This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was impaired.

Topics

Motions in amendmentCanada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, section 95.1 addresses the noise made in railroad yards by railway companies. This bill truly addresses the noise problem. The railway companies have to make as little noise and vibration as possible, among other things by taking into account the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

I would like my Conservative colleague to confirm that the people who live next to the Moreau station in Hochelaga, the Joffre railroad yard in Lévis—Bellechasse, the Farnham railroad yard in Brome—Missisquoi or those who live next to the Pointe-Saint-Charles railroad yard in Jeanne-Le Ber can be assured that the Canadian Transportation Agency can intervene to prevent companies from making excessive noise. They must cause as little noise or vibration as possible.

Motions in amendmentCanada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, at committee we had a very fulsome discussion about railway noise. It probably took up most of our time. There were suggestions made by Canadians from across the country. We had people from across the country giving input. We even set up special teleconferencing to enable people from the west coast to participate in this process. They made one thing clear. They support the transportation system in Canada. They support railways, but they also believe that railway noise must be put in the context of quality of life.

I know that the hon. member from the Bloc played a very critical role in making sure these concerns were raised. I think he would agree with me that we have come up with a very good compromise bill. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a significant step forward in addressing the issue of railway noise. I appreciate his support in committee and in the House in supporting the bill.

Motions in amendmentCanada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know you are only going to give me a few minutes before you cut off debate and everybody is transfixed to hear what I have to say.

My first reaction is: What a wonderful bill. Another week and another Liberal bill recast as a Conservative initiative.

Members will know this bill because it appeared in the previous Parliament as Bill C-44, and it was for a wider transportation policy to address a series of issues. Now, Bill C-44 has been broken down into three parts, and this is one.

I am going to speak for about 10 minutes to ensure that everybody understands the benefits of the bill. I do not want to be too critical, but I noted that there are some members here who are particularly interested in one aspect of this bill that merits reinforcement; and that is, those agencies, corporations and entities that are engaged in commuter railways and commuter traffic and who depended on a change in the national transportation policy are addressed to ensure that they were included in transportation issues to the benefit of all consumers and commuters because they are one and the same. The bill in its initial format, and now repeated again, addresses issues that are of concern to them.

One is access to federally regulated rail lines that might be declared surplus, or not, but certainly to have commuter agencies at least access them so that they can be maximized in their utilization for the purposes of consumers.

Second, to establish under this act opportunities to arbitrate on what amounts might be charged by the tier one railways to some of these commuter lines. So, to have not only access but to arbitrate on a fair process of remuneration in order that these agencies function in an economically feasible environment. I think I have that right.

Then, finally, to have, when there is a disposition of these access lines, the valuation process be one that makes it feasible for commuter agencies to acquiesce the purchase process and then to make the application for commuter use in an environment where there is a valuation process that makes it fair for those agencies to function.

Members must remember that I am talking about federally regulated rail lines and federally regulated agencies.

What we had envisioned under Bill C-44, and now repeated in Bill C-11, was a process whereby the interests of the user, the end user, in this case the commuter as an end user, be part and parcel of transportation policy.

I know that the debate so far on these amendments has focused on where a member of the board of directors would live or not live and who would get the advantage in terms of getting employment. I think that is nice. It is fine to do that. However, the most important issue is to keep in mind how we develop railway policy throughout the country.

When I said that this is another Liberal bill being re-presented and cast by a minister of transport who is accustomed to borrowing good ideas from the Liberals, it makes one wonder if actually he is a Liberal. Hold on. I think he was.

Nevertheless, we can become once again what we were generated to be, at least through the ideas and legislation that is going to help Canadians everywhere. I think that there were three sections especially that were presented to committee members. While I was not there, they are issues that are--

Motions in amendmentCanada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, but he will have six minutes left in a 10 minute speech when the House takes up this topic again.

The House resumed consideration, from February 5, of Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-31.

Call in the members.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #99

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I think you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote previously taken to the motion now before the House.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it agreed?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #100

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declared Motion No. 2 lost.

I also declare Motions Nos. 4 to 9 negatived.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

All those in favour will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

In my opinion the yeas have it.

The hon. chief government whip on a point of order.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote previously taken to the motion before the House, with Conservative members voting yes.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it agreed to apply the vote just taken to the motion now before the House?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.