Debates of Sept. 19th, 2006

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his intervention the hon. member brings to the House some of the historical relevance of what has happened in other governments. The member will know that clause 1 of the bill basically says that nothing in the bill will affect the responsibilities under the Constitution of the Governor General, commonly referred to as the royal prerogative.

For the clarification of the House and for Canadians, maybe the member would care to comment on whether, if the bill were in place, it would necessarily mean that we would have elections every fourth year. Or would the bill provide the flexibility and latitude that in certain circumstances the Governor General may call for an election and dissolve Parliament because of other circumstances such as, for instance, the death of a prime minister or war or insurrection?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to suggest that there is any slim chance the next election may not be in October of 2009, but I do think the member raises a good point. I would be the last person to ever engage in either parliamentary questions or issues of the Constitution with the member for Mississauga South, but the concern of course is that, yes, the way the bill is written, there is still every opportunity that the government could force an early election if it felt that was to its advantage.

Whereas this bill is singularly about fixing an election date, I think the prime result of this bill is that Canadians should know when the next election would be, barring a loss of confidence and what would constitute confidence in the House of Commons. The first section of the bill clearly does say:

Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

There are a lot of questions that need to be hammered out at the committee level in the sense of trying to come up with a bill that we could all support when it comes back to the House, a bill that would actually provide what it says it is going to provide, which is certainty around the timing of elections.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the question earlier about a concern that I truly have. I can see the issue being a real problem down the road.

I would like the hon. member sitting next to me to comment on a couple of things. One would be on priorities. The other is that the provincial elections in Ontario have been set for a certain date as have municipal elections. We know exactly when they are going to happen.

My concern is that if a minority government all of a sudden falls just before a municipal or a provincial election, two elections would happen at the same time. This would cause a lot of confusion. I do not see anything in the bill that would prevent this. There is a clause that allows for three days' movement, but that does not make any change to a whole election campaign.

Would the member be open to discussing an amendment that would allow that to be changed? I am not sure exactly what the parameters are. I have identified a weakness in it. Unfortunately, I do not have a solution.

I like fixed election dates; I think they are a good idea. However, I am really concerned that if there is an election at the same time as a municipal or provincial election and they are both held at the same time in perpetuity every four years, it would cause real problems not only for the parties, but also for the voters. It would be very confusing.

The other question I have is on priorities. There were five priorities and now it is down to four. Where does this come as a priority? It does not seem to be terribly high on the list. I never saw it before. All of a sudden it is a priority. It is the first item that we are talking about. Could you comment on that please?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming to address his comments through the Chair.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the issue conflicting with other elections is something that would have to go to committee. I do not know how to manage that.

I want to address the member's other question which is on priorities. This issue clearly is not a priority for Canadians.

As a result of budget 2006 we are seeing once again a growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Government initiatives in my view do little to help those who most need assistance. They do little to help students to gain access to post-secondary education, and do nothing for the productivity agenda which is so important to Canada. The government's initiatives do very little, if anything, for Canada's first nations people and do nothing for child care. There are all kinds of priorities.

When I went around my constituency this summer, people said to me, “The GST was cut, but I didn't notice. A penny and a half on a cup of coffee does not make a lot of difference to me, but if the personal exemption had been kept where it was, it would have helped”.

As priorities, this issue is not one of them. It has been presented as legislation and I will support it, but we could have done a lot more for Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak here today regarding Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I would first like to comment on the response given by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to the hon. member for Victoria.

The member said that when Quebec left and part of Canada was taken away it would not hurt British Columbia or any part of Canada. I disagree. I refer to the great English parliamentarian, John Donne, who said that when just one clod of earth washed away from the shores of England, when one was lost, it affected the entire country. When we lose one person, for whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee. Losing any part of Canada would have a great effect on all of Canada. It is a subject of great concern and importance to everyone.

Turning to the bill, most of the discussion so far has been on the philosophical aspects of the bill, but I want to talk about three technical aspects of it. The drafters and departmental officials may want to consider some technical points.

I want to talk about proposed subsection 56.2(1). This refers to changing the fixed election date slightly if there is a provincial or municipal election. The government philosophy that it does not want to conflict with other governments' elections is good. It could be a nightmare if two elections were going on at the same time.

Unfortunately, this section is very flawed, because it refers only to municipal and provincial governments. Canada is not made up simply of provincial and municipal governments. There are four orders of government in Canada and the federal government has neglected two of them: the territorial and the first nations governments. It was only a few parliamentary days ago when we had a vote in the House of Commons and only two of us, the member for Nunavut and I, voted against it because it referred to federal and provincial governments but had left out the territorial governments. Here again the territories have been left out.

If we characterize the current government since the election, it has been a government of omission: who has been left out; who has been left behind. Think about the low income people whose taxes were increased, as mentioned previously. Think about people with disabilities and seniors whose income tax increased from 12% to 12.5%. Global warming is having a dramatic effect on the people in the north while many of the climate change programs have been allowed to expire and are not being renewed. The aboriginal people were also left behind when the greatest agreement in the history of this nation, with funding of $5 billion, was abrogated. It was a good faith agreement and those people were left behind. Single mothers have lost the $5 billion day care program which would have given them some relief, some possibility of getting into the workforce and building new lives for themselves.

We are leaving behind geographically almost half the country: the territorial governments and the first nations governments. I want to talk about first nations governments. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, federal departments, agencies and politicians too often do not realize the new reality in Canada, the great land claims and self-government agreements. I am sure every member in the House is in total agreement with the modernization of dealing with these other governments in Canada. Too often we forget that we have made these arrangements.

When we sign deals with first nations, we have created new governments in Canada that in some cases have more power than a province. These governments have to be legally and morally dealt with on a government to government to government basis. We cannot just omit them when we are talking about governments in this country. We have signed deals that mandate consultation. We have signed agreements that are constitutionally protected in some cases that mandate consultation with these governments. Sometimes people do not understand and they think it is only the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but it is all federal departments and agencies and it is all politicians. We have signed these agreements on behalf of Canada and not on behalf of a single department.

I would certainly be looking for a technical modification to proposed subsection 56.2(1) to include governments that are omitted in the present drafting.

The only other major point I want to make relates to proposed subsection 56.2(4). My colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming made the same point. As I have said earlier, this is in relation to not having elections at the same time.

If Bill C-16 were to come into effect in its present form, the federal election would occur three days before all the municipal elections in my jurisdiction. Any member who has had the unfortunate situation of having two elections going on at the same time knows what a mess it is. When enumerators go door to door, people say that they have already been enumerated. There are signs of all different colours for different elections. The voters do not know which advance poll is for which election. It is absurd to have two elections going on at the same time. If possible, it should be avoided.

The bill will mandate that two elections go on within three days of each other in 2007. Some technical modifications are needed. I know the government is acting in goodwill. The government does not want to pile up elections. This was part of the government's philosophy in bringing forward the bill. Unfortunately, the technical aspects of the bill do not make that possible now.

The bill allows for small changes in timing, but only three days. It could be the day after or a week after, which in effect would only be three days from the election that I am talking about.

We need more flexibility in that section, perhaps a month, so that the Governor General has enough flexibility and that provincial, municipal, first nations or other government elections do not overlap. As the NDP member from Ottawa said earlier, when there are conflicting situations what happens is that the electorate stops showing up. There is already a big enough problem with that. We do not want to create more problems for the electorate which is already having a problem getting enthused with the process.

Proposed subsection 57(4) talks about changing the election day to the Tuesday if the Monday happens to be a holiday. That does not jibe clearly with proposed subsection 56.2(4) which talks about the alternate dates, because it could be the alternate Tuesday or Monday. Technically we must make sure that those two sections work together and that the results are very clear.

In conclusion, there are two major technical flaws with the bill. One is that the bill only talks about two of the four orders of government where the federal election date would be altered. The other is the bill does not have enough flexibility to change the federal election date slightly by a number of weeks, a month or so, in order not to conflict with a provincial, municipal or first nations election.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read a second time and referred to a committee)

Canada Transportation Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-11 which contains proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. Many of the clauses in Bill C-11 are taken from omnibus legislation tabled by previous governments which never passed despite repeated attempts. Bill C-11 is strategic in selecting high priority items, like powers to address railway noise, ensure proper advertisement of airfares and facilitating commuter rail for quick passage.

Bill C-11 is the second transport bill I have selected for second reading because it addresses high priority issues that were not addressed by previous governments. The current bill contains amendments to the Canada Transportation Act related to the general provisions, air provisions, rail passenger provisions, railway noise and grain revenue cap. Some of these issues were raised by members in the House during the second reading debate on Bill C-3. I am sure those members will be pleased that we are proceeding with the proposed amendments.

The government plans to table a third bill soon on amendments to the rail freight provisions of the act. These amendments will reflect the views heard during a final round of consultations with shippers to develop as much consensus as possible. The government has assured shippers that it takes their concerns very seriously and will be proceeding with a third bill on a priority basis.

I would now like to focus on Bill C-11, which aims to strike a balance between the interests of communities, consumers, commuters, public transit companies, and air and rail carriers.

We believe that these changes will translate into a better strategic framework, which will help Canada achieve its economic and environmental objectives, increase the efficiency of its transportation system and improve the quality of life of Canadians, especially those living in urban areas.

The proposed amendments include a modernized and simplified national transportation policy statement, which sets out the guiding principles in a way that is simpler and clearer than in the past.

The statement provides direction and guidelines for possible action plans, along with information on how to process complaints and arbitration applications submitted to the Canadian Transportation Agency. The improvements made to this statement are intended to address the concerns expressed by shippers.

Bill C-11 contains a number of provisions related to the role and structure of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The number of full time members of the agency would be reduced from seven to five, all of whom would be located at the agency in the National Capital Region. I believe that the efficiency of the agency would be increased if all members were located at the agency on a full time basis. This would be more consistent with the nature of the agency's decision making processes, which normally require more than one member to sign off on decisions, orders and findings.

At the same time, the concentration of members at the agency office in the same location makes it possible to reduce the number of members to five. This is not only an efficient measure; it would bring financial savings as well.

The proposed amendments would give the agency the statutory authority to engage in mediation upon request on matters within its jurisdiction. The amendments would ensure the adequate safeguards are in place to maintain its quasi-judicial role.

Mediation solutions can be simpler, quicker and less litigious and costly than other options. The lines of communication between parties during mediation typically contribute to a healthy commercial relationship after disputes are resolved. In addition, mediated agreements have higher commitment levels as parties jointly craft solutions and the process can assist in narrowing the gaps on disputed issues if brought before the agency at a later date.

Bill C-11 also provides for new measures designed to protect air passengers.

The government realizes that Canadians want to know the real price of a plane ticket in airline advertising. It would like the prices advertised for air transportation to be clear and transparent, and not misleading. The airlines have listened to consumers and taken major steps to guarantee greater transparency in their advertising. At the same time, consumers wish to make sure that the industry will continue on the right track.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-11authorize the minister to make regulations that would apply to all media, as necessary. The Air Travel Complaints Commissioner’s Office was created as a temporary, transitional measure in 2000, following the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International. Bill C-11 would replace the temporary function of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner with a permanent, transparent function imposed by the law for handling complaints about air transportation. This activity would be part of the regular activities of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The government recognizes the importance of the air travel complaints program for Canadians. Thanks to the amendments under study, Canadians will still be able to address their air travel complaints to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will improve the framework for passenger rail service in Canada by allowing commuter rail operators and VIA Rail Canada to seek adjudication from the agency if they are unable to reach agreement with the railways on access to track and other services when new agreements are negotiated or existing agreements renegotiated.

In addition the line transfer and abandonment provisions will be extended to include urban corridor and urban transit authorities. Bill C-11 will give the agency the authority to settle noise disputes if voluntary efforts are not successful. The agency will be able to order a railway to make the necessary changes in order to reduce unreasonable noise levels associated with railway operation or construction.

Governments need access to good data to help develop and assess transportation policies and programs. The existing data provisions in the Canada Transportation Act will improve to add security as a purpose for which I can collect data. The amendments will also expand the list of stakeholders from whom data can be gathered and improve on the administrative penalties that can be applied if reporting requirements are not met.

The amendments in Bill C-11would introduce a new merger review procedure, which would apply to all carriers and service providers under federal jurisdiction, for example, air, rail and maritime transport, bus and truck transportation, and airports and seaports.

This approach would build on the strong points of the merger review process now in place for airline companies.

This process was put in place with the amendments made to the Canada Transportation Act in 2000 as a result of the issues of public interest raised by the acquisition of Canadian Airlines International by Air Canada. This new mechanism replaced the requirements of the Competition Act respecting merger reviews.

Here are the chief elements of the proposed provision respecting mergers:

Merger applicants must address specific issues in the new merger review guidelines.

I will be authorized to appoint someone to review the proposed transaction if the proposal raises enough issues with respect to the public interest as it relates to national transportation.

The provision provides for a single government decision to be made so as to avoid duplication. I will handle public interest concerns, and the competition commissioner will look at competition concerns.

The proposed amendments include a new provision that authorizes me to enter into an agreement with a provincial authority under which the provincial authority would regulate a federal railway.

One other main element of the previous Bill C-44 that I would like to explain is a proposed new provision on the grain revenue cap, which limits the amount of revenue that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway can earn from regulated grain movements in western Canada. The provision is linked to the costs of maintaining hopper cars for such movements. On May 4, I announced that the government would retain its fleet of 12,100 grain hopper cars in order to maximize benefits for farmers and taxpayers.

There is a provision in Bill C-11 that would enable me to make a one time only request to the agency to adjust the revenue caps to reflect the current maintenance costs for all hopper cars used in regulated grain movements. This will more closely align the costs in the revenue caps with the actual costs of maintaining the hopper cars in revenue cap service. Estimates show potential savings for farmers of approximately $2 per tonne or about $50 million per year based on an average movement of about 25 million tonnes.

I also want to explain the proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act. They are fairly straightforward. The Canada Transportation Act authorizes federally regulated railways to establish and operate their own police forces. CNR and CPR maintain police forces as do provincial railways and transit authorities. The duties of railway police constables relate to the protection of property owned or administered by the company, and of the persons and equipment on that property. Only a judge of a superior court, upon the application of a railway, is allowed to appoint, dismiss or discharge railway police constables. The power to appoint police constables is being moved from the CTA to the Railway Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act deals with matters pertaining to the safety and security of railways, making it a more appropriate statutory authority to deal with railway police.

In addition, amendments to the Railway Safety Act will require that the railways establish an independent review mechanism for responding to public complaints against railway police. The review mechanism will be filed with me for approval.

In closing, I want to reiterate that Bill C-11 is consistent with the government's legislative strategy for amending the Canada Transportation Act. The strategy is to proceed with amendments that stakeholders are already demanding, have awaited for several years, and that reflect extensive consultations and consensus building.

I believe that the proposals contained in this bill will have strong support from stakeholders and that they look forward to early passage of the bill. I encourage all members to give Bill C-11 their full endorsement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for appearing this morning and sharing with us the salient features of Bill C-11. There are obviously many questions from members here that run through the essential elements of the bill.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister on being here this morning. We have not seen him for a few weeks, even though the important issue of security at the Montreal airport has been under discussion. This is a rather disturbing issue for Canadians.

It is important to raise a couple of core points before responding officially to the government's bill.

I have a couple of pointed questions for the minister that deal with what is not in the bill as opposed to what is in the bill. I do also at the same time congratulate the minister for his candour in reminding the House of Commons that the vast majority of this legislation is in fact legislation from our previous government. There was an awful lot of heavy lifting done by government officials and all members of the House, but I do want to give him those kudos because it does take great big shoulders to admit that the lion's share of the work here was accomplished by previous governments.

There are two pointed questions I want to put to him. First, if I understand the bill correctly, this bill provides new powers to the minister and the government to devolve further the responsibility for federally regulated railways, and this at a time when the government represents a government which strictly interprets the Constitution and responsibilities. Is that the case?

Second, there is no talk at all in the bill about final offer arbitration, a very contentious issue. I would like to ask the minister for his views in this regard. Why is final offer arbitration not addressed in the bill?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very happy to see my colleague. I know that in a recent radio interview, he had indicated that we had progressed quite well over the last three years in ensuring safety in airports, and I am quite pleased that he also was able to admit it with full candour.

On the issue of the rail amendments and what we are doing, the purpose of that amendment is to enable Ottawa to receive the authority to go forward with its light rail train. That is the essential purpose of the amendment.

On the issue of final arbitration, there are several opinions on that. It is quite possible that we will ultimately go in that direction, depending upon the circumstances.

I know my hon. colleague is probably referring to shippers and the rail freight issue. We are moving on that. Discussions are ongoing. Hopefully, the parties that are involved will be able to come to some solution. In the event that is not the case, both of us will be able to sit down and look at how we can push that forward and move the file forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the minister on his presentation about Bill C-11.

Perhaps I could ask the transport minister to think back to his career in the municipal arena. I say this because clause 29 refers to noise. I would just like to explain to the minister that whole communities are experiencing serious problems with marshalling yards.

In reality, as we know, federal law takes precedence over provincial law and even municipal laws. As the clause is written, when determining whether a company is making excessive noise, the Transportation Agency is limited by the company's obligations and operational requirements. This is therefore related to how the company operates and what constitutes reasonable noise. Municipalities do not work in this way. A municipality would have set standards to obey, with decibel levels.

I would simply like the minister to send an important message, especially to the Transportation Agency, to avoid the tendency to target industry practices and instead make sure the industry can adapt to the surrounding area. Clearly, it is important to ensure that the Transportation Agency plays more than just a mediation role. Cooperation has to be facilitated, and in the end it has to be possible to impose standards when the industry does not want to listen. In many places, mitigation measures have been taken and discussions have been held with the companies in operation. But the parties do not reach an agreement, because there is too much noise for the surrounding area.

I would therefore like the minister to tell us that he will keep abreast of this situation and will make it clear to the Transportation Agency that steps must be taken to solve the noise problem.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our role as legislators is to ensure that what we enact in the House is something that will work properly and can be carried out.

I agree with the comment by my hon. colleague, that in municipal government, a determination has to be made as to whether, for example, the level of the noise made by heavy vehicles exceeds 50 or 55 decibels. In that case, the public can call for a noise wall to be erected or other measures taken.

I am certainly open to examining these things. However, I mainly want to convey the message that if Parliament intends to correct this problem, we will have to work together to find ways of doing it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for describing some aspects of this new bill, the principle of which is a very good one. He is establishing mechanisms that will encourage dialogue so that communities and transportation agencies will finally start talking to each other and also introducing measures designed to protect the environment and correct noise problems.

I know that there are problems in my part of the country, in British Columbia. So let us hope that this bill will help to solve them, or at least to open the way for dialogue so that these problems can be resolved.

I have a question to ask regarding the amendments, in relation to abandoning rail lines.

In my part of the country, in British Columbia and specifically on Vancouver Island, a rail line was to be abandoned by CP Rail and VIA Rail. I know our communities up and down the island spent years trying to arrive at some solution. The process was cumbersome. It was not transparent.

Therefore, I truly hope the bill will help in the future and will continue to help our communities, which are trying to make this rail line run better to serve our communities.

I have a question concerning one of the proposed amendments. There is a suggestion that it will extend the measures that relate to the transfer or the abandonment of rail lines that can be used for public transportation or transit.

Could the minister tell me whether he feels that this will also apply to the use of possible abandoned lines as cycle paths in the context of the Canada Trail?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I do, quite humbly, think that the amendment provides a benefit for all these transportation companies that are asking to be able to use the existing rail lines, and that it protects consumers from prices that might be charged. We had to find a way of enabling these transportation companies and public transit agencies to be able to operate, while at the same time ensuring that consumers come out ahead, because fundamentally we need to be able to use these infrastructures for the common good, the good of the public.

On the question of these rail lines, my colleague is of course referring to policies that were applied several years ago, when a number of rail lines were transferred, for example, in Quebec, to regional municipalities or local authorities. Some of them ultimately recycled the rail lines by making them into bicycle paths or pedestrian trails.

We can study this. I must humbly say that I do not have the answer to my colleague’s question, but this question can certainly be raised during the debate that will take place in committee in the near future.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to respond to the minister and to speak to Bill C-11.

Today we begin debating Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I am pleased that this debate is taking place as it will enable us to help Canadians understand the path that this project has taken.

Amendments to the Canada Transportation Act were introduced for the first time in Bill C-26 during the second session of the 37th Parliament.

Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister and the rest of the Canadian Alliance at the time were opposed to these measures and voted against them at second reading.

We reintroduced these amendments in Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. Once again the opposition at that time felt that the bill presented to the House was not good legislation. It decided to bring down the government and at the same time to drop the bill for a second time.

If this sounds familiar, let me assure the House that it is not déjà vu. One of the last debates that was held before the House rose this past spring concerned Bill C-3, the first bill brought to our consideration by the Minister of Transport in the 39th Parliament. During the debate on the bill, I welcomed the minister's decision to bring important legislation, which had died on the order paper, back to the floor of the House.

Bill C-11 is the second bill that the Minister of Transport has introduced in this session, which relies on the heavy lifting of a previous Liberal government, and it will not be the last.

We are happy to see the minority government again endorsing solid Liberal legislation in actions rather than words, by pushing for Bill C-11's quick adoption in the House. While we agree in principle with much of what is being presented, there have been substantial changes to the workings of the bill. My colleagues and I will address some of these and outline our concerns today and in the days ahead. In turn, though, the onus remains on the government to convince us and Canadians that the legislation is still well-founded.

The parliamentary history of the bill is important at the outset for our context and so too is the wider history of the two bills that Bill C-11 aims to amend.

Back in 1996, a decade ago, the first of the two, the Canada Transportation Act, laid out our national transport policy. It was really a vision to modernize and deregulate rail and airline traffic. It consolidated the 1987 National Transportation Act, which itself had roots in a 1967 predecessor, and the venerable Railway Act into one unified law. At the same time the new Canada Transportation Act took steps to reduce or eliminate subsidies for transport, costs that were borne by all Canadians.

The second act to be amended by Bill C-11 is the Railway Safety Act. The act allows Transport Canada to review and upgrade the regulations, the standards and rules for rail safety oversight. It is precautionary legislation and should be the home of our attempts to improve the safety for the millions and millions of children and pedestrians, motorists, travellers and workers who come into contact with trains every day across our country.

A thorough statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act was completed again by our government in 2001 and it was very important in forming Bill C-11 by way of its earlier incarnations. The bill we debate today is the third attempt to legislate following that review.

Let me begin our consideration with provisions that are similar in principle to the most recent version that we presented, Bill C-44.

I would like to review some of the provisions of this bill beginning with those concerning noise caused by railway operations.

My riding, like a good number of Canadian communities, is home to railway activities and I am fully aware of the disputes arising between residents of the communities and the railway companies because of noise.

I am pleased to see that proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act empower the Canadian Transportation Agency to deal with noise complaints and, if necessary, to order railway companies to make changes in order to reduce unreasonable noise.

This is an important matter, one aspect of the problem that my colleagues and I look forward to examining in greater detail.

Also on the subject of rail, proposed amendments in Bill C-11 involve the expansion of the provisions on railway line transfers and discontinuances to cover rail corridors, such as spurs and sidings, in urban areas that could be used for urban transit purposes.

As members may know, I have long been a strong proponent and advocate of public urban transit. In fact , right here in the city of Ottawa I was pleased to help deliver $200 million of federal funding to expand our own O-Train.

Steps that we can take to improve public transit and advance the use of rail in Canadian cities are worthwhile undertakings. Giving a right of refusal for urban transit authorities to purchase rail that would otherwise be abandoned is very good public policy. That is why two previous Liberal ministers of transport have tried to pass the legislation through the House.

On a related subject, I am also frustrated with the government's ill-informed tax break on public transit passes.

Many riders, as we know, do not have monthly or yearly passes to use public transit. In fact, many users forgo passes for the flexibility of tickets. The most needy riders simply do not have the wherewithal to buy an annual pass. Studies that were shown to the Minister of Finance before he took his decision to make transit passes tax deductible, and brought to his attention by his own officials, demonstrated that tax deductible transit passes did not encourage increasing ridership and did not have the corollary intended effect of substantial greenhouse gas reductions that the government purported they should have. The cost per tonne of GHG reduction through these transit passes is exorbitantly high. This again speaks to the pattern of the government of never letting the evidence get in the way of governing by tax credit.

The Conservatives should have spent the budget money on better infrastructure and lower rates for all users.

However, getting back to Bill C-11, if these amendments mean more urban rail, then I say that we should take a look.

The minister has asserted that Bill C-11 would bring clarity in airfare advertising by giving the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to regulate advertised pricing of airfares. The goal, of course, is to indicate all fees, all charges and all taxes collected by the airline on behalf of a government body or an airport authority. It must also disclose the price of an airline ticket for both domestic and international travel.

If these provisions, which are also inherited from our Bill C-44, ultimately help everyday Canadians to more readily understand and determine the total cost of a travelling ticket and the terms and conditions that apply to its purchase, then I will welcome them on behalf of my constituents who, as consumers, face a barrage of misleading information, often from the travel sector.

Bill C-11 would create a mediation process for disputes concerning federal transportation matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Agency.

The member for Outremont, as Minister of Transport, delivered legislative language to this House on this for us because mediation is less litigious and therefore quicker and cheaper and ultimately leads to friendlier resolutions in transportation disagreements.

Bill C-11 would add security to the list of purposes for which transportation data can be collected by the minister. This is an expansion of the minister's powers that was fiercely resisted by the Canadian Alliance the last time it was debated and fiercely by the Prime Minister the last time it was debated.

As someone who witnessed the events of 9/11 as a visitor in Washington D.C. on the morning that those awful events occurred, I am open to considering such measures. We need to give our government the tools to protect us in the event of threats to Canadian life that are meticulously planned and malicious.

However, I recognize that this provision sets off alarm bells for many actors in Canadian society, not least because it would allow the minister to set administrative monetary penalties for individuals or companies that do not supply data that the minister might request.

As I indicated earlier, the onus is on the minister to justify this expansion of his powers to all Canadians. I look forward to the explanations from the minister about the import of certain other provisions as well. Let me briefly outline some of them.

Bill C-11 would reduce the number of members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five. We just heard the minister state that this would lead to cost savings. I would be looking for the numbers. If we move from seven part time members to five full time members now resident in the Ottawa area, I would like to see the numbers to substantiate this claim that it will amount to cost savings while at the same time the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency is being seriously expanded.

Our proposal was to streamline the agency in Bill C-44 and it could have been law by now. The minister will have to explain to Canadians why fewer members can do the job better than the seven who are currently endorsed, while the mandate of the agency is being expanded in the act.

Bill C-11 would allow Transport Canada to review mergers and acquisitions in all federal transportation sectors, not just airlines as our Bill C-44 planned in the last Parliament. This is a very large discretionary power, a power that is being invested in the minister and in the government. I imagine that the government would say that it is necessary to protect the national interest. However, it is a provision with economic consequences. I would ask the minister to outline his rationale for this incursion, for this disturbance, for this fettering of the market. It is unusual to hear a Conservative government speak of fettering the marketplace, particularly as it expands into the precious area of mergers and acquisitions.

Bill C-11 would require companies to set a process for complaints against their railway police constables under the Railway Safety Act. This too was part of our inspirational predecessor Bill C-44. It refers to the creation of an internal complaints process rather than a government process or board of some sort. Is an internal process up to the job? The minister has not addressed the question at all. By demanding that records be kept it should permit us to retrace the facts and timeline of any complaints.

One area that has attracted public attention and will inevitably require the government's thorough explanation is the elimination of the post of Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Many Canadians will recall that this position was introduced by the Liberal government in 2000 with the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

Bill C-11 would officially merge the complaints process into the mainstream of the Canadian Transportation Agency dropping the more autonomous ombudsman-like position which heretofore found its way into the office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Why? We have supported this position in the past and we may be prepared to do so again but not without a full and frank examination of the point.

Bill C-11 is composed of amendments that are the fruit of extensive consultations that our government conducted to update the legislative framework of our national transportation system. The way that Bill C-11 is currently written, the minister would be required to report on the state of Canadian transportation every three years and carry out a new statutory review of the Canadian Transportation Act eight years after Bill C-11 enters into force.

All of this being said, I must wrap up on a note of disappointment. Section 43 of Bill C-11 alludes to a major reversal in policy, a decision taken early on by the minister that has rightly upset farmers right across our Canadian western provinces.

The Government of Canada made a commitment in 1996 to transfer the federal fleet of hopper cars to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. The final commitment was signed in the fall of 2005 but the Conservative government has now reneged. We have no explanation and no understanding. The minister spoke moments ago about cost savings and about a net saving of $2 per tonne of material shipped. No evidence has been presented to the House and I see no evidence at committee. I am looking forward to hearing why it is the government has reneged and why farmers continue to pay more than is necessary to ship their product.

My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, has mounted a passionate opposition. We will hear from him again on this subject in due course.

I do commend the government for reintroducing many of our forward looking transport measures in this 39th parliament. For the most part, with Bill C-11 the minister has again lent credence to that old literary maxim that goes something like this, “sometimes good writers borrow, but great writers steal”.

I wish to be clear that there are significant new provisions in the bill. As such, I look forward to working with hon. colleagues from all parties to properly and thoroughly examine and revise Bill C-11 in committee.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's presentation touched on a couple of points on transportation but the one that leaped out at me was in his closing comments on the Farmer Rail Car Coalition and how this government did not honour the so-called agreement that his government had inked with FRCC in the dying days of the last Parliament.

If the member were to check that out he would find that the cabinet table, consisting of Liberals and so on, had signed off on that initiative but the Privy Council Office had not taken that route. Therefore, there was nothing to honour that this government was forced into.

We took a look at a number of different things that were pertinent to the future of rail transportation, especially in my area on the prairies. Even good Liberals, such as Red Williams and his group, Agrivision, out in western Canada have done an exceptionally good study on the use of container cars as opposed to these bulk cars and saying that is the future and that hopper cars will become obsolete in the very near future.

The Wheat Board has continued to study that initiative and it is saying the same thing. It says that there is a tremendous opportunity for the back haul on a lot of these container cars coming in, especially from the Pacific Rim, China, Japan and so on, and we can be shipping our product back in that, a more specialized way of doing it when we get into the niche and innovative market that is the future for a lot of western Canada.

I am wondering why he would hang us with that 10 year old program that was out of date at that time? Why does he not allow us to move into the future, which containers will give us?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to hang no one. This is not about hanging anyone. What this is really about is to actually make sure we achieve the appropriate balance between the needs of our farmers who are facing excessive shipping costs through the system that we presently have.

I am talking about a deal that was negotiated over many years. The member himself, in the preamble to his question, made it very clear when he said that cabinet had supported the measure but that the Privy Council Office was opposed. In my understanding of the Constitution and the workings of the federal government, it is not for the PCO to tell cabinet what to do. It is for the cabinet to instruct PCO what to do. The Privy Council Office, as the department of the Prime Minister of Canada, is in no position to overturn a cabinet decision of this kind.

I think the minister has to come clean for us on this. The western farmers who have contacted me and many of my colleagues in our party are deeply disturbed by what they are seeing. They are asking how it is that they will save $2 a tonne, as the minister asserted only moments ago, by keeping 12,100 rail cars in the government's ownership. This again I find a little bit rich because the government, presumably, is a Conservative one. It speaks often about unfettering the marketplace. I am wondering how it is that keeping 12,100 cars in the hands of the federal government is not fettering the marketplace.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member who did a good job describing what Bill C-44 was and what he sees now in Bill C-11. However, I have the feeling that I understood something that I hope I failed to understand. The hon. member said that the train subsidies were eliminated in Bill C-44 and that is continued.

I have the feeling that I must have misunderstood because trains are the future, the future of our country, and not the past. They are the method of transportation that will be the greenest and the most economical and that will support all our industries and jobs.

Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the government should encourage a transportation system that will both protect the ozone layer from greenhouse gases and do miracles in regard to energy expenditures?

All countries now help their railways. The leader is the government of the United States, right next door to us. Although the United States favours private enterprise, it provides generous assistance to railway companies because otherwise they would not exist. I ask the hon. member, therefore, why he thinks the subsidies for railway companies should be eliminated when we provide lots of them for roads.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

He is perfectly right. He misunderstood what I said. At no time did I say that the railway subsidies in Canada should cease. To the contrary, what I would have liked to raise with the minister, if I had had a little more time, is the fact that he mentioned three or four times in his presentation that Bill C-11 would apparently have a positive effect on environmental protection.

What I find a little frustrating when I read the bill is the fact that the words “greenhouse gases” do not even appear in it. At a time when this minority government seems to be saying that it will propose a new environmental strategy for the country, the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the minister do not mention the greenhouse gas issue at all in the bill. My hon. colleague is quite right when he speaks about the positive effects of using the railway system in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases.

However the government, which is supposed to be formulating a new environmental policy, misses this very opportunity at a time when we need it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his thoughtful analysis of some of the issues. Because I also believe that railway is the future, I want to talk a little bit about railway safety.

As some members might know, there has been a frightening increase in rail accidents in British Columbia. The former Liberal government's last attempt to deal with this matter was to ask CN to develop its own proposals, which was ridiculous, it seems to me. I am wondering if the member would now support the proposal to launch a public inquiry into Canada's sagging railway safety record.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are in a position to support the idea of a full commission of inquiry into rail safety. I would like to hear more and I would like the committee to hear more, but I can tell the member that I am very deeply concerned about what can only be described, I think, as the missing in action strategy of the Minister of Transport around safety generally.

We have not heard a peep from the minister with respect to the Montreal airport security breaches of just two weeks ago. He has not issued any statements. He has said there is some sort of internal investigation. We have seen nothing brought forward to reassure the Canadian public travelling through airports that this is in fact being taken seriously.

We have an outstanding issue with flight attendants and the ratio in our airplanes, something that we may be taking up at committee again, hopefully this week. Once again the minister has been missing in action. We have heard nothing about his views on this issue. It speaks directly to the question of safety and security.

The member makes a very good point. I would like to see the government actually step up and take ownership now as we move forward in the wake of the five year anniversary to commemorate the 9/11 victims and their families, which the Prime Minister went on television to commemorate. I would like to see what the Minister of Transport in fact is going to do as opposed to say about airline and rail security.