Bill C-640 (Historical)

VIA Rail Canada Act

An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act

This enactment establishes a legislative framework for the crown corporation of VIA Rail Canada and describes the scheme of governance and funding for it. It also requires VIA Rail Canada to maintain public passenger service for the routes set out in the schedule.
This enactment also amends the Canada Transportation Act to enable a railway company to electrify the tracks of another railway company, by applying to the Canadian Transportation Agency for this purpose. It accords scheduling and operational preference to public passenger service by VIA Rail Canada over freight service where there is a conflict between the two. It requires VIA Rail Canada and any other railway company to set out public passenger service performance standards and incentive payments in agreements between them and allows the Canadian Transportation Agency to investigate and impose monetary penalties for poor performance and delays. It promotes the transparency of agreements between VIA Rail Canada and another railway company to use that railway company’s facilities or services by requiring publication of these agreements.

VIA Rail Canada Act

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

moved that Bill C-640, An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to begin the debate today on Bill C-640, the VIA Rail Canada Act. This bill, which is long overdue, directly addresses the cause of many of the problems that have been facing our public passenger rail service ever since it was created in 1977. The bill provides the main, most crucial measure needed to resolve those problems.

When VIA Rail was created with the goal of taking charge of the declining passenger rail service, which was then provided by CN and CP, it was given very few of the tools needed to carry out that enormous task. One of the fundamental tools was legislation that clearly and fully explained the rights, powers, obligations and mandate of the new crown corporation. VIA Rail was never given that. Instead, it was created in a rather ad hoc, ill-considered manner. In the end, it was basically like a rudderless ship, without any navigational aids or even an engine.

We saw the sad result. The management of VIA Rail has been unstable for nearly four decades. Its funding varies considerably. The company has barely been modernized. The fees for accessing the freight network are excessive. Passengers are made to wait for hours to give priority to freight trains. The worst part is that the public interest has been set aside countless times when, instead of providing support, governments have said that the only solution to VIA Rail's problems is radical cuts rather than rational changes.

This contrasts sharply with the U.S., where Amtrak, under similar circumstances, was founded to perform the same role as VIA. Before it ever turned its first wheel, in 1971, Amtrak was given the strong legislative foundation required to restore passenger rail. Its enabling act set the course for its growth into the useful, efficient, and cost-effective public transit service it is today. While it has not always been smooth sailing, Amtrak has weathered many financial and legislative storms because of its comprehensive legislation.

My member's bill is intended to do the same for Canadians. Like the act that launched Amtrak, it spells out what VIA must do to deliver nationwide rail passenger service that will play a strategic role in the economic, social, and environmental life of Canada. It would delineate a basic national network. It would set realistic and attainable performance standards. It would establish a mechanism to adjust VIA services, when necessary, here in the House of Commons. It would specifically end the backroom decision-making that has on several occasions wiped Canadian communities off the rail passenger map.

Many communities across this great nation depend on the services offered by VIA Rail to attract trade and commerce. In my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, passenger rail service was suspended beginning in 2011.

Many people come to my riding to experience its natural beauty and especially to reach destinations such as Percé Rock and Forillon National Park. I have known many an individual who has come to visit these landmarks, with the train trip being an integral part of the excursion. However, declining train frequency has led to a gradual decline in the number of passengers. Reduced track speed due to deferred track maintenance has further led to declines in use. More recently, VIA has closed or sold a number of train stations. There is no joy in waiting for a train in the dead of night in a rural region without the shelter of a train station. Fighting winter storms often leads to scheduling delays, while passengers wait on unsheltered platforms. This is no way to increase ridership.

Passenger rail is important to keep local economies moving. It also performs a basic public service.

Seniors and people with mobility challenges depend on passenger rail to reach destinations, such as clinics and hospitals. For many, such as in my riding, with public services such as hospitals so very far apart, the bus is simply not an option, and a flight is prohibitively expensive. The train is their best and sometimes only possible solution.

I have heard from people across this country about the need to improve passenger service. I have gone to train stops to ask people what they would like to see in passenger rail. I mainly hear that they seek a reliable, on-time, frequent service.

Rural regions with less than daily service typically see a gradual decline in the number of passengers. A recent example would be the Ocean, the Montreal to Halifax train. This route, the longest-running continuous train service in this country, having recently celebrated 110 years of continuous service, was cut from six trains a week to three. The effect was almost instantaneous. The passenger load dropped by nearly 40%. The route was even further threatened by the closure of its very rails in New Brunswick. After significant public pressure, the government did come up with a funding solution to keep the track open for the next 15 years.

As a member of the official opposition, I do not have a lot of opportunities to congratulate the government, but in this case, I will make an exception. The track, for now, is safe, but were it not for the public pressure that so many people in eastern Quebec and New Brunswick performed, the government surely would have let that track go.

Bill C-640 would also give VIA the fair and logistical rights it requires to operate effectively in the real world of competitive, multi-modal transportation. It proposes a cost-sharing basis by which VIA could partner with provincial or regional governments to add service to the basic national network. It would reaffirm the need for passenger trains to have reasonable priority over freight. It would also provide for the development of a fee schedule that would grant VIA access to the freight railway lines on terms that would be fair to all parties.

Around the globe, modern passenger trains are vital elements of the mobility strategies of nations with which we compete. If Canada is to be a part of this worldwide rail passenger renaissance, we must finally put VIA on a proper footing. That it has survived this long without a legislative mandate is a tribute to the inherent strength of the very concept of passenger railroads.

I have the opportunity to right a historic transportation wrong with this legislation, and I encourage others to support this bill. I certainly encourage the government to look at it again and consider sending this to committee for more debate.

I want to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of many people who have helped me draft this bill and who have also accompanied me in our passionate resistance to the decline of passenger rail in this country.

I would like to start with Greg Gormick, an expert in passenger rail, an expert who has worked tirelessly all his life to bring the issue of passenger rail to the forefront. He has been speaking in many communities bringing the issue of passenger rail forward. Without his clear and honest work, we never would have made it as far as we have.

The people who live in eastern Quebec and northern New Brunswick are especially to be applauded for the amount of energy they have expended trying to save not only their passenger rail but the very rail system on which they depend.

The passenger rail service in our part of the world has decayed substantially, and we need to see the government show that it is willing to support our remote communities with one of the vital links we have to the outside world.

We do not have an exemplary bus transportation system. We do not have an affordable airline system. What we do have is the potential for daily rail service. We have had it in the past. If a train were to run as often as it should, we would be able to get that ridership back up again.

The interest is there, the capacity is there, and the freight that is the very backbone of the sustenance to keep that rail system going in eastern Canada is also present. We have all of the tools required. The only element that is missing is the government's unconditional support.

Some may wring their hands over the so-called subsidy required by our passenger rail system while, ironically, they regard much more massive spending on highways and air traffic as investments. Every modern country with passenger rail has operating costs. Imagine if Canada decided to eliminate everything from our lives that requires public investment. We would scrap schools and libraries. The parks would be gone, as well as hospitals and firefighters and anything we could name. We need to invest in public infrastructure if we want this country to work.

Trains are solid public investments. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that every dollar spent on passenger rail service generates three to four times that amount back into the economy. That logic has simply not taken hold here. While VIA languishes and we debate its legislative future, Canadian-built passenger trains are thundering over steel rails of America, some of them at 250 kilometres an hour. American politicians of all stripes realize the issue is not whether America can afford to have passenger trains but whether it can afford not to have them.

The contrasts and contradictions between VIA and its expanding publicly owned American cousin Amtrak are shocking. The most fundamental difference between the two railways is legislation. Amtrak has it; VIA does not.

Bill C-640 would address this glaring legislative gap by providing a sort of bill of rights for passenger trains. It would give VIA the mandate it requires to deliver a large portion of the sustainable intercity mobility needed in 21st century Canada.

Visionary legislation set Amtrak rolling in 1971, and Bill C-640 could establish the mechanism to restore service to all communities that lost their trains through political expediencies here in Ottawa. Northwestern Ontario has had good news. After 104 years of continuous service, Thunder Bay lost its passenger service, the Canadian, back in January 1990 ,as a result of the Mulroney government's slashing of VIA's financing by 50%. In 2012, the current government cut $41 million from VIA's annual subsidy, which had been previously cut and frozen at $166 million by the Liberal government in 1988, with no provision for inflation.

I would like to make it clear that this legislation is the next step in VIA's evolution. VIA needs to know that there is a legislative framework that is going to keep this company rolling and that passenger rail has a future in this country. We have capacity in Thunder Bay and La Pocatière, Quebec, to build the rolling stock that we need. This bill would create jobs in areas that really need that support, and passenger rail has been proven to be a shot in the arm for the economies of the communities where trains pass through.

We need VIA Rail in our communities. It is a fundamental choice that Canadians must make. This bill is the first step. The government needs to take the next.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see a bill about support for VIA when that party consistently votes against the funding we put forward for VIA.

To the bill in question, first, I notice that the legislative framework that the NDP is proposing mimics the framework for Canada Post. I find that a little peculiar, because the business of sorting and delivering mail is substantially different from the business of passenger rail.

Aside from that, this bill proposes major restrictions on the independence and governance of VIA Rail such that it could not function properly as a corporation.

As well, there would be major legislated fixed costs to VIA if this bill were to pass. The most recent Amtrak statistics I have are for 2012, when Amtrak lost $1.4 billion. It loses somewhere in that range every single year. VIA had a subsidy of $305 million on behalf of taxpayers last year. Is the member trying to bury VIA or does he want the government to nationalize VIA?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, VIA is a crown corporation. We do not need to renationalize something that already belongs to the Crown.

Second, regarding the subsidy that is paid through the U.S. for passenger rail, it has 10 times more passengers on its network than we do. Therefore, the actual amount paid per passenger is significantly less in the United States than it is here.

If our country were to start investing in passenger rail, we would have the domino effect of creating wealth across the country in so many communities that need it. We need to start investing, and we need to start investing now.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was led to believe I would have seven and a half minutes today to give a speech. I prepared for it for about 12 hours, but so be it. The House leader of the NDP has pulled that opportunity.

I have two quick points—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, questions and comments around private members' business are supposed to be directed to the bill itself, rather than making partisan shots.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I believe the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster was making an appeal for relevance. He will know that the Chair does not usually intervene on relevance in the first seven or eight seconds of a question or comment, but I do think the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North will get to the substance of the private members' bill with which we are dealing.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points.

The first point is that recently I met with the very dynamic new CEO of VIA, Yves Desjardins-Siciliano. I was very encouraged by his personal commitment, and I believe him, to return passenger rail throughout Canada, but especially through Thunder Bay and the North Shore, which was a very profitable and popular route. He needs this legislation to empower his renewed vision for VIA across Canada.

The second point is that VIA is under the thumb of the freight railways, especially CN, on whose tracks its operates the bulk of its trains. The worst aspect of this one-sided relationship is that, contained in the 10 year train service agreement, VIA was left to negotiate on its own with CN in 2007, without help from the government. In the last five years, CN's charges to VIA have increased by 42% and will rise another 40% by 2018. There are other detrimental provisions in that confidential agreement.

In summary, the hard-working member has produced superb legislation. I and the Green Party will support it totally, and we thank him for his hard work.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, and I do appreciate the work the member has put into this as well.

Let us be clear that there are communities in the country that would benefit directly through more investment in VIA Rail, Thunder Bay being one and La Pocatière, Quebec, being the other. Those are places where the capacity is already in place to build all of the rolling stock that we need to get this train moving again.

The Bombardier corporation has the technology, but what does it do with that technology? It sells the rolling stock to the United States. It knows to invest in the passenger rail system. Unfortunately, the government seems to have missed the track completely.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate today.

Passenger rail has played a critical role in our country's development, and the service provided by VIA Rail is of great importance and value to Canadians. That is why I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to private member's Bill C-640, An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

As Canada's national passenger rail operator, VIA Rail provides Canadian travellers with safe, efficient, and cost-effective service. Our government recognizes the importance of VIA's passenger rail services in the lives of Canadians, as well as the critical links that VIA provides to remote communities and the important role it plays in the national tourism market. Our government continues to support VIA through annual subsidies for its operations, with last year's totalling some $305 million; as well major capital investments, which have totalled over a billion dollars since 2007.

It is because of this government's commitment to VIA Rail and its objectives that we cannot support Bill C-640. This bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for the business affairs of VIA and includes a number of prescriptive measures affecting numerous aspects of VIA's operations and governance structure. These include changes affecting the selection of board members, routing, scheduling, the content of commercial agreements and even VIA's status as an arm's-length crown corporation.

While the intention of these measures may be to support VIA's services to the benefit of Canadians, in actuality the bill would have the opposite effect, creating inefficiencies that would result in poor financial performance and a greater burden on the taxpayer. The critical drawback of this bill is that it would increase government and parliamentary intervention in VIA's business affairs. This is a misguided attempt to secure VIA services that would actually hinder VIA's operations.

The bill proposes to intervene in VIA's affairs, designating the routes that VIA must operate and the service frequency of certain routes. Specifically, it would make VIA's current network routes mandatory and increase the service frequency on VIA's heavily subsidized long-haul routes from Toronto to Vancouver, and from Montreal to Halifax. Further, the bill would require extensive oversight by the Minister of Transport and Parliament to allow VIA to alter any routes. Should VIA intend to eliminate any service, the Minister of Transport would have to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency or a third party to review and make recommendations to be tabled in Parliament. The bill would allow as few as 20 senators or 50 members of the House of Commons to file a motion to amend or revoke a recommendation set out in the report. This means that a minority of parliamentarians could delay change to VIA services that could be required to meet its objective of providing efficient passenger rail services.

This intervention in VIA's business affairs that Bill C-640 proposes represents a total reversal of the national transportation policy that has been in place since the Canada Transportation Act came into force in 1996. That act affirms that we are most likely to maintain a competitive, economic, and efficient national transportation system by allowing competition and market forces to be the prime agents in providing transportation services. Public intervention should therefore be reserved for instances when our desired outcomes cannot be adequately achieved through competition and market forces. Accordingly, our government's position is that it does not intervene in the day-to-day running of VIA Rail.

As an independent crown corporation, VIA is responsible for its own operational decisions. That includes scheduling and routing. This approach allows VIA the necessary flexibility to assess its own operations and to decide how it can best meet its objectives. This may involve adjustments to train schedules and staffing levels, or the reduction or ending of a service to better align services with actual market demand. Given decreasing ridership and increasing costs, the financial challenges of operating VIA's current network cannot be addressed solely through operating efficiencies. All of VIA's routes currently require some level of subsidization by taxpayers. In this context, VIA's services have undergone rationalizations to ensure that they provide value to taxpayers while at the same time maintaining a national network of services that are important to Canadians.

By mandating VIA's routes and frequency and requiring considerable government and parliamentary processes and oversight to alter them, the bill would effectively prevent VIA from making its own business decisions to ensure that it operates in a cost-efficient manner by matching its services to demand. It would severely obstruct VIA's ability to react to changes in its marketplace and to adjust accordingly.

The measures proposed in the bill encourage inefficiency and would inevitably increase VIA's costs, including from running too many trains with too few passengers, for example. These costs would be passed along to taxpayers, as more public funds would be needed to augment the current subsidy to VIA. It goes without saying that this would not be in keeping with VIA's objective to provide efficient and cost-effective services to Canadians.

Furthermore, the increased oversight regarding VIA's business affairs would mean an expanded role for Government organizations like the Canadian Transportation Agency. The new responsibilities proposed in the bill would require additional financial and human resources, thus adding more costs to Canadians without merit.

The proposal to make VIA an agent of the Crown raises further financial concerns. This measure could make the government directly liable for any debts and losses incurred by VIA. This would be compounded by the bill's proposed borrowing limit of $500 million for VIA. All of this could translate into greater risk exposure for the federal government, and ultimately the taxpayers of Canada.

The negative financial implications of the bill reach beyond the confines of VIA Rail. Bill C-640 could have a negative impact on the country's economic growth by disadvantaging our freight rail system. The bill would amend the Canada Transportation Act to give VIA general scheduling and operational preference over freight rail in the event of a conflict.

While it may be intended to support VIA's on-time performance, giving VIA unfettered priority and rights over freight traffic could significantly impair Canada's freight rail operators. We all know the critical role that freight rail plays in our supply chains, and our government has taken action to strengthen its effectiveness and reliability. The bill would undercut these advancements and could jeopardize the performance of Canada's economy and our reputation as a reliable trading partner.

Our government is committed to supporting VIA in its objective to provide Canadians with safe, efficient, and cost-effective service. Bill C-640, however, would impede that objective. By dictating VIA's operational practices and requiring increased government and parliamentary oversight, Bill C-640 would encourage inefficient practices, decrease value to Canadians, and increase the burden on the taxpayer. Further, the measures in the bill could have a negative impact on our economic growth. It is clear that our government cannot support such a bill, particularly one that would undermine the efficient operation of our national passenger rail service in this way.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague from the NDP for bringing forward this bill. It is a welcome contribution to the very large and comprehensive problem of our rail system in its fullest context, that is to say, the passenger, freight, and commuter rail service systems. I believe the whole question of our rail system in Canada is very much at play.

I am pleased to follow up on the remarks of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister. Indeed, after watching the government for nine years, and many of its front-line ministers for a decade previously while they served in another right-wing government, when it comes to the question of VIA Rail and its future, I have concluded that it is the government's intention to attempt to privatize VIA Rail in due course.

When I began speaking this way several years ago with respect to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Conservative members scoffed. They dismissed it. They said that I was an alarmist and that it was an attempt to frighten people. However, we know that the government followed the regular pattern it does when it wants to divest itself of a crown asset. That is how it goes about it, and that is what it did with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. As far as I am concerned, that is what the government is now beginning to do with VIA Rail.

In the context of atomic energy, the Prime Minister dispatched his then director of communications to make a series of public remarks about the state of that crown corporation. It was very disturbing to the thousands and thousands of Canadians who had helped build AECL and had, after 58 years, made it into one of the world's leading global nuclear research, nuclear power plant, and medical isotope-producing companies. The Conservatives began their pattern of running down an asset, called it a sinkhole and, of course, then sold it at a fireside price. That was 58 years of global tradition and Canadian leadership they sold for $100 million to SNC-Lavalin. That is what they do.

Therefore, I am having this conversation today and making these remarks in the context of my conclusion that if re-elected, the government fully intends to divest itself of VIA Rail and to move in the same direction with respect to Canada Post. We see the same techniques and actions being taken and have just heard similar remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It is unfortunate because Canadians have come to depend on passenger rail as part of their tradition, as part of what they need, as part of their economy. Whether it is the use of passenger trains for hunting and other ecotourism opportunities in northern Quebec, or for passenger use in and around Sarnia or, as my colleague mentioned, for use on Vancouver Island, there is a present demand for passenger rail in this country.

My colleague has gone a certain distance in his bill to make some recommendations for change. I commend him for stepping up to the plate and recommending anything that might improve VIA Rail. I do not agree with all of the measures. I think there is an element of it that is perhaps too prescriptive, which may or may not fit more readily in the tradition of the NDP's view of how to manage a crown corporation. I commend him for making some positive recommendations for change. However, there are larger questions looming that I want to come back to, such as what I mentioned just a minute ago.

Right now the Canadian rail system is basically bottle-necked. This bill was deposited here on the floor today in the context of a major problem. We have too many demands on the rail system as it is presently constructed.

Given the existing rail capacity and the existing status of our railways—that is, the rail itself—and given the fact that we built our cities around the railways, which we never contemplated when we tried to unite this country a century or more ago by using rail, what we have is a bottleneck situation. It is being made worse by a massive 1,500% increase in the transportation of oil and fossil fuels by rail just over the last two or three years.

As I like to remind my colleagues regularly, even if we build every pipeline that the government has been contemplating now for a decade—a pipeline south, a pipeline west, and a pipeline east—and those three pipelines all carried fossil fuel, we would still be having—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is rising on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is to relevance. We are talking about passenger rail, not pipelines or oil by rail. I know the member is experienced when it comes to debate. He knows the rules of this House, and he should probably be instructed to at least stick to the matter currently before Parliament.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I know the member for Ottawa South will want to make reference to the bill before the House. He has about three and half minutes to conclude his remarks.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is only the parliamentary secretary who does not understand the connection between the transportation of fossil fuels and passenger rail in Canada. What is he talking about? This is exactly the problem we are facing in Canada, a denial by Conservatives that we have a problem on the ground in the competition for the use of rail between passenger rail and other forms of rail use. What does he not understand about that?

The problem is that by 2024 we are going to be producing one million barrels a day of excess capacity of oil, and it is going to be shoved onto the railway system. The problem is that the government does not want to have an adult conversation about that and the fact that it is having a spillover effect. The parliamentary secretary hoots and hollers and continues to yell from his side because he does not want to have a real conversation about what is really happening on the ground.

We have a logjam. Our farmers in the Canadian prairies lost $3 billion in revenue as ships were sitting off the coast of B.C., because the Conservative government could not get that grain to market.

This bill is important. An adult discussion about passenger rail is very important in the context of the choices we are going to make as a country.

As I said earlier, some of the measures in the bill are highly prescriptive. For example, it mentions only the Canadian Tourism Commission and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as sources of directors for the corporate board. I do not think that is comprehensive or perhaps realistic. I think the member might have his own views in that regard as well.

As for stipulating that track use by VIA Rail should take precedence over all other forms of rail use, I would like to hear more about that from our private sector operators and urban transit systems to see what the distributive effects of such a measure, if implemented, would have on an already bottlenecked system.

I think the bill is a good contribution to a much larger question about where we are going in this country for the next century, and not for the next six months, which is what the Conservatives would have us do. They are fixated on October 19, not on solving longer-term problems. Their fixation on this election is actually leading to poor public policy outcomes.

We need to have a discussion here on where we are going with rail for the next century, and the bill would help us have it. This is an important conversation for us to have. It is our responsibility as legislators, on behalf of all Canadians, to treat this issue responsibly over a longer term. Again, I think the bill goes some distance in raising questions.

The member has done a good job as well with the idea of having specific legislation that would govern VIA Rail. Let us begin by beginning, and it is a good beginning to have a legislative framework that actually embraces VIA Rail. There is the question of whether VIA should be coming back to this House in terms of its internal management systems, such as winding up with a route here or cutting back in staff there or changing the frequency of train service, and that is a discussion I think we should have at committee.

We will be supporting sending the bill to committee to have a more extensive discussion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and I would like to commend the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for this initiative. This bill is very important because it will help protect and improve passenger transportation in Canada. Canadians deserve a suitable, safe and efficient passenger train service, and this bill is the way to fill that need.

Before I forget, I have to say something about the hon. member for Ottawa South. He said that this was a way for the Conservatives to privatize Via Rail and that this was where they were going. I agree with that. That is what all their cuts to Via Rail are leading to. Nonetheless, the Liberals have no lessons to give on this, when they are the ones who privatized CN, a crown corporation. That is where it all started. When they privatized CN they also gave CN priority rights to the tracks.

Take the example of the train that runs between Halifax and Montreal, known as the Ocean. It is an important train for passengers. Our ancestors worked hard to build the railways. At the time, the idea was to develop our country and, at the same time, to provide passenger service for Canadians. I do not believe that our ancestors wondered whether they were going to make money with freight or passenger trains. That is not what they were concerned with. They wanted to give Canadians a service allowing them to travel from one end of the country to the other.

I will just give a small example of what is happening in my area, between Halifax and Montreal. Is it acceptable for the train that leaves Moncton at 3 p.m. to arrive in Bathurst at 8 p.m.? It takes about two hours to travel from Bathurst to Moncton by car. It takes five hours by train. Who wants to ride on a train travelling at 50 kilometres an hour? As everyone knows, there are no freight trains between Miramichi and Bathurst, and the speed limit is 50 kilometres an hour. If you travel by train often enough, you can watch the deer overtake it. Perhaps we could use it to go hunting. The current VIA Rail schedule is really ridiculous.

The government has a responsibility because it is not a private company. It is a crown corporation. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport tell us that the government should not intervene. It is as though he was saying that the company is already privatized. He is saying that the government does not want to pass legislation to bother VIA Rail. That is ridiculous.

I would like to thank the NDP members from Nova Scotia and Quebec, as well as my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who worked very hard with us to secure the railway between Miramichi and Bathurst. If we had lost this railway, we would have lost VIA Rail between Halifax and Montreal.

We have to try to make them understand that if you take all the people on the Acadian peninsula and in the Gaspé, from Rogersville, Miramichi, Bathurst, Campbellton and Amqui, to Rivière-du-Loup and Rimouski, there are about 300,000 people. The government was eliminating that service. They kept saying:

It is arm's length from the government. We are not allowed to get involved.

It is funny that the $10 million was given by VIA Rail, but it was the minister who came to Fredericton to announce it. The member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe is the one who presented it and then the minister was thanked by the member for Miramichi. The entire Conservative family took credit for a crown corporation that they want to keep at arm's length.

The last person to speak was the president of VIA Rail, who practically thanked the minister for giving him the money. The train is important to us since it has always served the people back home without a car who have to go see a specialist in Moncton, Halifax or Montreal.

However, things changed two years ago when VIA Rail decided to reduce the number of trips to three days a week. Before, a person could leave Bathurst at 8 p.m., arrive in Montreal at 8 a.m. and see a specialist at one or two in the afternoon. Then, at 6:30 p.m., they could board the train back to Bathurst without having to pay for a hotel room in Montreal. This was done in one trip. It is inevitable that there are now fewer passengers on the train.

On Monday morning, because of the storm, I took the Bathurst train. The train left Bathurst at 5:30 a.m. Bathurst is an hour's drive from Campbellton. We got to Campbellton around 7 a.m. and had to stop to fill up with diesel. We were not able to go on until 11 a.m. There was a snowstorm, so I am not blaming VIA Rail, but would that be acceptable in France or the United States?

The bill introduced by my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine would give passenger trains priority on the tracks, but the Conservatives seem to think that is some kind of sin and believe that passengers should have the right of way to travel.

When I travelled to France and other places, I found that the passenger trains were given priority and that they were full. As a result, there are fewer cars on the road, which is better for the environment. That is not the case here. Not only are passenger trains not given priority, but the government does not care about them at all. The government is taking funding away from VIA Rail, saying that the company should be able to support itself and even make a profit.

That is not the vision that our forebears had for VIA Rail when they put trains on the tracks. They wanted to provide a service to all Canadian taxpayers. The politicians at that time were not thinking about taking money from taxpayers. Quebeckers and Canadians want this service. They do not mind contributing to a railway that runs from one end of the country to the other. It is shameful that the government is not supporting VIA Rail's projects. I am proud that the NDP members are saying that they will support VIA Rail.

The least they could do is vote to ensure that this bill can be studied in committee, where they can find a way to refocus VIA Rail's vision on providing services to Canadians. I am proud of the fight we led to maintain VIA Rail service between Halifax and Montreal. In Bathurst, Rogersville, Halifax, Campbellton and Miramichi, people spoke up to say that they wanted VIA Rail and passenger rail service. The government cannot ignore that. Let us hope that the government does not follow the example of the Liberals, who were champions of privatizing our crown corporations. As a result, we have now lost them all.

I sincerely hope that this bill passes at second reading and that it goes to committee so that we can hear from experts.

If the Conservatives cannot support it, it is because in their minds, this is just like Canada Post; they want to privatize all of our crown corporations. That is not the Canada I want to live in.