Debates of Sept. 21st, 2006

Canada Transportation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill provided that it can be improved. I would like to speak about some improvements this morning.

First, I want to point out that there is a marshalling yard in my riding in the town of Farnham. It is a very big yard because all the trains that come from Montreal, from Quebec City and from Toronto are marshalled there before going to the United States, to New Brunswick and to all the other Atlantic provinces. The marshalling takes place at Farnham. So it is a very big yard that has existed for many years and is growing because rail transportation is growing as we have just heard. We therefore have a problem with noise, pollution and vibration. People naturally complain about what they hear the most, that is the noise, and they have been doing so for years.

The previous government did nothing; even though it is a federal line under federal responsibility. Nothing was done. Thanks to this bill, we hope to be able to accomplish something. However, we wonder why the government has not included noise standards in decibels, as is done in England. It is easy to do. With government help, the railway companies could install sound barriers around their facilities, which would greatly reduce the noise and bring about better management of marshalling yards. It would make a tremendous difference in terms of noise.

At present, the locomotives can easily marshal cars to assemble trains at five or six kilometres per hour. However, if they were required to assemble trains at a speed of one kilometre per hour or less that would impose a car-coupling speed limit on the train engineer and the noise would be greatly reduced if not almost eliminated.

So, there are two steps for improvement; the sound barriers to reduce noise and management of the operation. That should be written into the bill because the residents of Farnham have had enough of this situation. They would like to see the railway yard relocated.

As we know, it is not easy to relocate a railway yard. It costs a great deal of money and the company that operates the railway there, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway Limited, may not necessarily have the money to invest $10 million to relocate the yard. We notice as well that the bill does not offer any incentive to railway companies, which we believe should be in the bill.

At Farnham, in addition to reducing the noise, there could be other changes — and I will come back to that — on the noise pollution standards for locomotives that are used in the railway yards to assemble trains.

There are new locomotives that are called Green Goats. These locomotives are around now and are often made from old locomotives. The diesel engines, which are 30, 40 or even 50 years old, are replaced by diesel fuel injection engines. So they are very modern and make amazingly less noise. Actually these engines are recent and newly made. The level of noise and also pollution is limited since they are hybrid. That means they have 500 batteries in them. Every time they brake, they recharge the batteries. Also, since the engines are smaller, there are fewer problems stopping them. They stop immediately, as soon as they are not being used, instead of going on running.

In a railway yard, they say that a Green Goat locomotive uses 57% less diesel fuel. As you can imagine, that is huge. That represents a saving of over half the diesel fuel.

So that is half the pollution and, of course, half the noise too. Locomotives, even when they are idling, make a lot of noise in a railway yard.

These new Green Goat locomotives could therefore be proposed in a bill like this one and be just what is needed in all Canada’s railway yards.

There is something else about such a bill that seems surprising and that is that it does not talk about sustainable development. It does not mention that trains should comply with sustainable development., even though this theory has been developed for train and rail.

I would remind members that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development says the following in her report, which she will submit next week:

For the government, the sustainable development strategies of the federal departments and agencies are important tools which it can use to further sustainable development. We review the progress made by 21 federal departments and agencies to fulfil the commitments made in their sustainable development strategies.

But, as we can see, this bill contains no commitment to sustainable development. This is really very bad. Sustainable development is not just about protection of the environment; it is also concerned with social development. In other words, it takes into consideration the people who live close to railways, it takes account of railway transportation, which uses fewer resources and, obviously, development.

We get the clear impression that Bill C-11 is meant to be a turning point for Canada’s railways. It says that it “enable[s] competitiveness” In clause 2, which replaces section 5 of the previous act, I read that it also supports “economic growth in both urban and rural areas throughout Canada”. But nowhere in the text do we find out how that is going to take place. We are constantly referred to the Canadian Transportation Agency. In fact, five people, who can be easily influenced by the railway companies, are given full powers to develop the regions.

It is well known that regions cannot be developed without major inducements and without help for the railways. There is a railway in the Gaspésie in Quebec that is gradually dying and is being financially supported by the Government of Quebec on a temporary basis. This kind of thing is going to happen over and over because, for the last 50 years, we have only had programs to support truck transport.

Truck transport is highly polluting and dangerous, although fortunately it is finally becoming a little more expensive. It does not pay for the highways; it does not pay for one five-hundredth of the damage trucks do to the roads. It does not even pay for new roads. Trucking companies do not even pay enough to cover the damage for which they are responsible.

Truck transport is heavily subsidized by government. Yet we do not want to subsidize or even talk about incentives for railways, which would be less polluting, more efficient, etc., and do not have to go where the cars are, nor at the same time.

We cannot continue favouring trucks at the expense of trains. Trains are important to Canada and must be developed.

The bill speaks only about competition and market forces. We know very well, though, that they cannot take us very far. That is made crystal clear in a very interesting paper published in the United States by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which examines how trains should be developed in the United States. The government always seems to be looking to the United States, so why did it not look at this paper before introducing the bill? Now we will just have to amend it.

Ensure the level of federal involvement necessary for financing and system integrity,

Provide a stable system for funding rail passenger operating costs; and,

Create a dedicated, sustainable source of funding for intercity rail passenger infrastructure improvements.

It is obvious that in the United States they want to help the railway companies. They even say:

The history of passenger rail service in this country has led some to think of it as essentially different from other modes of transportation that serve the public. As a result, some think that rail service must be profitable to justify its existence. It certainly must be financially viable, but judging passenger rail strictly on its financial performance or its success in minimizing financial demands on the federal government is a test no other mode of transportation is asked to meet, nor can meet.

It is plain for all to see. The subsidies that the federal government is preparing to give to the railways in the United States could not be more evident. They add up to $17 billion over the next six years and $60 billion over the next 20 years—including the first six. People could say that the United States is very large, but it is not a lot larger than our country. It is important, therefore, for us to subsidize the Canadian railway companies if we want to ensure the sustainable development of rail. We cannot, therefore, rely solely on market forces, and it is unfortunate that this bill gives the impression that rail transportation can be developed in this way. That is not the way to succeed.

This bill talks about the “environment” but without ever saying how it could be protected.

This is, however, a very important factor. In a paper written here on the environment and development, it says that the sulphur—or smog—from fuel that accumulates near railways yards and wherever trains go in Canada amounted to 2,184 million litres in 2004, or a 4.9% increase over 2003. We are headed, therefore, toward an increase rather than a decrease in pollution that would enable us to breathe cleaner air.

In Canada, only 37.2% of the locomotives on passenger and freight trains completely meet the Tier 1 and Tier 0 standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, in the United States. The United States government has adopted standards, under the EPA, while in Canada it is the Transportation Agency that protects our environment. If the agency likes an idea, it will do it, and if it does not like the idea, it will not do it.

Why do only 37% of our locomotives in Canada meet the Tier 0 or Tier 1 standard? The answer is simple. Because, since 37% of our locomotives travel to the United States, we are obliged to meet that standard. If they operated only in Canada, it would be 0. Why? Because we have no standards and no commitments, nor are there any commitments in this act that tell us that we have to protect the air we breathe.

“Bringing locomotives in service up to EPA Tier 0 could be achieved in three years, if that were the law.” That is what it says.

Let us consider greenhouse gas emissions, GHG, in CO₂ equivalents. We know that CO₂ is considered to be a major factor in GHG, but methane is 21 times more powerful and NO_x, which comes from diesel fuel, is about 230 times more powerful.

In 2004, trains emitted 6,714 kilotonnes of GHG, of CO₂ an increase of about 1,000 kilotonnes over 2003. That is huge.

I will be told that there are more trains. That is true. As I said earlier, the number of trains has indeed risen. Nonetheless, we are not requiring that trains be more efficient nor that they respect the environment.

The problem does not arise only when the engines are operating at full power to pull the locomotives. For 83% of the time, the locomotives on freight trains are operating at idle or low idle. Why? In fact, they operate 24 hours a day during the winter, because it is too expensive for the companies to put antifreeze in the engines, and so they use water.

Instead of using antifreeze, they leave the diesel motors running, and they can consume up to 110 litres in a single night when they are idling. When a motor is idling is when it pollutes the most, because it is not burning the gases efficiently. When it picks up speed, it burns them, even though the smoke it emits is very black. Locomotive engines are being left idling like this. There is nothing in the act that says that all locomotives must have an automatic shut-off device, a device that is already available. They are already installed on some locomotives.

We have had pollution standards since 1990. Pollution has risen at an unbelievable rate, in all sectors: there have been increases in NO_X, in SO₂—the sulphur I was talking about—and in CO₂.

Here, the discussion is in terms of grams of fuel used. The problem is not that more is being used, but that the engines are less efficient than before. Why? Because they are not being maintained. Maintaining an engine is expensive. Because there are no standards, the preference is to keep them running until they break down. And that is when they pollute.

Anyone who has travelled to countries that do not have standards for truck transportation will have seen just how black the exhaust those trucks produce is. In other countries, the exhaust is cleaner even though they are using the same diesel. Why? Because there are maintenance and pollution standards in place.

Here, goods transportation contributes 94.8% of NO_X emissions produced by railways in Canada. Total NO_X emissions from rail transportation have risen from 109 kilotonnes in 1990 to 111 kilotonnes in 2003 to 117 kilotonnes in 2004.

This increase is constant, and it is due not to an increase in the number of trains, but to the fact that we let companies do whatever they want instead of helping them. Not all of these companies are raking it in. They do not all have CN's means. The company operating in my Montreal riding, the Maine and Atlantic Railway, does not have a lot of extra cash. It is breaking even, working well and hoping to make more money in the future.

I would like to end by talking about greenhouse gases. The transportation industry produces about a quarter of Canada's GHG emissions. Railways account for 4% of these emissions. This is a significant percentage, so we have to have increasingly strict standards for locomotive emissions monitoring—better known as LEM. As I said, emissions are not rising because there are more trains, but because trains are not maintained as well as they used to be. Their CO₂ emissions per revenue tonne-kilometre must be lowered to acceptable levels. Such standards exist. This act has to say that, now that trains will be less polluting, we will develop them more.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I was very impressed by his address and his statistics. I do have a question for him, however.

First, when one builds a house near a golf course, one expects golf balls. When one builds a house near an airport or a rail yard, one expects noise, which is not to say we should not do something about that when we can. However, people should wonder why they got such a great deal on their house.

There are some great ideas. I was not aware of the green coaches. First, does my colleague know how much they cost? Second, who should pay for things like that or for any sort of improvements that would ameliorate some of the issues about which he talked? Should we pay through tax credits to private companies to encourage economic growth or should we pay directly, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, to organizations like CN?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking this question, which I find very interesting.

First of all, I would say that, historically, people chose to live near a marshalling yard because they worked there. People could not be expected to build their houses in the suburbs, five or six kilometres from where they worked. It made sense for people who had no cars, only horses, to settle near the marshalling yards at that time. I am referring to the Farnham yard, at any rate, in my riding. Nearly all the houses date back to the 1800s or early 1900s. Later on, this became an acquired right.

If my hon. colleague is not familiar with urban development in relation to the railroad, I suggest he read some Canadian history books.

Let us get back to the cost of the Green Goat. A new Green Goat costs $700,000 and one that is rebuilt costs $234,000. Yes, I think that all Canadians should pay for such things, because they represent a social benefit for the entire population. Everyone, for the most part, pays for roads and vehicles. Why would everyone not pay for trains to be more ecological?

Indeed, the word "ecological" implies sustainable development. Of course the entire population should pay, because the entire population would benefit considerably.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for the excellent presentation he has just made and in particular for the environmental aspect of the debate that this bill prompts today.

We support his bill because we consider it to be a step forward. However, we would like to see it greatly improved. I hope that the suggestions offered today by our colleague fromBrome—Missisquoi will be listened to in committee.

In my riding, I see a problem with these railway yards, especially in the region of Saint-Joseph-de-Sorel. My colleague has examined the bill in depth. Often the problem comes not from the proximity of the railway yard, but from the time of day when the trains are assembled. For examples, the cars are moved from track to track at five o’clock in the morning or at midnight, when the railway companies should exercise some discipline and use the tracks earlier in the day to make these transfers or adjustments. That would satisfy a municipality such as Saint-Joseph-de Sorel, as well as the Tracy area, near Papineau street, both of which have endured these situations and which have fought for a long time to see some discipline imposed on the railway companies.

There is another aspect to consider. In my riding, in the Bécancour sector, especially in a small municipality like Aston-Junction, it sometimes happens that trains stand idle for half an hour on a track. That track is the only track connecting that tiny municipality to the main line leading to the larger urban centres. In the event of an accident or in a case where an ambulance or fire truck needs to enter the village, the street is completely closed.

It is my colleague's opinion that, when a single track separates a village from the rest of the main streets, a train should not be allowed to stand idle.

There is also the whole question of safety concerning the transport of hazardous products. My colleague spoke about that. It also occurs at the Bécancour industrial park. We recognize that security is very well organized at present and that there has never been an unfortunate accident. However, increased prevention is always a good rule when it comes to transporting hazardous materials.

I would like to hear from my colleague on the question of the time of day for assembling trains and also on the problem of access for small municipalities that are sometimes deprived of essential services that they need because a train is preventing vehicle circulation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for having raised these fundamental points.

The first point I would like to talk about is that of railways that cut municipalities in two. We have this problem in Farnham. This structural problem the city has is very hard for everyone, and has been for years, since the trains bang into each other and move back and forth day and night, around the clock. In the daytime, when we want to get across the city, we have to wait 20 minutes before we can do so. Access to ambulances and other vehicles is also more difficult then.

In my opinion, there should be incentives for there to be alternatives for getting across town. Moving the rail yards costs a lot and does not always correspond to the needs of the yards. We cannot instal them hundreds of miles away or even a few miles away. Sometimes this is not consistent with their needs. I think there should be bypasses, overpasses or raised crossings to have access from either side, without affecting the trains.

As far as the matter of the times rail yards are used is concerned, that is very complex. It would be a good idea of course if this were mentioned in the bill. But to my mind that cannot apply to all rail yards, since some of them need to operate 24 hours a day.

I think that if we instal hybrid locomotives that do not produce noise, if we put up sound barriers and if we set speed limits for coupling railway cars, the noise level of the trains will go down in decibels. This decibel standard would help us to achieve these results, even at nighttime, in some cases. Actually the rail yard at Farnham operates mainly at night since the trains leave early in the morning. In fact, they work 24 hours a day there. That would place enormous pressure on the company and would force it to work just in the daytime.

In my opinion these things have to be considered case by case. Still, if we are talking about a decibel standard, I think this problem would be settled for all rail yards across Canada.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member recognizes that we have inherited a tremendous 13 year mess from the Liberal Party. As such, it will take some period of time to fix all the issues, if we ever can, but the minister is committed. As well, the minister and I had conversation yesterday about green coaches and the benefits they provide to Canadians.

I can assure him that the minister is very concerned about Canadians. We are looking for the input of all members of the House as well as all Canadians.

Is it the member's intention that we follow in the footsteps of the United States on this issue? We and the minister recognize that we have a unique culture. Canadians are unique. The member has given many examples of the United States. Is it his intention that we follow in the footsteps of that country in relation to the transportation industry or is it necessary, as our minister and Prime Minister think, to have a Canadian approach because we care about the environment. We want to be world leaders on the environment, not taking actions or steps that other people take.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has asked me to clarify our intentions.

In addition to the Green Goat, something else should be included in the legislation.

Currently, even if we get hybrid locomotives, we are unable to use light and heavy trains on the same tracks. And yet, light trains are less expensive and create less pollution because they pull less. The former Bill 50 was unclear on this. I think the new legislation should now specify that, given the quality of the rails, light and heavy trains should be able to travel down the same tracks. There is no longer the risk of collision as previously thought. We now know that both types of train can stop within the same distance, so there is no risk. There are brakes that can make heavy trains stop just as quickly as light trains. The problem preventing both types of train from going down the same track no longer exists. It is important for this to be included in the legislation.

I, in fact, did not cite the U.S. as a model—far from it. I could have given the United Kingdom, France and all the European countries as examples. I only referred to one government, among others, that helps railway companies directly through incentives, by investing money directly. It would appear from the current bill that the government wants to withdraw all its help. However, this principle of help is not Canadian, it is neo-liberal. It is a neo-liberal approach that exists throughout the world, except that it should apparently not apply to rail. This approach is not Canadian, it is just neo-liberal and outdated.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House would agree that the government should bring forward Bill C-11. Dealing with the transportation act and railway safety is an excellent opportunity for the public to engage, through the committee to which the bill will be referred, in a debate on some of the very serious issues that have evolved around railway safety and in fact around the whole matter of transportation planning in Canada.

The comments made by all of the speakers thus far are excellent points and provide guidelines for the committee to look at: matters related to sustainability, environmental planning, working with municipalities, the whole gamut of strategic planning and, most important, engaging Canadians in a major debate with respect to how important all transportation modes are and how the Parliament of Canada views the input from Canadians.

As an example of that, we are involved in the Pacific gateway discussions. Through those discussions, as a sort of strategic overview, to compare it to the present legislation, Parliament is attempting to galvanize the Canadian public to see the opportunities to have a competitive and integrated transportation system that will funnel into the major ports of Canada and revitalize and put a keen edge on our economic competitiveness in a changing global economic environment.

Having said that, I note that the task, the challenge, of Parliament is to shape the issues through this legislation such that the committee in fact can embrace Canadians and involve them in that discussion. There are two issues on which the legislation falls somewhat short, I think, and where the committee could perhaps improve the legislation.

There are two areas. First is the noble challenge and objective that is stated in the bill to achieve that competitive edge and to bring those modes together into an integrated transportation plan. The legislation outlines steps on how that in fact should be achieved. That is the first point. The second is that the bill acknowledges that private-public partnerships are going to be important with respect to the future possibilities of attracting capital to invest in our railways, our airport systems, urban transit and all forms of transportation.

However, I would like to share my experience with the House. A proposal that goes through York South—Weston and in fact goes right through the GTA really represents a case study for comparing what the legislation is saying and whether or not the legislation will improve what is happening in York South—Weston and the greater Toronto area.

For the information of members of the House, York South—Weston presently has a private sector proposal to share the Weston subdivision in Georgetown rail right of way for a Pearson Airport-Union link to operate at the same time as improvements to the GO transit system, which is the major inter-community commuter urban system in the greater Toronto area. At the first meeting, when people were made aware with respect to this proposal, there were over 2,000 people.

I have an invitation for the member of the government who stood up earlier. In answer to a question about how people should be consulted and whether they should be consulted, or whether they should be very happy that they live next to a railway line and should look at any changes as absolutely positive regardless of whether they create noise, environmental emissions and so on, he said we should just remind them that they live close to a railway line. I would invite him to tell that to 2,500 or 3,000 people who felt a little different about the process. I say that to point out that people have a right to have input and can make substantive improvements through that input.

It is against this background that we all agree that a strategic plan with respect to how the modes of transportation are integrated is in the interest of communities and in the interest of the country. I want to point out some shortcomings, though, with respect to how that in fact is supposed to be done.

With respect to the present proposal that is going through the greater Toronto area, as I have described, there was very little initial discussion with the community. There was no talk of how the federal-provincial environmental assessment process should work. There was no notification that there was a private sector proposal and what its advantages were against a public sector proposal that would utilize the railway.

The reason it did not happen is that there was no integrated plan from the municipality or the transportation authority that would act as a guideline for the government to make a decision as to whether there should be a consultation at the beginning of the process. None of that was available.

The onus is on local government to make available what its integrated plan is. That was not there. The government should have insisted that this be presented. Otherwise, we are building roads to everywhere but we are not being tactical or strategic in terms of the utilization of the resources that are being made available or are asked for from the public, in this case the railways, to make their lands available for the use of this private sector proposal. That is the first thing.

When I look at this legislation, I see it as being very loose in terms of the role of municipalities when there is an application for a private sector proposal. There is very little in the way of rules or the availability of an integrated plan that would guide the government or, in the case of the railways, the railways, in deliberating whether that is in their interest or in the national interest.

As for the legislation stating that every three years the minister shall prepare a plan and report reviewing the state of transportation, it is not realistic for the minister responsible to then have another eight years in order to come back and make recommendations and so on. I think the immediacy of this challenge requires much tighter timeframes.

I want to take the balance of my time not only on that requirement to have an integrated plan, but to look at the section that deals with the process of public-private partnerships. Under proposed subsection 53.1(1) “every person is required to notify the Commissioner of Competition” that they intend to present an application for a private sector transaction. In proposed subsections 53.1(4) and 53.1(5), it is stated that if the minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, the minister simply has to notify the company or whatever that such is the minister's opinion. This does not delineate the degree of public consultation that must take place.

To go on to proposed subsection 53.1(5), the bill then states that if the minister is of the opinion that there is public interest involved, “the Minister may direct the Agency to examine those issues under section 49 or appoint and direct any person to examine those issues under section 7.1 of the Department of Transport Act”.

The point that I am making against what is happening in York South—Weston with respect to a private sector initiative, which may or may not be a good initiative, and there are many who feel it is not, is that there is not the same degree of due diligence on the minister to state what the public interest is and whether the private sector is able to meet that public interest requirement.

Those are the points that I believe the committee members should take into consideration. I hope that they will reach out and look at some case studies of private sector applications that are made, so that the legislation could be tightened up, both in terms of the requirement for integrated transportation plans and the process of notifying the public and protecting the public interest.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention with interest. In terms of rail--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. whip for the Bloc Québécois on a point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just realized that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre was true to form. I was getting ready to rise on a point of order to remind him that buttons of any kind are prohibited in this House. The hon. member did not have the courage to face a point of order and removed it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry but I cannot see what the hon. member is displaying, but I would ask him, out of respect for the opinion of his colleague, to refrain from displaying it and ask his question.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleague for reminding me that I just came from a press conference all about the effort to ban trans fats. I am very enthusiastic about this issue and my enthusiasm for banning trans fats motivated me to wear my button into the House of Commons.

In the interest of banning trans fats, I do thank my colleague for pointing out the fact that the whole country should be seized of the issue. We want to ban trans fats in all of Canada, including Quebec. There is a great deal of interest in the province of Quebec about banning trans fats. I notice that every time we raise it, it comes up on the front pages of all the newspapers in the province of Quebec. The public wants to see trans fats banned, so that is why I wore this button today and I did in fact wear it into the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Point of order, the hon. whip for the Bloc Québécois.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether we are talking about trans fat or Bill C-11 on transportation.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The point of order is well taken. I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to address the matter that is before the House at the moment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if there are not any other interruptions about what I am wearing, I would be happy to talk specifically about rail transportation safety.

I would like to ask my colleague about his remarks regarding transportation safety. Would he agree with me that there is a compounding effect if we ignore rail transportation safety?

A lot of us want to get the freight off the highways and back onto the railways where it belongs. The compounding effect I am pointing out is that the lack of action on rail transportation safety leads to less safe highways because there is freight. Anybody who has driven the Trans-Canada Highway lately will share the frustration that I do. One is just bombarded, almost swarmed, by transport trailers, by 18-wheelers, when that freight should properly be on the rail system.

Would he agree that this is an important integral element that we have to deal with when we talk about transportation safety?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the importance in terms of the basis of that question, an integrated transportation plan is based on the premise that the overall origin destination of goods and the transport of goods has to be balanced against the ability of the road system to distribute.

I think we all know, in urban areas, that rail has shifted to the periphery of the downtown areas. Intermodal connectors are very important to then bringing the ability of the road system to, one, have buses that can move along it, but also to have the trucking industry distribute the goods that the intermodal connectors would anchor.

What I was trying to say is that in the GTA, for example, there should be a master plan with respect to having each transportation system do what it is designed and engineered to do. If that is not the case, then there will be an increase in the hazards that accompany the use of the arterial road systems and road systems that are not built to carry heavy trucks. In fact, there should be an emphasis on intermodal connectors that would be part of an integrated plan.

The member is absolutely right from the premise he comes from. Canadians cannot help but be better served if the national government insists that there be partnerships across the country that plan their systems in order to achieve the objectives that the member has outlined.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill contains an interesting provision, whereby railways may be offered to transit authorities when they are no longer used to move freight and can be assigned. This will have an impact on public transit.

It will also have an economic impact on the contribution that can be made to improving public transit. For example, Bombardier's facility in my riding produces subway cars, and can also produce railway cars.

I would like my hon. colleague to tell me something. In the same spirit, would it not have been worthwhile for the current government to integrate in this bill what Bill C-44 provided for, which enhanced VIA Rail Canada's ability to develop its operations? We want transit authorities to be able to make the use of public transit more widespread. Should the provisions concerning VIA Rail not have been included and should the rapid rail concept not have been given a chance to be developed, as was attempted in the past with the high speed train? There are also other forms of activities in support of that.

Should the government not have included that in the bill it has introduced and which is before us now?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that aspect of the previous Bill C-44. I take it that my colleague is. I would suggest that this issue be taken to the committee.

The role of public operating agencies, whether they are intercommuter or commuting longer distances, and within those major corridors connected by rail and shared corridors, be it high speed or interurban systems, cannot help but serve the country better. When we look at the Pacific Gateway concept there is the opportunity to connect up those hubs with the best transportation mode that connects up into the overall gateway.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of rising on Bill C-11, which deals with two facets of transportation. The bill has some provisions on railway transport and others on air transport. In view of how little time I have, I decided to focus more on railways. My colleagues will probably have an opportunity, if they have not already, to speak about them as well.

I want to be the advocate in this regard of a resolution stemming from Quebec City. My colleague, the member for Québec, will surely join me in saying that the Bloc Québécois fully supports this resolution from the Quebec city council. I have here a copy of the resolution passed at the city council meeting on May 15, 2006. It deals directly with Bill C-11, which is before us today.

The resolution, introduced by councillor François Picard, seconded by Ms. Francine Bouchard, and passed unanimously by the city council, highlights a problem that has been going on for a good number of years. It has to do with the peace and quiet of people who live in the immediate vicinity of the Sainte-Foy marshalling yard.

Long trains are hard to make completely silent. However, I think that railway companies have a responsibility to be good corporate citizens and show some respect for the peace and quiet of people who live in the immediate vicinity. I know that just-in-time delivery, excuse my Latin, has always existed.

Mr. Speaker, you represent the riding of Winnipeg—Transcona and I know, because I have been there, that it is a major hub in railway transportation in western Canada.

I know that it is impossible to confine railway traffic to nine to five. Trains, by definition, are made to roll on rails and can arrive at any time of the day or night. However, most of our fellow citizens sleep at night. The railway companies should therefore be good corporate citizens and show some respect for the vicinity in which they are operating.

The Quebec city council is literally at wit’s end with a situation that has been going on for years. I am sure that the city council of Sainte-Foy, hometown of the current mayor of Quebec City, Ms. Boucher, has made many representations to the railway companies. Unfortunately, with the economic imperatives being what they are, the companies tend to maximize the return on their investments. I do not want to generalize and say that they always do so, but the financial and economic imperatives sometimes win out over the needs and expectations of citizens.

Unfortunately, it should not always be this way in our society. Companies operate in places where people live—women, men, children, families, senior citizens and people who have insomnia problems or are light sleepers.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to the Quebec City municipal council. In the last election campaign, we said that we, the Bloc Québécois members of this House, would be here in Ottawa to be its spokesperson. That was the purpose of my speech this morning, which was shared by my colleague from Québec City.

Quebec City is asking Parliament to classify night-time noise as a major nuisance that can affect public health and quality of life, in particular by disturbing the sleep of residents living near switching yards. One of the switching yards we are talking about is in Sainte-Foy, as I mentioned earlier.

I should have said, at the outset, that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, which will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Like most of the bills that come before us, it can of course be improved. By that I mean that it can be brought more in line with the public’s actual experience. Unfortunately, the vagueness introduced by clause 29 of the bill, which says, on the question of noise:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise—

By definition, the word “unreasonable” refers to a subjective idea. What is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to one of my colleagues. To another of my colleagues, it may be slightly unreasonable or, by his or her standards, extremely unreasonable. To someone with a more flexible frame of mind, it may be very reasonable.

A bill is composed of clauses that must consist of objective measures. It would be wise for us to improve this bill by rectifying this idea of unreasonable noise.

The Quebec City municipal council is also asking Parliament for clear and express wording to govern railway companies’ performance of their responsibilities in relation to the environment and the quality of life and health of people living in urban areas.

We should perhaps think of other types of nuisances. We are talking about noise, but what about oil and gas fumes? Is a railway car, a locomotive with an oil tank—oil being necessarily extremely polluting—that drips for hours and hours while it is parked and before the train is assembled a nuisance? We should ask ourselves that question.

The bill would benefit from improvements. We should not focus exclusively on noise. Certainly pollution from soil infiltration is as harmful as noise pollution, if not more so. We also have to consider that a locomotive weighing several hundred thousand kilos is pulling a very heavy train. When it rolls down the track, it creates vibrations. A vibration in a house or a bedroom can also be a nuisance, just as ambient noise is. This is therefore another aspect that it would be wise to rectify.

The excellent Quebec City resolution concludes by stating that the mayor or a member of the executive committee will present a brief, in Ottawa, and will ask to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Our transportation critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, and former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, is a member of this committee. Before being elected, he had the opportunity to learn about this matter.

I am sure we agree that this problem is not restricted to the Sainte-Foy marshalling yard. I am convinced it is found throughout Quebec and Canada.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the Quebec City municipal council on passing this resolution.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in Bill C-11 in the area of air transportation safety. I notice the bill does deal with the complaints division of air transportation issues. I want to know if my colleague has had similar experiences or if he has knowledge of experiences that I have had in being on a do not fly list that is maintained in the United States but which Canadian airlines have to pander to.

In other words, there is a sovereignty issue and a jurisdiction issue that somehow my name is on the United States' do not fly list so I am not allowed to have a boarding pass in my own country to travel from my hometown to Ottawa where I work. I know I am not alone. I know my colleague, the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, is also on this ridiculous do not fly list, but there is no way to get off it because we do not control it.

In the context of Bill C-11, could we not have addressed this basic, fundamental sovereignty issue that we have a right to determine in our country who is considered a risk? Canadian members of Parliament who have already cleared basic security checks should not be put on that list and be denied the right to fly on a Canadian airline domestically within our own country. It is absurd.

By way of background so my colleague can answer more thoroughly, I know there is no way to get off the list because I phoned the 1-800 number in the United States and I was told to send my passport, my birth certificate and my marriage licence to them and then six weeks later they will rule on whether my name shall be cleared. I am not prepared to get on my knees and beg the Americans to stop inconveniencing me.

Does the hon. member agree that Bill C-11 or at least the House of Commons should take some steps to protect the interests of Canadians as it pertains to air transportation safety?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may seem somewhat ironic that my colleague, the member from Winnipeg, is asking me to defend Canada's sovereignty when I personally support the sovereignty of Quebec. However, when it is a matter of strengthening Canada's position vis-a-vis the Americans, then I must agree with him.

ThisPrime Minister should take advantage of his visits to the United States. Today, he is in New York where he will address the United Nations. I do not know whether or not he has done so as I speak, but the current Prime Minister and the Conservative government should take advantage of the opportunity to distance themselves from the Americans rather than parroting them or agreeing, without saying a word, with everything the Americans say. I agree that this bill provides a wonderful opportunity to reaffirm that air transport in Canada is done differently than in the United States.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support what my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has said about the problem of the noise caused by the marshalling yards. There is a yard in the district of Sainte-Foy—Sillery, and this problem also exists in Charny, where the citizens are about at the breaking point and say they have had enough of the pollution, as my colleague the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord was saying.

Those citizens were recently the subject of a feature story on Radio-Canada. Bill C-11 is precisely designed to address the noise pollution caused by the marshalling yards. We have a resolution of the Quebec City municipal council. This resolution proceeds from the local council for Sainte-Foy, where the noise is happening. Many citizens from my riding have spoken to me about this problem, because the residents of Quebec City and Sillery are neighbours.

The municipal council has read Bill C-11. Its members say they will come to make presentations to have amendments made to it, for I believe that BillC-11 does not meet all of their expectations. I would like my colleague to tell me whether this bill truly meets the expectations on night noise. Quebec City is asking for a statement that night noise constitutes major pollution that can affect public health and quality of life. In its resolution, it is also asking for a clear and explicit formulation of the responsibilities of the railway companies, to set a framework for this initiative.

We are told that the Canadian Transportation Agency will have all the necessary latitude to meet the needs of the population of Quebec. Can my colleague fromMontmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord tell us whether this bill will meet the objective we want to achieve, and if it will meet the needs of the population and residents whose quality of life and sleep are being affected by this noise?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clause 32 of the bill in fact grants the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to examine noise complaints, so as to oblige the railway companies to take certain measures to prevent unreasonable noise. I spoke earlier about the terms “reasonable” and “unreasonable”. The bill could be improved in this regard.

However, it is worrying that the bill stipulates that the Canadian Transportation Agency, in its arbitration, must take into account the economic imperatives of the railway companies. This means that the Railway Association of Canada lobby will have to be prudent when dealing with the government and when making representations to the Canadian Transportation Agency, because the latter is a quasi-judicial agency, with the same powers as a superior court.

Even if the Railway Association of Canada were to recognize that there is noise and that certain aspects of the railroads are detrimental to the quiet of places and persons living close to the marshalling yards, it would remain guided by economic imperatives which do not permit it to resolve this problem. So we have to know how to establish a balance between the economic imperatives and people’s peace and quiet.

Which side will we come down on? Will we side with people, individuals and families, or with economic imperatives? The question remains, and it is our view that this bill should contain certain clarifications as to the power of the Canadian Transportation Agency.