House of Commons Hansard #235 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rail.

Topics

Canadian International Development AgencyRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Hickey Liberal St. John's East, NL

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present two petitions to the House.

In the first petition, students from St. Michael's High School in Bell Island call on Parliament not to cut CIDA's funding for its public participation program.

Canadian International Development AgencyRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Hickey Liberal St. John's East, NL

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from the Tenants' Action Association from Brophy Place, Hunt's Lane and Kelly Street in St. John's who call on Parliament to retain the Canada assistance plan in its present form.

Canadian International Development AgencyRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, consistent with Standing Order 36, I wish to present three petitions from my constituency.

The first petition asks and petitions Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

Canadian International Development AgencyRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Canadian International Development AgencyRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, the third petition petitions Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

October 2nd, 1995 / 3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I had just started to make my remarks a few moments before two o'clock. Before I got into full flight I was interrupted for question period. I want to resume where I left off by applauding the Minister of Transport for bringing forward Bill C-101.

Bill C-101 is there to modernize Canada's transportation system. This task has not been easy to undertake but this minister is up to it. He is certainly someone who is not afraid of these challenges and of dealing with issues involving our transportation sector. Transport is one of the largest if not the largest departments of the Government of Canada.

The constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has a number of rail lines running through it. The Ottawa to Montreal CN rail line obviously runs through through Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Perhaps I should not say obviously but virtually the only way of getting between the two cities is to travel through my riding. The train goes through such communities as Alexandria, Maxville and others between Ottawa and Montreal.

Some years ago I was very concerned because of a fear that CN would attempt to close down the rail line between Ottawa and Montreal.

This fear was justified as one CN document called for the closing of the rail line between the communities of Glen Robertson and Ottawa in Ontario, so that there would no longer have been a railway line for VIA passenger trains between Ottawa and Montreal, except if VIA had wanted to acquire the line abandoned by CN.

The second concern in my constituency was that if the line was abandoned there would not be enough interest or possibility of converting part of what was left of that line into a short line railroad.

This was particularly disconcerting at the time because we had at one point an NDP government in Ontario, although luckily we are rid of it now. I invite my colleague from Winnipeg to listen to this attentively because he will realize the damage that government was doing in Ontario.

It passed the successor rights bill. If someone wanted to start a short line railroad, if the previous company had four people doing the job-it did not matter that it only needed one to do the task in that short four, five or ten-mile piece of railroad-that person was forced to hire the amount of people who were there under the previous regime because of those so-called successor rights.

This was done probably in good faith in an attempt to protect jobs. What the government was really doing was making everybody lose their jobs because if the short line railroad was not viable, it could not be operated at all. Therefore everyone lost their employment rather than some of them keeping it.

Maybe that made sense at the time or prima facie may have made sense. Maybe it was some dictate from the socialist agenda and seemed reasonable in that respect.

In any case, there could not be a short line railroad in Ontario. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who is very knowledgeable on these issues, will be discussing this issue with the member for Winnipeg, Bird's Hill and will be briefing him and straightening him out so that he fully understands this issue. I have good reason to believe he is doing that as we speak.

The bill we have today will address a number of issues. It will address provincial running rights. It will address rail line rationalization and short line railways, as I have been discussing, rail transportation issues generally, and economic regulation regarding grain and rail. VIA Rail issues will be addressed along with mergers and acquisition, air transport and a number of other important topics related to the transport industry.

I end by expressing a note of sadness regarding one issue. I know the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke shares my view in this. He and I have discussed this issue before.

A couple of years ago there were plans whereby CN and CP wanted to jointly own the rail line linking Coteau junction and a location in northern Ontario, the Montreal to North Bay rail line.

Now I notice that negotiations between CN and CP broke off and this joint ownership of the rail line will not come to be.

The reason why I am concerned about this is that, in my view, to ensure its long term viability, traffic should be increased on this particular railway line. I viewed favourably this effort on the part of the two railway companies to jointly own the line.

I am disappointed that the whole thing seems to have failed. To conclude, I urge CN and CP to combine their efforts again so that this line connecting eastern and western Canada that the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell benefit from can be saved in the medium term and even the long term.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in this debate. I ask all colleagues to support this bill.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-101 to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987. As the member representing Trois-Rivières, I would just like to point out that our region, Trois-Rivières in particular, makes extensive use of the railway system, with the northern part of the Mauricie using the CN, and the southern part, including the city of Trois-Rivières, mainly using CP.

It is obvious that the government is trying to harmonize this legislation to draw attention to the bill to privatize CN and make its acquisition more appealing to potential buyers.

Many of the amendments in connection with the National Transportation Agency are designed to remedy regulatory deficiencies which hinder CN and CP's profitability and cause operating deficits that these companies have to absorb in order to maintain existing lines.

It may seem commendable to strive to improve on the National Transportation Agency so that both companies can become profitable, but at the same time it is dangerous to try both to achieve these objectives through more flexible regulations for operators like CN and CP and preserve the intent of the law, which is to protect public transportation. It is dangerous to change the

perspective of the legislation which is intended to foster the use of public transportation, and particularly rail transportation, for the development of people and businesses.

The role of the National Transportation Agency should be to ensure proper balance between the CN and CP monopolies, commercial users and passengers. Since this bill is only at first stage, we can assume that heated discussions will take place when it is reviewed by the transport committee, which will hear many witnesses who will debate these amendments, including railway unions, commercial users and railway companies. These groups will not all agree with the new mandate that this bill proposes for the National Transportation Agency.

In that respect, I want to mention some of the concerns that will surely be raised by various stakeholders during the hearings which will be held regarding this legislation.

First, there is the ability for shippers to call upon the National Transportation Agency to block a rail monopoly. I am referring here to the approach used by Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, but the same could apply to all shippers of raw materials, such as the mining and forest industries which, by nature, ship enormous quantities of materials, usually from remote areas located far from the main industrial centres.

The 1987 act allowed commercial users of railway companies to call upon the agency to circumvent CN and CP's excessive monopoly power. These provisions are maintained, but new hurdles will limit the ability of shipping companies to use them.

Indeed, the shipper will now have to prove that he will suffer a serious prejudice in order to convince the agency to keep CN or CP from unduly raising its prices. We are not saying that the industry should not pay its fair share for the transportation of its products. The problem is that the notion of serious prejudice is not defined in Bill C-101, thus leaving open the possibility that a shipper may resort to political or court action to win his case before the National Transportation Agency.

It is difficult for the industry to prove the degree to which an increase in rates would be harmful to it, and more difficult still to prove that there would be serious prejudice or material injury.

It is vital to discuss what is meant by serious prejudice; otherwise it can be anticipated that too often the decision will have to be made in the courts, after time-consuming discussions have failed.

I would also like to discuss the issue of competitiveness in remote regions. It is essential that all regions have access to a competitive and affordable rail system in Canada that will permit them to compete in the export market.

How will the new changes to the National Transportation Act allowing rail carriers to raise charges or simply discontinue unprofitable branch lines take regional economic realities into consideration by spreading operating costs over the entire system instead of dividing it up into more profitable and less profitable branch lines?

For too long now, the cost of developing remote regions has been calculated without taking into account on the positive side of the ledger the development natural resources confer to the more urbanized regions.

Here again, the concept of serious prejudice might be sustained provided it is given a fairly precise definition in order to prevent rail rates from being raised, thus cancelling out the profitability of industries dependent on this mode of transportation, without any consideration of the wages earned by workers in these industries.

Another provision, which will probably raise questions, deals with agency membership. The bill proposes to cut from nine to three the number of members of the National Transportation Agency. This reduction could lead to a lack of understanding of regional issues across Canada and, in turn, to a misappreciation of any significant risk that shippers may be at a disadvantage because of the monopoly enjoyed by CN and CP.

It will be more difficult for shippers to draw attention to their needs and their regions if the agency is composed of three members instead of nine. Listening to witnesses at the hearings held by the Standing Committee on Transport will surely help us strike a balance between a reduced agency of three members and an expanded agency of nine members.

My comments will also deal with the establishment of short-line railways. The financial difficulties experienced by CN and CP in recent years have led to the recent establishment of short-line railways.

Since these small organizations enjoy higher profits, smaller management and fewer constraints in the distribution of work through their collective agreements, we will see more and more of them. Unfortunately, the phrase "short-line railway" is not defined anywhere in this bill. Furthermore, in many clauses of this bill, it is unclear whether short-line railway operators should be regarded as railway operators or simply as shippers.

Clauses 130 through 137 of this bill concern the identification of competitive lines. In the past, railway operators had their own systems and, already, the two antagonists do not like the idea of using the lines of their competition in return for fair compensation.

Public interest requires better co-operation in the management of CN and CP. For example, CP could pay a price to use CN's tracks,

and vice versa, without the tracks' owners being able to prevent such an arrangement.

This would promote free competition, while also giving a more accurate idea of the actual costs of transportation in a particular region.

Since my time is running out, I will immediately move on to the issue of regional development. In the past, under the act governing the agency, railway companies wanting to close or abandon a line had to comply with an elaborate process. Now, these companies will only have to announce their intention to dispose of a line.

The new process to transfer and discontinue the operation of railway lines will be very quick: a 60 day notice, a 15 day period for each level of authority, for a maximum of 105 days. This time frame will allow railway companies to dispose of their lines very quickly, without having to justify their decision on either economic grounds or grounds of public interest.

However, this new transfer and discontinuation process hardly encourages the establishment of short line railways. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a potential buyer in just 60 days. Quebec, and the same goes for any other province, will only have 15 days to decide whether or not to buy a line and continue to provide the existing service to the public.

In conclusion, I can only hope that, this time, the government will have the vision that it has been lacking so far, and think in terms of the future, including as regards the interests of Quebec. In this case, as in others, we find no reasons to vote No, but many reasons to vote Yes, and I hope that Quebecers realize this.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I might say just by way of beginning that it is interesting to notice how the members of the Bloc Quebecois are using every opportunity in the House of Commons to make the point about why they think their fellow citizens in Quebec should vote yes in the coming referendum. I was interested in question period today when they were going on and on about alleged injustices to Quebec. It struck me that if the people of Quebec vote yes they are going to have a heck of a lot less of what the Bloc Quebecois were complaining they were not getting enough of.

The same of course is true with respect to transportation matters. I heard people in the Bloc refer today to the privatization of CN. I think I can say with some certainty that if there is a yes vote in Quebec the provision in Bill C-89 guaranteeing that the headquarters of this new privatized CN will be in Montreal will not continue very long past a yes vote. At least if I have anything to do with it, it will not. I would imagine that would be true for a lot of western Canadians, particularly people I represent, who from the very beginning felt that if CN was to be restructured in such a radical way, the headquarters of CN should be in western Canada, in particular in Winnipeg, because most of the traffic this new privatized CN will be directing will be in western Canada. This is just by way of making that point to the Bloc.

There are two things I want to get on the record with respect to Bill C-101. First, I do not think I have to tell anyone in the House that I am in general opposed to the overall agenda of the government with respect to Bill C-101, the privatization of CN, the deregulation of the transportation system in this country, going back to fights we had in this House against the former transport minister, Don Mazankowski, and going back before that.

Sometimes people tend to forget, in particular people in Winnipeg, that this deregulation business really started under a former Liberal Minister of Transport, who is now the Minister of Human Resources Development. There is a tendency to blame the origins of this agenda on the Conservatives when in fact it goes back beyond that to this fascination the then Minister of Transport, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, had with deregulation at that time, prior to the defeat of the Trudeau government.

I was interested to hear some of the things members said. The point I want to make here, and I do not think it has been made to this point, at least not to my satisfaction, is the process by which we are doing this, if I understand the origins of this procedure by which we refer matters to committee before second reading.

I had a lot to do with parliamentary reform in previous Parliaments and we considered this at one point. The goal of that procedure as it was first imagined was that this would be something that would be applied to bills that were held to be of a non-partisan nature. It would not be something that was available to the government alone. It would be something that could only be done with some kind of agreement in the House and therefore it would be a mechanism whereby parties could say this is a bill we do not really have much to fight about in, so we want to take it into committee and we want to go over the details.

I have noticed something that may be related to the fact that this procedure was adopted, I believe, after the beginning of this new Parliament, when the government only had to deal with rookies on the opposition side in committee. This has now become a procedure that is available to the government whenever it wants to use it, not something that requires a certain amount of co-operation on the part of the opposition. In my judgment, this goes against the spirit of the reform intent. When I say reform I do not mean Reform Party, but reform in the best sense of the word, reform of the House of Commons. This procedure has become a kind of a fast track

procedure. In my judgment, it is not being used for the intention for which it was originally designed.

We have here a massive bill, which represents a major reorientation of the way transportation decisions are made with respect to rail line abandonment, the creation of short line railways, relationships between shippers and the railway companies, a whole host of things, all of which deserve a major second reading debate. We are reconceptualizing the transportation system of the country. We should be having a debate about that, in which I would want to argue very strongly and at length, hopefully being open to questions from colleagues in the House.

Instead we have this very prescribed, circumscribed three-hour debate in which people have only ten-minute speeches, after which the whole thing is whisked off to committee. There is never really any significant debate on the principle of the bill. That is fine if there is agreement to do so and if it is the kind of legislation that lends itself to that procedure.

With respect to my Bloc and Reform colleagues, I think they let the government get away with something when they agreed to move ahead with this kind of procedure. They allowed it to go into the standing orders without the kinds of safeguards that should have been required. That is, there should have been some provision that there had to be opposition agreement in order for this procedure to be followed. I believe their inexperience did not stand them in very good stead in that respect.

I want to register once more my opposition to this bill. My opposition has been longstanding to an agenda of which this bill is the latest stage. I know my Reform colleagues were saying earlier that it does not go far enough, that it should be absolute, utter I suppose, comprehensive, total deregulation. However, I think deregulation has not served this country particularly well. It certainly has not served the transportation system very well. It certainly has not served my constituents very well, those who work at the railway and others, and the economic spin-off that used to exist in Winnipeg as a result of the presence of railway jobs there.

A couple of weeks ago another 266 people were laid off in the CN shops in Transcona. This is a far cry from the kinds of promises that were made during the 1993 election campaign by members opposite about how the many terrible things that were happening under the Tories were going to cease if only a Liberal government were elected: NAFTA would not go through, Winnipeg would be returned to its former glory as a transportation centre, rail jobs would return from Montreal and Edmonton, and no one would ever be laid off again. Well, that is not the way it has turned out. In fact we have a Liberal government doing what no Conservative government ever contemplated in public: privatizing CN Rail and devastating the community I come from.

We see here an intention on the part of the government and the railway together to basically dismantle CN Rail as we have known it and to have basically tracks and trains, that is it. Maintenance, repair, stores, and all kinds of other things the railway used to do for itself will all be contracted out, pieced off here, there, and everywhere. As a result, a lot more good-paying jobs will be lost. In the end, this is also about good-paying jobs. It is not just about railways.

I listened earlier to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the government whip, talking about the impediment to short line railways. One of the reasons for successor rights was to make sure that short line railways are not used as a way of union busting, are not used as a way of laying people off and then hiring them back at half of what they used to make. I do not think that is such a bad sentiment. I do not think that is something for which the NDP government in Ontario or anywhere else should have to apologize.

Those good paying jobs are disappearing. I do not think that is good for Canada. It is not good for the middle class, which is being eroded at both ends. It is not good for the revenues of the government. It is part of the reason we have a deficit in this country, because a lot of the good paying jobs are going, and with them is going the ability to pay the kind of income tax that would help pay off the deficit.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Madam Speaker, it is always a joy to rise in this House and follow the member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. Excuse me, it is Winnipeg Transcona; I apologize for that. I would not want to confuse him with the member for Birds Hill, who is a Liberal and represents his constituents very ably and helps them understand the needs of doing business in the 20th century and not the 19th century, as the member for Winnipeg Transcona does.

It is passing strange to me to note how the NDP, once a leader in social justice in this country, has become a conservative party, simply refusing to accept any kind of change or acknowledge that any kind of improvement should take place anywhere, anytime.

Like the previous member, I want to briefly comment on the process. I am delighted that the government has chosen to go this route with this bill. I am somewhat astounded at the remarks from the Reform Party, who seem to be opposed to this.

What has happened in this Parliament since the new government arrived in 1993 is we changed the rules of the House in a manner that allows the people of Canada to participate in important debates on public policy prior to the government making up its mind finally on a piece of legislation. It is an opening up and an inviting into the process, rather than a fast tracking, as the member for Winnipeg Transcona would have us believe.

I think the minister has done a great deal in a very short period of time to deal with the regulatory burden that has been imposed on this country, some of it for good reasons and some of it perhaps we have outgrown. I think we owe the minister a vote of thanks for allowing this debate to take place in this fashion and for steering this debate.

We have the member for Hamilton West, the chair of the transportation committee, who is well known to this House, who is very experienced on these matters. I am assured he will give people right across this country an opportunity to come before the committee and put on the table their issues on this very important matter.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for London East, has been working tirelessly to see that members of this House are informed on this issue and are responding to issues that have been raised by constituents right across the country.

I want to make a comment on an earlier change this minister has brought in, the changes in the WGTA, which represented a stepping back from subsidy and regulation on the part of this government. Two days ago in my home town of Winnipeg there was an announcement by Schneider's that they are going to open a very large, two million hogs a year, meat processing plant. At last we are doing what western Canadians have been calling for for a long time: we are taking the false subsidies out of the rate structure and we are allowing the development of secondary processing in the prairies, where it should have been for a long time. We are all very pleased about that, and we are pleased it is this government that finally has the courage to challenge the burden that has been imposed by regulation.

I am not going to stand up in this House and say all regulation is wrong; it is not. Whenever there are imperfect markets, whenever monopolies exist, for example, or whenever the public good needs to be protected, there is a need for government to act, and act in a manner that attempts to level the playing field between competing interests. That is what this is all about.

The government has said that while it has owned the CNR it has imposed burdens on the railway for reasons other than the commercial interests of the railway. In an environment where change is taking place so rapidly now and where there has been such a tremendous evolution in transportation, it is time to revisit that. It is time to ask whether or not these regulations are serving the purpose for which they were intended.

As chair of the western and northern caucus I can tell the House that we take great interest in the particular matter. Transportation is vital to all regions of Canada, but nowhere is that seen as vividly as it is in western Canada with its tremendous distances and sparse populations.

In addressing Bill C-101 this afternoon I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of rail transportation to western and northern Canada. Commodities such as coal, sulphur, grain and petrochemicals must be shipped substantial distances from points of origin in western and northern Canada to markets around the globe. For most of these movements highway transportation does not present an effective competitive alternative to rail transportation and inland water transport is non-existent. For the great majority of the transportation requirements of western Canadian industry rail is the only realistic way of accessing export markets.

Canadian railways rely heavily on resource based products for their revenues. Intermodal traffic handled by the railways is highly truck competitive and has limited profitability. The eastern Canadian operations of the railways by their own public statements have not been profitable in recent years. Railways accordingly look for their profitability to the resource based industries of western Canada. It is essential that we do not endeavour to solve the financial problems of railways by creating a bigger problem, namely to give railways greater leverage to increase freight rates in western Canada and thereby impair the ability of western Canadian industry to compete on a long term basis in world markets.

There is widespread agreement on the need for railway reform in the country. Railways are burdened with excess track and impediments to productivity improvements. Bill C-101 will permit CN and CP to sell or abandon unprofitable trackage without regulatory intervention and will encourage lower cost short line railway operations to be developed. We believe this makes good economic sense and the legislation is to be commended for enabling railways to become more cost efficient.

There is widespread agreement in the House that the encouragement of a competitive railway environment in Canada is the best way to achieve efficient and cost effective rail service. This, however, is not achieved by complete deregulation as some would allege because there are many industries in western Canada that are essentially captive to rail transportation.

Railway regulation has historically served a different purpose than the regulation of other modes of transport. Trucking regulation restricted available trucking services and limited the freedom of choice of consumers. The deregulation of that industry had a pro-competitive result.

Railway regulation has served a different purpose. It protects captive shippers against the excessive monopoly power of the railways. Legislative provisions which give competitive options to railway customers promote competition. It is the stated policy of the government that those provisions, called the shipper relief

provisions, will remain untouched in the present legislation. We are in full agreement with that approach.

I do have grave concerns, however, with certain sections of the proposed legislation that will make it more difficult for railway customers to obtain access to the Canadian transportation agency should the need arise. These barriers to agency access are counterproductive to a competitive railway environment and are unnecessary based on the experience of the last eight years.

The shipper relief provisions have been used by railway customers on only a handful of occasions. Their principal benefit has been to provide railway customers with some bargaining leverage in negotiating rates and service agreements with the railways. In this regard they have been particularly successful, as virtually thousands of rate and service agreements have been entered into between rail carriers and their customers and only when agreements could not be reached has recourse to the agency been required. Accordingly there is no need to construct barriers or fences to prevent their continued utilization. This will only have the effect of impairing their efficiency and making it more difficult for commercial arrangements to be concluded.

Section 113 of the proposed legislation provides that all rates set by the agency must be commercially fair and reasonable, while as a general principle no one could reasonably argue that rates should not be commercially fair and reasonable. The problem is that there is no definition of what is commercially fair and reasonable in the current bill.

Subsection 34(1) will enable the agency to order the payment of compensation for any loss or delay as a result of a proceeding which is found to be frivolous or vexatious. While this again does not appear to be unreasonable on the face of it, I am not aware of any pressing reason for its inclusion in the legislation. There is no history of frivolous or vexatious applications being filed with the agency and should a proceeding be initiated the agency has the jurisdiction to assess costs against an offending party.

I am concerned that this provision could operate as a deterrent to a railway customer who has a valid proceeding to advance before the agency. The chilling effect of a large damage award, should the application be unsuccessful, could well cause a railway customer not to proceed with a valid application.

A further area which I know the committee will consider concerns the running rights provisions. The provision to allow railways to sell or abandon lines will lead to, it is hoped by many, the creation of a great many short line railways. Absent the right to run as was originally proposed to the first competitive interchange where they can receive two bids for their cost of transportation and short line railways will remain captive in a less free environment than they currently have.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak on the bill. I know the committee will take the time to hear from many Canadians who are very concerned as we move to a new environment for rail transportation in the country.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to voice our complete agreement with the assessment of Bill C-101 as stated by my Reform Party colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke.

During the last election campaign the Liberals outlined in their infamous red book how they were to do business differently. Does the House remember that? They could hardly control themselves describing how they would do business differently once they seized the reins of power.

The Deputy Prime Minister was so reckless as to claim the Liberals would replace the goods and services tax within a year of coming into power or she would resign. The GST is alive and well and the Deputy Prime Minister shows no signs whatsoever of voluntarily resigning her seat as she promised to do. Is this what Canadians are supposed to buy as doing business differently?

My constituents are asking: "Different from what?" This type of shenanigans is the same as the shenanigans of the Mulroney government. They are all doing business differently and we all know what the people did with Mr. Mulroney's party and its way of doing business differently.

What are we looking for? What are we looking at? We are looking at failed promises. The Liberals promised major changes to the MP pension plan. They gave us minor changes which do not reflect private sector pension plan standards.

The Liberals promised they would empower individual members of Parliament through an increase in the use of free votes. My goodness, free votes in the House of Commons. The Liberals have reneged on that promise by enforcing a heavy handed control of voting on their own party members.

The point I am leading to is simple. In the view of the motion being forwarded by the government at this time, there is no way we on this side of the House can trust the Liberal government. Neither should the Canadian public. The Reform Party's transport critic is quite right in the stand he has taken. British Columbians rely on railway transportation. B.C. has relied on railway transportation since the time of Confederation. Mining and forestry constitute a substantial portion of the economy in British Columbia.

We have contacted many companies in British Columbia respecting the bill. Our solicitations for input have caused an avalanche of information to flow to our offices. Detailed amendments to the bill keep coming in from many industry sources. All these companies make it very clear they feel strongly that Bill C-101 is vital to maintain and enhance competition in Canadian railways.

However there exists a danger that the Liberals intend to use the bill as a baby step in the right direction. Canadian railways are infected with exorbitant taxes and regulations which have created an unlevel playing field between us and our major trading partner. If there is anything the federal government can do to improve Canada's competitive advantage in terms of land transportation policies, these companies would have us do it.

We all agree that the major accomplishment of Bill C-101 of establishing a clear redefined process for line abandonment is desirable. This would enable railways to establish short line routes to be governed under provincial legislation.

The major flaw in the bill is that the free market is prevented from establishing prices. The Liberals intended the railways to continue to be treated as a service rather than as a business. They will continue through the bill to allow the transportation agency to regulate prices.

The Liberals are once again attempting to use policy as a means of regional development. It is a shame. Canadian businesses are sick and tired of this treatment being used on policy which affects their livelihood. The bill gives cabinet the authority to decide which rail lines will be abandoned in the next few years.

The Liberals are sealing their exclusive right to use these abandonments as policy footballs in their pre-election campaign. There is no reason for the bill to be sent to the committee directly following first reading.

Such a move is only convenient to the Liberal political agenda. We on this side of the House have seen many times in the past what this kind of request from the government benches really means. The Liberals would have us believe that this manoeuvre is another example of doing business differently, using the Grits terms. However we know differently. The Liberals are only interested in facilitating CN's share offering due this fall.

The Liberals are circumventing access to the committee hearings. The committee, suffering from a bad case of Liberal dictatorship, has already affixed arbitrary deadlines for submissions from stakeholders.

These deadlines were adopted by the committee as a result of the domination of Liberal Party membership on the committee. We all know what happens to Liberal Party members who do not vote the way of the Liberal Party intelligentsia or the way they are told to vote. We have seen it before in the House.

On this side of the House we know that the committee has received numerous submissions over the summer. We also know that the committee promised to circulate the submissions so that all hon. members could take them into consideration.

Finally we know that none of the submissions have been circulated. I might add that we know that the Liberals are doing business differently. I remember the last government. I cannot see the difference. Do you see the difference, Mr. Speaker?

Here is the different way of doing business that Canadians are seeing. Bill C-89 and Bill C-91 were fast tracked through this place by the Liberals. At that time the Liberals said that it would provide a more amendable process or something like that. Both those legislative proposals were passed without a single amendment. That is doing business differently. They do not allow any amendments whatsoever. It would be laughable if it did not concern important legislation regarding the interest of Canadian stakeholders.

I strongly urge the House not to vote for Bill C-101 which requires due process. Let us make sure this piece of legislation gets the due process this place should give it.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Speaker

I would point out to hon. members that the Speaker, as a rule, does not answer questions. I know hon. members will know that.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Glen McKinnon Liberal Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I intend to share my 10 minutes with my colleague from Souris-Moose Mountain.

The Reform Party insists on dealing with only the process and not the content of Bill C-101. I would simply like to comment that from our perspective here on the government side, we feel we are complying with the new rule changes that were initiated by the government. We intend to fulfil those changes.

Bill C-101 has had some interesting background. It attempts to reduce the National Transportation Agency to some degree, from a full complement of nine members down to three full time and three part time. We are also hoping to reduce the number of employees within that agency from 500 down to 200. We feel this is a move that will initiate and respect our drive for efficiencies within the system.

I might further comment that the structure of the rail industry in particular and the laws that regulate it hark back to a time when Canada was a self-contained internal market. That time has passed. Canada's growth and the opportunities of our people now depend on the ability of our industries to embrace and meet the needs of global markets. Rail transportation is strategically important for our exporters as the means that will keep us in those markets. A

viable rail industry, one that can attract new capital and one that is sensitive to shippers' needs, is crucial.

For many years the focus of the law has been on the network of the two large railways and ways to prevent these two companies from changing this network. The law was seen as a mechanism to prevent abandonment and also to reduce service. The focus was not on alternative ways to deliver local rail service.

As I read this bill, I am sensing that there are provisions whereby rail abandonment, if it does occur, will be done on a much different basis. There will be respect for the fact that the economics of abandonment must be addressed and that there must have been efforts put in place by the two major lines to actually show that they have attempted to sell such railways in terms of setting up short lines.

The Canada transportation act encourages these main lines to restructure in a way that promotes the establishment of new rail initiatives and alternative short lines. In the future, the law will set in place a process that will allow private sector interests or regional officials to intercede to take over lines they consider important for regional rail transportation.

The framework under the new Canada transportation act sees our rail industry and its future viability as crucial for long term growth. It also encourages new participation at the local and regional level to preserve rail service.

In conclusion, the Canada transportation act is good for Canada because it reflects what a modern Canada needs. It is a framework law that recognizes the global nature of markets and the strategic importance of transportation, particularly rail transportation.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Bernie Collins Liberal Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I point out that I was one of the nine members of Parliament who voted in opposition to Bill C-68. I want to go on the record here today as indicating to this House that there was no action taken against any of us for the position we took relative to that vote some time ago. Maybe that will clarify the minds of some of the members of the Reform Party who said that we were going to be held in some disdain for the stands we took. Such was not the case.

With regard to the bill before us today, the federal government is committed to a safe, efficient, affordable, and competitive transportation system for Canada. This legislation is part of the modernization process that is already under way.

The constituents in my riding welcome a modernization and an increase in efficiency in the system. They have a lot at stake in this legislation. The entire riding's economy rises and falls on the relative wellness of the grain industry. Many changes have taken place in the grain farming industry in the past year. There is a period of very dramatic adjustment that our farming community is embracing and dealing with at this moment. The Canada transportation act is one more adjustment. Hence, we must be very careful as we proceed.

Let me say at the outset that I am concerned about short line rails in the expansion. I am concerned about shippers so that they have some degree of knowledge that they are going to be protected and that their rights are preserved in this new competitive arrangement under the new act. That is why I am pleased that this bill is now being referred to committee. This will give the committee and the public ample opportunity to review and debate the merits of each of the aspects of the bill.

In my riding there are many groups with very good ideas, constructive criticisms, and suggestions for changing and finetuning on this bill. They want to look at these very carefully and consider the impact of the bill for the long term. This can take place on a detailed level in committee.

I know that this bill addresses the entire spectrum of transportation issues, from rail to air to marine. In particular, my concern is the modernization and increased efficiencies of the rail sector. The legislation cuts red tape and eliminates administrative costs. It restricts government involvement in the day to day affairs of the rail industry.

Rail is the most highly regulated mode of transport in Canada. The act reduces the number of actions that require regulatory agency involvement from almost 200 to 40. This is in line with the federal government's commitment to streamline operations, eliminate duplication, and improve the way we deliver service.

The legislation makes it easier for short line operators to take over lines by making the process more commercially oriented, less adversarial, and more conducive to the sale or lease of surplus lines to newcomers.

The legislation also contains details to preserve shipper rights and protections. There is a lot of heated debate in this area. This is what our government wants to hear. We want those people affected by these changes to come forward at the committee stage and contribute to the final version of the bill.

The CTA is one more step this government has taken toward the modernizing of Canada's transport sector. It enables Canada and Canadian businesses to compete in the 21st century. That, along with our concern for the actions of the agriculture sector, can contribute to a more sufficient and efficient system that is foremost in the world.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Speaker

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

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.