This amendment is consequential on the one we were discussing earlier. I want to allow a public transit association or authority to operate its network. We were talking about the definition earlier. I think we will probably arrive at a compromise where we say that the metropolitan area has to be served, but once we're outside the boundaries of the CMA, we have to allow for the development of sidings or spurs that maybe located outside the CMA.

[Helena Borges]

Later on, rather than referring to the geographic area, perhaps we could try to include a specific reference to the actual public transit or commuter service activity. By removing any reference to the geographic area, we would cover all of Canada, and it would be difficult to require...

I think we could make more specific reference to public transit or commuter services, rather than removing the reference to metropolitan areas. The intent is a little different.

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

Yes, I understand.

My intention here is not to offer sidings and spurs to just anyone. However, I do want it to be possible for them to be used to expand the public transit system even when they are outside the boundaries of CMAs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chairman, railway companies already have such lists. There is nothing special about this. It's not as though they don't have any idea what's going on within the railway system. They already maintain such lists.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Laframboise's amendment makes perfect sense. It goes back to what we were talking about earlier. They already have a register of railways sidings.

[An hon. member]

They do?

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

Yes, of course they do.

[Helena Borges]

Under the current wording of the Act, reference is made only to corridors and main lines. It doesn't talk about sidings.