Robert Carrier

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation given by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in which he spoke in general terms about his activities within the department. However, I did not hear any convincing arguments concerning the throne speech itself.

As a Bloc Québécois member, I would like to discuss an issue that, I believe, is crucial. Now that Parliament as a whole has recognized Quebec as a nation, I think the government missed out on a good opportunity to make certain gestures after such a fine declaration. This is important to all Canadians, but most of all, to Quebeckers.

I would like to discuss more specifically the federal spending power. For the past 50 years or so, this federal spending power has been denounced in Quebec, by both the Liberal Party in power and the Parti Québécois. The Séguin report, whose author was a Liberal, recommends that, and I quote:

Quebec vigorously reiterate its traditional stance concerning the absence of a constitutional basis for “federal spending power” since this “power” does not respect the division of powers stipulated in the Constitution.

This is merely one element I could mention. Building on the recent recognition of the Quebec nation, the throne speech timidly proposes limiting use of the federal spending power, but only in shared cost programs. Shared cost programs are practically non-existent. Here in this House, the government tends to adopt programs that interfere in provincial jurisdictions, such as the mental heath program and the cervical cancer program. Both of these programs involve political interference in the area of health care, which falls under provincial jurisdiction.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that my colleague in the NDP expressed about air safety. However, in view of the fact that these safety management systems already exist in actual practice, one of the things that we wanted to ensure in committee was that the government oversight and inspections would continue. This is not always the case now. This provision was added in response to the representations made by federal inspectors. We also added a detailed description of these famous safety management systems.

Insofar as the necessary safety and protection are concerned, this bill is effective and adds to the safety we should have. I would like to know what the hon. member’s views are on this.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my NDP colleague and I will forgive him his lack of familiarity with the bill because he does not sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In particular, he spoke against the safety management systems in the present bill that are not being eliminated by any amendment currently before us.

We in the Bloc Québécois had the feeling that we ought not to eliminate all aircraft inspections. That is why the NDP and the Bloc moved an amendment specifying that the Minister had to maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety.

I think that this amendment, which is part of the committee's report, assures us that the government will not be divesting itself of its responsibilities even though a safety management system is being put in place. Rather, I believe he is talking about the designated organizations that he would like to eliminate from the bill with his last amendment.

The minister's obligation to do all these inspections is being retained. Whatever safety management system is put in place that enhances safety, the government will not be divesting itself of any responsibility and will thus be protecting the safety of the entire population. I would like to hear my colleague on that subject.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify this important point.

Obviously, at the beginning, as I said earlier, we did not support the bill, which would establish a safety management system. To us, it was somewhat abstract, and it seemed to be beyond oversight, in terms of government responsibility. However, we satisfied ourselves that all inspections of the system done by federal inspectors would be continued.

I have read the amendment that is part of the report tabled, and it is quite important. It says "the Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister".

This means that obligations were added that were not there in the bill at the outset. It simply referred to establishing the safety management system in a general way, even by designated organizations for companies that were able to set it up themselves. That was of considerable concern to us in the beginning, as it was to you.

However, by maintaining the minister's obligation to continue all inspections that are in fact done, we made the bill acceptable, particularly given that safety management systems have already been set up in a majority of the major airlines. It is therefore a system that has been tried and tested.

We heard testimony from pilots. They told us that it was a good system. They were reassured by the fact that their companies had their own safety management systems, that they were not simply relying on a federal inspector who makes regular visits, although I do not know exactly what the frequency of the inspector's visits are. Still, if we are completely assured that at least the same level of inspections will be maintained by the government, the system put in place once and for all should provide us with better safety in future. We certainly must not simply rely on an inspection that may be done every six months or once a year.

Therefore, with a system that is kept in place permanently, we should be even safer. We must not, however, eliminate the companies' obligation to submit to inspection by the federal inspector who is really there to check that everything is as it should be.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at the report stage of Bill C-6. After first reading and the debate at second reading, the Bloc Québécois was opposed to the bill. We had a lot of concerns about comprehensive safety management systems, which came with no guarantees that the detailed inspections by federal check pilots could continue. At the same time, there were many signs that the number of check pilots would be reduced in the future.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and I studied the bill carefully. The committee held 11 meetings to hear witnesses from all the stakeholder groups—pilots, federal officials, lobby groups—and six special meetings to examine the bill clause by clause. After studying all the clauses, we wrote a report, which was recently tabled in the House and proposed 20 amendments to the bill.

The Bloc's concerns have to do with the safety management system and the designated organizations, because we did not have a clear idea of what responsibilities they would have in the overall system.

We heard the different parties, including Justice Moshansky, an aviation expert who even conducted an inquiry into a plane crash. He said that the clause on designated organizations should be kept, but with provision for oversight. This is what we did, as it was clear to us that, in light of all the positive comments we had heard, this safety management system could give good results.

However, we made sure government inspections would continue, in particular by means of the Bloc amendment, which stated:

The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister.

We proposed this amendment, which was included in our committee report, because we wanted to ensure that the inspections that are already part of the air transportation system would continue, despite the more general implementation of safety management systems.

In this way, we made sure that Transport Canada would not just have audits of the systems themselves done and not carry out its own visual and technical inspections of aircraft. By doing this, we are bringing about what the minister and the department were talking about—a dual safety system—and not just replacing inspections with a safety system. Continuing with the inspections and implementing the systems across the board ensures that, as a basic principle, all companies will be governed by a safety management system. We can at least rest assured, thanks to the continuing inspections, that the system itself will improve safety overall within companies.

However, I am particularly disappointed that 16 last-minute amendments are being introduced at this stage. Of these, 10 or 12 have been moved by the NDP. One amendment asks for the elimination of clause 12. We studied designated organizations together at length and now, all of a sudden, we are told that all that will be eliminated, at the last minute, even though these views were not accepted when the bill was studied in committee.

The most surprising is the government's amendment No. 2, which seeks to eliminate everything pertaining to safety systems. The NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals worked together to come up with a good definition, which was not in the legislation. It is a matter of regulations, establishing regulations for safety management systems.

We went to the trouble of spelling out the definition of these systems. Suddenly, at the last minute, just before the vote, the government wants to eliminate this definition—which is very binding for the government, it is true—that allows us to give our full support to this bill.

My colleague read it earlier, but I think it is important to read it again:

(c.1) safety management systems and programs that provide for

(i) the appointment of an executive

(A) responsible for operations and activities authorized under a certificate issued pursuant to a regulation made under this Act, and

(B) accountable for the extent to which the requirements of the applicable safety management system or program have been met,

(ii) the implementation, as a result of any risk management analysis, of the remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety,

(iii) continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved, and

(iv) the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system or program;

This is a set of obligations for companies and their staff to ensure real involvement in this safety management program.

We also looked at railway safety, where safety management systems were implemented roughly five years ago.

We heard from a number of witnesses during consideration of safety. Most of the witnesses said they had never heard of a safety management system in their company.

With this legislation, we want employees and bargaining agents to be involved and play an active role in the safety management system. We do not just want to have a nice system that comes from management and is in the company's files, but does filter down to the core to ensure full involvement of the entire company.

Today, the government is proposing to eliminate this entire nice definition that we worked on together. It is not very reassuring as far as any wish they might have to implement a good safety management system, which we subscribed to only after examining it and hearing from all the witnesses.

I noticed earlier that the representatives of the official opposition will not support such an amendment. They took part in this, just as we did. We do not want this amendment to be adopted. They put forward three or four other admissible amendments that simply make corrections to the text.

I hope this amendment will not be adopted. I also hope that after the bill has been considered by the other place, there will not be any surprises, like the ones we had with Bill C-11.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. That definitely shows that the Conservative members, who boast about doing good work because they are in government, are at the mercy of a primarily western based Canadian majority. I know that, during our committee discussions, the Quebec Conservative representative seemed to agree with all the arguments put forward by the groups. In particular, those from his own riding of Lévis—Bellechasse came to present their grievances, of which I read a portion earlier on.

That really shows that in important matters, the Quebec contingent, who find themselves in a large Canadian group, readily fall silent to let the so-called big blue machine move on. The Bloc Québécois, however, continues to examine each bill on its merits in order to obtain the best outcome for our citizens. We have retained our freedom of speech, and express ourselves in accordance with our conscience and the will of the people.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the official opposition for her question. Obviously, the aim of the amendment proposed in committee was to acknowledge the position of people living near railways. Indeed, the intent was to require companies to cause as little noise and vibration as possible, taking into account the potential impact on people who live next to railways.

That was lacking in the legislation. People living nearby were not mentioned. It was somewhat abstract. This is precisely why these residents could never win their cases against the railway companies. Indeed, it was a simple question of the operational requirements of the railways. However, this also has an effect on people's health. For instance, the testimony I read earlier clearly outlined all the repercussions on the health of the people who live near the marshalling yards causing problems.

It is therefore important to retain this amendment. We do not have to accept on bended knee the amendments from the Senate that would have us remove this, taking into account only the arguments offered by the railway companies, who, of course, made their views known. After all, the fewer legal obligations they have, the easier it is for them and the more profits they can generate, without having to think about their social responsibilities. We, as parliamentarians, need to consider these responsibilities. That is our role.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Although I am an engineer, we cannot go into this too much today. The word "vibration" was added to the question of noise primarily at the request of citizens' groups who complained about vibration in some cases, and not just about noise.

We had ultimately concluded that most of the time there are two interconnected phenomena: when there was noise, there was also vibration, in some cases. Obviously, the vibration will be felt more, the closer the houses are to the railway. However, the type of soil itself also has to be examined for each location, because some qualities of soil transmit more vibration than others.

When you are very close to rock, obviously you feel less vibration. It depends on the subfoundation. Depending on whether the soil is clay or sandy, and depending on the depth of that layer of soil, it can produce more vibrations, according to the distance of course. There again, in terms of the soil, if any attention is paid to this issue in a bill, I think that those calculations will have to be done so that it can be determined, for each location, how far away the houses must be located from the railway, and vice versa, to avoid the vibrations being felt in the homes.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

I will not begin my presentation by saying that I am pleased to rise and speak today because today I do not feel any pleasure, but rather shame, before the amendments that have come to us from the Senate. These amendments defeat the significant amendments that were made to Bill C-11 and passed unanimously in committee.

I am ashamed because the Senate did not do its job properly. It only met with railway companies, which told it all about their dissatisfaction with the bill. The Senate report even quotes their arguments. We read there that the Canadian railway companies claimed that a new standard could have considerable economic consequences in the absence of a standard based on the reasonableness of noise.

So the companies played the economic argument, but we must not lose sight of the purpose of the bill, which was not to try and make railway companies as profitable as possible. That would have been studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Rather the bill was designed to deal with numerous complaints from our citizens who live close to railways. These citizens are penalized by the operations of these companies, which as a rule do not listen to the citizens’ complaints. If you are an MP, you represent all your fellow citizens. MPs contribute by developing bills in our fine parliamentary system in order to improve the living conditions of their fellow citizens.

The members of the Senate said themselves they held five meetings to study this bill, which is so important to us. I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We held 15 sessions just to meet with witnesses. Of these 15, some 10 were an opportunity to meet with citizens, groups of citizens and representatives of cities who told us about the problems they have been experiencing for a very long time. Representatives of the department and railway companies also shared their comments with us on the bill, and answered our questions.

In addition to the 15 sessions we had with witnesses, we held six sessions specifically to do a clause-by-clause study. After meeting with all the witnesses, each of the parties studied the problem and proposed amendments with a view to improving the bill. The committee was unanimous in passing the amendments adopted at third reading.

I am relatively new as an MP and I was pleased to see that we could draft a useful bill that would improve life for my constituents. I have talked about this bill in my riding to illustrate my work as an MP. I do not know how I am going to explain to my constituents the situation we are in right now, but depending on the result of the vote on this bill, I will have to say a few words about those who are undoing the democratic work that we undertook.

It is important to point out, as my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said earlier, that members of the Senate are saying that if their amendments are not accepted by the House, they could nonetheless pass the bill quickly.

The fact that the government party seems to want to give in so easily and destroy everything that was done in committee and in drafting the bill, adds to the frustration and shame I feel about the way the Senate operates. The Conservatives seem to be saying that this will all work out.

This eliminates any possibility of making these improvements. The official opposition party seems to want to do the same thing, since it has the majority in the Senate and was lobbied by the railway companies.

We are in an incredible situation where organized pressure groups, companies that have lobbyists, can interfere with a major bill to improve living conditions, by approaching members of the Senate to influence them during specific meetings and make them change their minds.

I find this hard to swallow, especially since, as the Bloc knows, the very existence of the Senate has been criticized. These are people who were not elected and we do not know to whom they are accountable. The way in which we are currently receiving the report shows they are not improving matters or the impression we have of them. In my opinion, they did not conduct a defined study that allows us to achieve the objectives of the bill.

I find this surprising, especially as the purpose of the amendments we proposed to the provision on noise was to respond to all the testimony we had heard. These amendments were not made out of the blue. We conducted a long review, provision by provision, because we had received various proposals from different parties. We reached a consensus, even though we had been asked to show even greater determination on the noise issue. We said, therefore, that the companies have to cause as little noise and vibration as possible. We opted for this formulation rather than prohibiting any unreasonable noise. Who can say what is reasonable or not and on what basis would it be judged? We wanted every possible solution attempted, therefore, in an effort to resolve this problem.

We know that there can be various different ways of resolving the noise problem, especially in marshalling yards. There are the hours of operation, but also the machinery, the engines, and better locomotives that make less noise when they operate.

We also required the railway companies to take into consideration the possible impact on people residing close to the railway. Initially, the bill did not mention these people. It just said that the operational and construction needs of railways had to be met. When we received a number of representations on the impact of the noise on local people, we decided to add something in order to achieve this objective and make the companies ultimately responsible for the impact on the local population and not just for the physical operation of their equipment.

The involvement of the Conservative members from Quebec could be seen most clearly in the riding of Lévis—Bellechasse where there is also a very large marshalling yard. The Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse was very pleased to meet with the sector president in his region who came to voice his complaints.

Since the Senate members did not even make the effort to meet with these people, I would like to quote an excerpt from the testimony of Mr. Jean-Pierre Bazinet, president of the Chute-de-la-Chaudière sector in Lévis. If people take the time to re-read the discussions, they will see what the concerns of the City of Lévis were.

As part of its activities, Canadian National operates a switching yard within the boundaries of Charny and Saint-Jean-Chrysostome. Given the elevated noise levels generated by switching operations conducted by Canadian National, numerous complaints have been laid by residents of the three former neighbourhoods that existed prior to the merger in 2000, as well as by residents of the other neighbourhoods that I mentioned earlier.

These residents believe that the noise pollution caused by CN's operations, particularly in the evening and at night, is affecting their health and impedes their peaceful enjoyment of their property. This situation came about in 1998—and that date is important. Previously, the switching yard and the residents lived in harmony. The new situation coincided with the privatization of the company, which streamlined its operations not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.

In that respect, the problems experienced by the residents of Charny are similar to those encountered in other cities in Canada. The preceding testimonies are compelling.

When CN failed to take action, a large number of affected residents signed a petition that was presented to the council of the former City of Charny in 2000. The municipality also received letters from home owners describing the situation as unacceptable and intolerable.

In 2001, the Public Health Department of the Chaudière-Appalaches Health and Social Services Board conducted an analysis of the situation and produced a report entitled “Assessment of the public health risk associated with environmental noise produced by operations at CN's Joffre switching yard in Charny”. The study concludes, and I quote:

“Based on the available noise measurements, the literature review and the specific context, we find that the environmental noise to which many of the people living in the residential area adjacent to CN's Joffre switching yard are exposed adversely affects their quality of life and potentially their health. Such noise levels are therefore a nuisance to the peace, comfort and well-being of the residents near the Joffre switching yard in Charny.

From a public health standpoint, these noise levels are likely to have an adverse affect on health by disturbing sleep, which in turn has a number of side effects.

These noise levels are in our view incompatible with residential zoning unless special measures are taken to reduce the noise”.

This is part of what Mr. Bazinet, from Lévis, said in his testimony. It was very important and was much appreciated by the Conservative member in that riding. However, he has not been seen at all during the current debate period. I think that he is not happy with his party's position, or he is not proud of what the parliamentary secretary said, about how the proposed amendments were satisfactory and it would still be a good bill.

I call on all the Conservative members, especially those from Quebec, to take a stand for once and vote in favour of this bill, which offers a solution to the noise problem. We heard from at least five or six citizens' groups from Lévis, whom I mentioned, and also from Quebec City. Quebec City and Lévis are major areas and the noise problem is causing many problems for people. There are certainly Liberal members who are also concerned about this problem in their ridings. I think it is important to show that a realistic bill, unanimously agreed upon by the parties in parliamentary committee, can move forward, and to not show the public that despite what we have been discussing for weeks and months in the House, and despite our best efforts, a few senators can decide what is best for the public. Senators do not have to answer to the people afterwards.

I invite everyone who is even remotely aware of the importance of democracy to vote against these amendments. The Senate must recognize that the House of Commons stands firm, that it has examined the bill, and especially, that it has taken into account the public's arguments in order to improve the situation.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I would like to ask him a question concerning the amendments made by the Senate that negate some important amendments made by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities following submissions from a number of groups of citizens who live near marshalling yards and railway lines, and who told us about the problems they face as a result. This bill aimed to correct those problems.

I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that the Senate, in its so-called serious examination of the issue, met only with the railway companies, who indicated that things would be very difficult for them if the amendments remained as they were in the bill and that it would be very hard financially for them to meet the requirements. I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that the senators are not even meeting with the citizens' groups that would be served by this bill in an attempt to correct the situation.