Debates of March 25th, 1996

Canada Transportation Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question on Group No. 10?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 39, on page 68, the following new clause:

"146.18 On the coming into force of this Division, sections 268 to 270 of the Railway Act shall apply to the provision of passenger-train services only in the following circumstances: a ) the passenger train service have been determined by the Agency to be in the public interest; or b ) the Governor in Council has declared a route or segment of a route of Via Rail Canada Inc. to be a protected route.''

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you talking about Group No. 12 or Group No. 11?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Group No. 12.

We considered Group No. 11 last Friday, at which time we also deferred the division on these motions.

Perhaps I should read the motion. It is in the same group.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could you advise whether we dispensed with Motion No. 24 in Group No. 10?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The matter of Motion No. 24 will be disposed of after the deferred vote.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Motion No. 24 as well?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Motion No. 23 was deferred and its rise or fall depends on what happens with Motion No. 23.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-14, in Clause 185, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 86, with the following:

"(2) Sections 264 to 267, 344, 345 and 358."

Mr. Speaker, cut to its most simplistic form, this motion would require the agency to determine whether or not a passenger train service was in the public interest. It would say that the governor in council has declared a route or segment of a route of VIA Rail to be a protected route. Essentially it would require the agency to determine whether a line that carries passengers should be protected, particularly in areas such as northern Ontario where 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the customers along the route have no other access to their destinations except by rail. The basic difference is that this would be required, instead of a clause where the agency may use these as considerations.

While Motion No. 70 lists a bunch of numbers, essentially it would make the proper corrections. Since this amendment would deal with sections 268 to 270 of the Railway Act, Motion No. 70 would simply drop those numbers from the succeeding clause in the bill because that would no longer be necessary. Motion No. 70 is simply housekeeping contingent upon Motion No. 56 passing.

The question here is whether a fully deregulated system can in fact perform a function for isolated areas. I note that some witnesses from the coalition for service to northern Ontario began their commentaries by saying that they began their work over a year ago believing strongly that they would seek market driven solutions to the ills that plague transport rather than once again looking to governments to save the railroads.

This spring however the coalition reluctantly came to the conclusion that when it came to rail passenger service, services in northern Ontario were no different from rail passenger services elsewhere in the world and that specifically, northern Ontario services understood that the passengers by themselves were not in a position, nor were they willing to pay for the full cost of such rail based service. Someone other than the fee payer would be needed to pay the difference in cost. They went on to point out the amount of subsidy which has been paid to maintain some of the lines in northern Ontario. I suspect we would find subsidies being paid to maintain service in other parts of the country as well when it comes to rail passenger service.

The intent of this amendment is to recognize that there are some places which will not be able to pay for the service on a user pay basis, that those parts of the country are important and that therefore we all should pay a little bit in order to maintain access to those regions for the people who live there. That is after all what a country is supposed to be about. It was the original rail service requirement in the Constitution to link the various colonies and regions of the country together.

Even though we are going to a deregulated system, there will always be some parts of the country in which full deregulation will make absolutely no sense, such as the many communities in northern Ontario. This particular amendment would require the agency to take that into consideration before it decided whether to provide a service.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak against this motion for some very obvious reasons. The NDP are still stuck about the 1920s. Its members do not seem to have been able to take a good look at what this bill intends to do.

The bill is intended to take the public interest out of a mode of transportation. It treats railroads just like truckers or shippers or anybody else. That is not to suggest that the agency is the final arbitrator of the public interest.

The legislation states that if there is something in the public interest it can be taken to members of Parliament. They are there to fight for a particular rail line if it is being subsidized. It will be a transparent subsidization that will be dealt with based on the merits of a certain region.

To send it to a non-elected body which on the one hand looks at the commercial side of issues but on the other hand what Canada's public interest is and what the beliefs are of the government of day, suggests to me that it is skewing the whole process of having successful transportation systems.

Section 48 permits the minister to enter into support agreements for the continuation of rail passenger service. From my experience and knowledge, that is what has been done in northern Ontario. I take offence at the member's suggestion that all of a sudden the government is going to leave northern Ontario in the lurch.

The other issue is one I have mentioned before. I believe the people who should deal with the public interest are those of us in the House. The agencies are there to make sure that the transportation system functions and runs properly. That is why the public interest scenario has been taken out of the bill.

I suggest to members that we get into the modern age and understand what is the intent of a rail transportation system. It is to get product to market as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Rail transportation, as far as passenger service is concerned, is a different issue and should be dealt with in a different arena which happens to be this one here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Group No. 12, Motions Nos. 56 and 70. All those in favour of the Motion No. 70 will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.