Christian Ouellet

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my Conservative colleague is asking this question, since a ruling has already been given.

I would point out that when he read everything about where the money came from, he missed only one point, that is, that the money did not come from revenues or proceeds, or other such things. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation already has the money and is entitled to it. This does not involve any new revenue or tax money, not at all. It already has this money and is returning it to its coffers, which is very different. Everything that he read does not apply to this bill.

[Manufacturing Industry, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago, a hundred textile workers in my riding were temporarily laid off. This morning, we learned that a plant was closing, with the loss of 200 jobs.

We all know that the former government did nothing to protect jobs in the textile industry. The current government is refusing to do anything, such as apply safeguards.

Manufacturing jobs are rapidly disappearing all over Quebec. The government must put programs in place immediately to help workers who are losing their jobs.

Given that this sector is clearly in crisis, is the government telling workers that it still has no solution to offer them, that it has no interest in their future and that it has no programs for them?

[Social Housing, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, CMHC already has more than $4 billion in surpluses that the Minister of Finance refuses to use, and in addition, he is announcing further cuts of $45 million from the funds available for programs.

Rather than cutting $45 million, would it not have been better for the government to use all of CMHC's revenues to build new, affordable social housing? Building instead of cutting?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley how, partisan rhetoric aside, he can possibly think the negotiators had excellent skills? It is pretty clear that the outcome of the negotiations was not very good. His own minister pushed the negotiators into a situation that, at the time, could only end in reductions, given that he had already said he would accept less.

Second, I would like to ask the member how he can talk about stability? Just because something has been signed for nine years does not mean there is stability. He even said it could go on beyond that time. I feel it is presumptuous to think so. We all know that in this kind of agreement, anything indefinite cannot last. Companies were wondering whether they should sign, and now they are already wondering when it will be challenged. How can anyone talk about stability?

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

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.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

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.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

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.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

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.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly admire my colleague for her commitment to her constituency. What struck me in particular is her last point about abandonment of rail lines.

I would like to ask her if we believe today that abandonment of rail lines is a normal occurrence, or does this happen because of legislation such as this bill that does not want the government to help companies survive.

Since 1990, year by year, there has been an average increase of 2.3% of railway use. One year, the increase recorded was 6.5%. Thus, railway transportation has been kick-started. We cannot imagine that rail lines will be abandoned and sold to make bike paths or for other uses. It is fine to talk about urban lines, but there is another aspect. Some lines will help regional development.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the fact that, in 2006, we can even think of abandoning railway lines.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber on his eloquent speech about what people expect of the railways and of a law that has been a long time coming and that does not seem to measure up to our own expectations.

I would like our hon. colleague to explain that because it lacks standards, this law cannot really contribute to lasting change. I would like him to comment on the fact that a five-member agency is certainly less strong that a government that would include noise, vibration and pollution standards in its law. As well, it would be interesting to hear what my colleague has to say about tax incentives.

Could the government incorporate tax incentives into this law that needs improvement, something that the Canadian Transportation Agency will not be able to do if the government does not give it the opportunity?