Paul Mercier

[National Transportation Agency, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Several decisions by the National Transportation Agency allowing CN and CP to abandon lines in Quebec will be implemented in 1995. The Quebec economic development professionals' association is concerned about the devastating impact of these decisions on regional development in Quebec and urges the minister to review these decisions by the agency.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

So I think that should interest the hon. member. In Ottawa, according to Jean Dion's article, the first salvos that were fired stressed the undemocratic nature of the Parizeau plan. It is all very convenient, now that the government is headed by Jean Chrétien, a man who does not want to talk about the Constitution, so that the federal government can no longer argue, at it did in 1980, the case for renewed federalism to accommodate that unruly province. This deals with the objections we just heard.

Next, in a reference to prosperous federations, they say: Switzerland is prosperous, but the USSR was not. Brazil is not. Russia is not. These are federations, which proves that a federal system is no guarantee of prosperity.

Third, who or what determines the quality of our lives, Madam Speaker? People, Canadians and Quebecers, not the federal system, determine our standard of living. I am told this country has the highest standard of living in the world, Madam Speaker. When you cut a cake in two, are the two halves smaller than they were before? Not as far as I know.

For instance, Norway and Sweden were one country until 1904-05, when Sweden accepted Norway's separation. Did Norway and Sweden become impoverished after they were separated? They are among the most prosperous countries mentioned.

What about the G-7? They say we will not be part of the G-7. Well, we could not care less, because you do not have to be big to be prosperous. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, with a popula-

tion of 300,000, has an unemployment rate of 2 per cent. We would not mind that.

That being said, I remain convinced that sovereignty is the best choice for Quebec's future, and I invite the people of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes to take an active part in the debate that starts today.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

I am getting there, Madam Speaker, but since we are discussing generalities, it all takes time.

The hon. member gave a general defence of the federal option, and my answer was that the general arguments we have heard lack consistency. May I proceed, Madam Speaker?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the debate that is taking place here today is historic and I expected a higher level of debate from the other side. I see that our colleagues opposite consistently select for their statements examples and quotes that support their position, while omitting examples and quotes that are unfavourable to it.

For example, this morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went through newspapers from coast to coast, he said to show how editorial writers were all against the sovereignist solution that we are advocating. Except that one article in Le Devoir , which is also somewhere between those two coasts, as far as I know, and on the front page, which is hard to forget-

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since my conclusion would be too lengthy, I will be glad to listen to my colleague's answer.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my colleague opposite. I appreciated his interesting list of successful conveyances of short line railways to private companies.

I would like to point out that before we make decisions on rail line abandonments with the approval of the government or the National Transportation Agency, a serious examination is in order because that kind of conveyance has negative legal and social consequences on employees despite all that can be said.

That is why our party has asked for a moratorium on rail line abandonments. There is no overall plan to reorganize the railway system, and we blame the government for it. There is no plan on which to base decisions to approve or reject requests for rail line abandonments and branch line removals by CP and CN.

We ask for a moratorium so we can examine the whole issue. We agree that companies may not be able to keep some lines that no private company can take over because they would not be viable. It should be pointed out, though, that the lack of viability is sometimes the result of extremely poor service, in which case we should take a look at what caused the problem in the first place. Is the lack of business actually the result of bad service that companies keep that way on purpose, to be able to ask for abandonment?

That leads me to questions concerning workers. Apparently, certain groups in transportation companies have more privileges than others. I did not go through their collective agreements, but we should enquire about the spending structure of CN when it says those privileges should be reduced. For example, CN set up a rating centre in Montreal, and, after spending a few million dollars to set it up in Montreal, it decided to transfer it out west.

This morning, my colleague, who is deputy chairman of the transport committee, mentioned a shocking case of exceptional perks granted to an executive. We should scrutinize all those things before we decide that there are cases of abuse, and that lines should be conveyed to private companies to alleviate the pressure of wages.

That brings me to the broader issue of-

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine made a reference to what I said about electrification, so I would like to add that electrification is an option that offers tremendous economic as well as environmental benefits, for Quebec and Ontario, two provinces that produce large amounts of electric power.

What I meant is that if Quebec were a sovereign State, it could look at the option of electrification more independently and with greater emphasis on national interests, I would say, than would be the case today, when we have people lobbying to maintain the use of oil. I may add that some railway lines, and I have travelled on these, use oil on one section and electricity on another section. It is not a major problem.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, of course, if Quebec becomes independent, there will be several technical questions to settle, and the issue of rail transportation will just be one of them. However, the hon. member must understand that, even though this issue will come up, it will not be impossible to resolve. It will only be one more issue to settle.

Among other things, separation will enable Quebec to electrify its rail lines, which would increase consumption of its national source of energy instead of what it considers imported energy, with all the environmental benefits this implies.

Also, we could elaborate a policy according to our own national interests, instead of watering them down with other interests, and not only where rail transportation is concerned, but in other areas as well. Everyone knows that, in the rail transportation area, Western Canada has always been in favour with the government and has received very generous gifts paid for by every Canadian taxpayer.

Once Quebec becomes independent, it will not have to pay for gifts that do not benefit Quebecers and it will look after its own national interests, but always in a spirit of co-operation and continuity with Canada and North America.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, although I am certainly closer to my colleagues in Quebec City than the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I would not presume to speak on their behalf about their proposed fiscal policy on fuel taxes.

I see that my hon. colleague is very concerned about the lack of accountability, in his opinion, of several states in establishing a rail network. My colleague has just pointed out to him that the train between Brussels and Lille crosses the border without stopping. Since I come from that region, I can assure him that this did not start with the high-speed trains but decades ago. The networks are generally international, except perhaps in Japan and Madagascar, which is another island. I did not check.

Generally speaking, however, every country that is part of an international network is concerned about the quality of rail service in the other countries, because the quality of the whole network depends on the quality of rail service in each of its components.

If we are interested in the quality of the federal network, it is because we think, despite our sovereignist views, that the quality of Quebec rail service depends on the quality of the North American network in a very general way. Canada and Quebec, which is now a province, must of course work together to build this great North American network which, in the national interest, must be as good here as in the other countries.

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to talk seriously about the national interest, an issue that the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has tried to lose sight of from the beginning of this debate.

We asked for this one-day debate on railways to consider solutions to rail problems and not for partisan questions of what happened in the past or concerning individuals who are not here.

In my statement, I will not provide the solutions which the minister was asking for because before we propose remedies, we must first make a diagnosis, and it appears from the diagnosis that I am to present that the government's inaction and inertia are mainly responsible for the problem with railways. So I shall present this part of the diagnosis and not specific remedies, as far as I am concerned.

The Canadian government's inertia on rail issues is in strange contrast to the dynamism shown by most other developed countries in this field. In Canada, our leaders consider the railways to be things of the past; as development tools, they certainly had their days of glory, but they are doomed to disappear. In other countries, the railways are considered excellent means of transportation which must urgently adapt to current requirements. On this point, I will repeat what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said about the difference in population density between Belgium and Quebec.

I will tell him right away that it is not the Parti Quebecois's intention to propose railways for the Far North, whose population density is about average for this country, but only in the southern corridor, where the density is quite comparable to many European countries that are now trying to renew and develop their rail system.

Our government's inaction on rail transport is essentially due to lack of vision, as my colleague from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans showed very well. When you do not see the source of the problem, it is hard to move. That is the trouble which this government, and especially its transport minister, have: they see the railways as basically folklore.

The government does not act. It lets rail lines belonging to one of the greatest railway systems in the world be dismantled on the basis of purely cost-accounting decisions. The socio-economic benefit analysis of a railroad is ignored and replaced instead by a cold and narrow accounting analysis.

This government does not act. It lets thousands of railroad workers lose their jobs. The restructuring of the main providers of employment in the country is done without any follow-up. The government lets CN's head office, in Montreal, become gradually more and more empty, for the benefit of Winnipeg and Moncton, but at the expense of the quality of service. A company in my riding, Transpotech, can attest to that deterioration, since CN moved some of its services from Montreal to Winnipeg.

The government does not act. It is still dragging its feet regarding the high speed train issue, wondering whether that project is too costly or not. Yet, a consortium which includes Bombardier is convinced of the viability of that project and keeps winning major contracts all over the world, except in Canada. Do you not think that these people have given sufficient credentials to be listened to?

The government does not act. There is no precise definition of Canada's transport requirements for the years to come. While foreign governments promote rail service and give it priority, this government chooses to ignore the tax and regulatory problems which our carriers have to face.

The government does not act. It cannot see the environmental and economic benefits which would result from a strengthening of our rail system. If the government cannot see those benefits, the opposition can demonstrate how economic development and environmental protection can both be achieved through a sound rail policy.

This morning, I want to propose new tools and provide data that should prompt the government and the Minister of Transport to wake up. Of all the various modes of transportation, the rail system is obviously the less harmful to the environment. It uses less fuel and releases less pollutants, hence contributing significantly to the air quality.

Statistics released in 1990 show that the percentage of pollutant emissions reaches 4.8 per cent for trains, compared to 18.4 per cent, which is four times more, for trucks. Because of its rate structure, trucking has become the main obstacle to an increase in train services, despite the social and economic benefits of the rail system. This is why I want to compare these two modes of transport which, instead of being competitive, could be used in conjunction, within a dual-mode system, but we will get back to this issue.

Figures concerning the difference in pollutant emissions for both modes of transportation are eloquent. Let me give you just one example: carbon dioxide emissions by trains reach 13.9 per cent, compared to 48.4 per cent for trucks, the relatively low fuel consumption of trains accounts for the difference.

Let us examine the comparisons between both modes of transportation. The advantages of the rail system are significant. However, one of the main benefits of the rail system, compared to trucking, is the fact that trains can carry heavy loads on long distances. For example, a study showed that to move 200 containers across the United States, there would have to be three to five engines on the one hand, and more than 200 trucks on the other.

The intrinsic features of rail transportation thus allow to impede road congestion which adversely affects economic development. Obviously, if all lines were electrified in Canada, train emissions would be markedly reduced. Countries concerned with environment protection consider electrification of their rail system in line with their sustainable development policy. Western Europe has the highest rate of rail lines electrifi-

cation: 99 per cent in Switzerland, 55 per cent in Italy and 26 per cent in the United Kingdon.

Canada ranks behind the United States with less than 1 per cent in spite of its huge hydro capacity. There could be no better example of the inadequacy of our system not only in regards to its needs but also to the resources it uses. Air transportation is by all means the most polluting. It is more polluting and energy-consuming than rail transportation, which brings me to the issue of the high-speed trains, which I will address strictly from the point of view of environment protection, since my colleague for Laval-Centre will later review the whole issue.

As we know, the French high-speed train and also other rapid trains as the German ICE, the German Trans-Rapid, for example, can easily keep up with planes as for the duration of long-distance travel.

Thus, with better rates and lower consumption levels than the air transportation, the high-speed train in particular proves to be an environment friendly alternative while meeting the speed and comfort needs of travellers.

Mr. Speaker, the train is very competitive as far as energy consumption is concerned. At high as well as at low speed, it can, in most cases, use electric power.

Any measure aimed at an increased use of railroads should be supported by an adequate fiscal and regulatory policy. As things stand right now, the railway companies do not get any tax benefits resulting from the fuel tax for example. If the government wants us to believe it is serious about giving a new start to the rail transportation industry, it must first provide for tax arrangements which will promote an increased use of the train.

The railway industry should get the same benefits as its main competitor, the trucking industry. It is urgent that the government brings its tax measures up to date because, at present, they indirectly support the trucking industry while railroad companies have to establish and maintain their networks themselves. Truck operators do not pay for the maintenance and the construction of the roads although they contribute largely to the deterioration of that infrastructure.

Road transportation is very expensive because roads have to be repaired and rebuilt. It is also environmentally very costly because it takes up large spaces. A highway requires six times as much space as a railway. It was also established that you would need sixteen highway lanes to move as many people in one hour as you would on two railroad lines.

One Eastern Quebec group, the Comité de la protection de la santé et de l'environnement, in a brief submitted in 1989, provided figures showing the basic advantages of a railroad-oriented approach. We tend to forget about them. The committee members estimated that the building of one highway mile requires 20 acres of land while the building of one railroad mile requires only 6 acres of land. The issue is not land scarcity but optimum land use.

So I explained why, in terms of transportation, we must do more to support the railroad industry. At this point, it would be useful to consider how this much desired expansion will proceed.

Many stakeholders in the transportation industry are pressing for a national, integrated transportation policy. We need a policy that allows for competition and market forces and deals even-handedly with all modes of transportation in this country. It should also get rid of all the tax inequities that put the railway sector at risk.

We have an extensive railway network that, although not in good shape, could provide some interesting opportunities. From a strictly economic point of view, revitalizing our railway infrastructure should be the first step, before we consider intermodal or multimodal approaches.

Actually, users depend increasingly on the combined use of several transportation modes. Introducing intermodal technologies, including equipment that allows for the quick transfer of goods from trucks or ships to trains, will revitalize the railway freight industry.

Intermodal is the future of the railways. In 1991, revenue generated by intermodal activities for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific totalled $745 million. This amount represented 6 per cent of the total tonnage of railway activity and 13 per cent of the total revenues of CN and CP. In the past few years, both companies have made substantial investments to adjust to new market demands. Taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to transportation will support these companies in their efforts to go beyond the traditional markets of the railways.

The total volume of intermodal traffic at CN and CP in 1991 was 12.2 million tonnes. Of all activity sectors using intermodal transportation, import export is by far the most important one, representing half of the total tonnage.

In the present context of market globalization, one cannot overemphasize the importance of strengthening our import export activities. Without wishing to sound like a science fiction writer, I think it is entirely realistic to say that the intermodal approach is indispensable if Canada and Quebec are to take their place in the vast global market that will develop in the twenty-first century.

To do so, however, we need the railways. This government is doing the exact opposite of what is now being done by the Europeans. In Europe, decision-makers have understood the pride of place the railways should have in economic development. Canada uses its railway infrastructures for freight and passenger transportation ten times less frequently than do most

European countries. Trade within the European common market is efficient and effective as a result of a policy that integrates all transportation modes, while considering the merits of each one, to make them function as a powerful development tool that is able to satisfy both economic interests and environmental concerns.

The European Commission estimates that between 1990 and 2010, the volume of freight hauled by trucks will increase by 42 per cent. Alarmed by road traffic which will eventually be totally out of control, leaders of the European Community are proposing to transfer, as much as possible, the transportation of goods from road to rail and water.

Railway transportation of goods is being encouraged by European governments concerned by the worsening of environmental damage caused by an excessive reliance on road transportation. When you consider that in France, in Italy or in Spain the volume of road traffic is about 6.5 times that of rail traffic, while in Canada the ratio is 1 to 76, you realize that it is high time that we should do the same.

An integrated transport policy requires the establishment of a basic railway network. Such a network, essential and specialized, would have to be set up in co-operation with the provinces, since they would have major economic interests in it.

To be effective, the federal government intervention would have to recognize the jurisdiction of its provincial partners in an integrated transportation system. Government action must balance federal responsibilities in rail transportation and provincial jurisdiction in road transportation. Integration does not necessarily mean uniformity.

In the meantime, while we wait for an all-Canada network, we should impose a moratorium on railways to avoid the senseless and premature destruction of valuable rail infrastructures. We have to stop the haemorrhage of rail line abandonment in Canada, and in Quebec in particular. At the rate we are going, by the time the transport minister finally realizes that this country needs a basic railway network that harmoniously integrates all means of transportation, it will be too late.

That is why a moratorium is so important. It will allow us to analyze the planned abandonment of lines, on an individual basis, and mainly to evaluate the potential role these lines could play in the future basic railway network we must put in place.

The railway industry must be put back on track. There is no better way to say it. When the whole world, including our southern neighbours, is increasingly relying on railway transportation, in Canada, we are increasingly relegating it to a bygone era, a nostalgic past.

Instead of paying tribute to the memory of the Fathers of Confederation, we should do Canadian taxpayers a huge favour by stimulating trade through the railway industry. Railway transportation is undeniably an essential service.

It is high time to take advantage of the economic, social and environmental benefits of railway use. We need public commitment. Sweden and a unified Germany are already planning to invest as much in their railway system as in their road network. Of course, an eventual public commitment will have to be accompanied by measures to eliminate such irritants as unfair transportation subsidies and tax exemptions on fuel which are not generalized.

Most of all, it is high time to put in place a basic network integrating all means of transportation, in a co-operative, non-confrontational manner. As long as an integrated transportation policy has not been given serious consideration, the under-utilization of Canadian rail lines cannot be used as an argument to justify their abandonment.

The status of Quebec in the next century should not interfere with this super network project. Europeans have such a network, although Europe is made up of numerous sovereign states which are all participating in the economic development of the continent. With NAFTA around the corner, we must draw our inspiration from the accomplishments of the world communities.

We hope that, in the 21st century, all of North America will be connected to a huge modern, efficient, viable, reliable, and affordable transportation network that will make it easier to move goods and people while respecting the environment. Such is the challenge ahead of us. If we do not want to miss the boat, now is the time to take action.