Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments and ask a few questions. You will remember that, earlier today, I pointed out to one of my colleagues from the same political party that he had made a mistake and I would like to quote the exact clause we were talking about. Then, I will tie up my comment to what my colleague just said and which is unfair and incorrect.
Clause 102 reads as follows:
102.If an owner's land is divided as a result of the construction of a railway line, the railway company shall, at the owner's request, construct a suitable crossing for the owner's enjoyment of the land.
And then in clause 103, it says:
103.(1) If a railway company and an owner of land adjoining the company's railway do not agree on the construction of a crossing across the railway, the Agency, on the application of the owner, may order the company to construct a suitable crossing if the Agency considers-
I made the same comment this morning, because the hon. member's colleague who spoke before said something else. I do not mean to say that he did not tell the truth, since he may have made a mistake, but what he said in the exact opposite of what I just said.
Having said that, I now worry about the Bloc members, because my colleague talks about a court which would not be unbiased. I find this shocking.
Then he says that Parliament gives it directions it must abide by, but then he argues that the court is not free, or rather that it is free, I do not know what his argument was all about. It is all very conflicting.
For my colleague's information, I would like to quote the following: "A direction issued under subsection (1) shall not affect a matter that is before the Agency on the date of the direction and that relates to a particular person". And then: "A direction issued under section 43 is not binding on the Agency until the expiration of the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after the direction has been laid before both Houses-"
This is a clear indication that there is a process in place, that the process is open and public, that it will be referred to Parliament, to a committee for further debate, etc.
If I had listened to every member of his party, I would have found similar mistakes. This morning, when I quoted from the document, why did his colleague not mention this mistake, why does he not recognize that we have an unbiased court and an open process, that what we are doing is both honest and right? Why are they always so negative when they do not need to?