Vic Althouse

[Agriculture, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The GATT signing in Marrakech set in motion an ambitious round of trade talks to begin in 1999 aimed at agricultural subsidies, but also targeting state trading entities.

Since department of agriculture officials have begun to use the term "state trading entities" when describing the Canadian Wheat Board, having done so recently at the CFA convention, has the government already decided to rid itself of the wheat board, the dairy commission and the supply management boards by defining them out of existence through GATT as it did with the Crow rate?

[Canada Post, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today there is a byelection in the constituency of the former minister of external affairs. This reminds us that he is now head of Canada Post Corporation.

Mr. Ouellet inherits a Canada Post plagued with service problems. Cheques mailed from Saskatchewan to Edmonton take more than two weeks, resulting in late payment and interest penalties. I get reports of Christmas parcels still not delivered after six weeks. Photos sent two years ago are still not received.

A weekly newspaper goes from Tisdale, Saskatchewan to Swan River, Manitoba each week. The trip takes three hours by car, 20 hours by dog team, 25 hours on skis, 60 hours on foot and 288 hours by Canada Post.

May Mr. Ouellet find a technique to decrease the delivery time faster than he increases postal rates.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 72, the following new Clause:

"155.1(1) After consultation with such participants as the Agency deems appropriate, the Agency shall, on or before March 31, 1997, on the basis of the most recent calendar or crop year for which appropriate costing information is available, complete a review of and determine, for that year, the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain and the line-related variable costs of the railway companies for grain-dependent branch lines as designated by the Agency pursuant to section 41 of the Western Grain Transportation Act.

(2) In carrying out the review and making the determination referred to in subsection (1), the Agency shall a ) take into account all costs actually incurred that are directly related to the provision of an adequate, reliable and efficient railway transportation system that will meet future requirements for the movement of grain; b ) compute the costs of capital and adjust that cost by any amount it deems justified in light of the risks associated with the movement of grain; c ) exclude the costs of capital and depreciation in respect of branch line assets provided under the Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation Program and in respect of railway cars that have not been funded by the railway companies; d ) exclude the costs incurred by the railway companies in providing for and holding public meetings referred to in section 56.1 of the Western Grain Transportation Act; e ) reduce the additional costs directly attributable to the joint line movement referred to in sections 49 and 50 of that Act by an amount equal to the additional revenues derived by the railway companies pursuant to those sections; and f ) reduce the additional costs directly attributable to the acquisition by the railway companies of railway cars for the movement of grain other than box cars or hopper cars by an amount equal to the additional revenues derived by the railway companies pursuant to sections 51 and 52 of that Act.

(3) The Agency shall, on or before March 31, 1997 and on or before March 31 of every fourth year thereafter, complete a further review and determination of costs in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) on the basis of the most recent calendar or crop year for which appropriate costing information is available.

(4) In carrying out the review referred to in subsection (1) and further review made pursuant to subsection (3), the Agency shall assess the appropriateness of the level of the contribution to the constant costs of the railway companies referred to in paragraph ( b ) of the definition ``estimated eligible costs'' in subsection 34(1) of the Western Grain Transportation Act and make recommendations to the Minister thereon.

(5) In assessing the appropriateness of the level of the contribution referred to in subsection (4), the Agency shall be guided by the following objectives: a ) to ensure that the overall revenues of the railway system are adequate to meet its long-term needs; and b ) to ensure that the contribution to constant cost provided by the movement of grain is fair in relation to the contribution provided by other commodities.''

Mr. Speaker, this motion falls neatly behind the one I spoke to just a few moments ago. It fleshes out a little more the kinds of consultations the agency should engage in when doing a review. It is for an earlier review than the one required under the previous motion. In the previous motion the review was to be completed by 1999. This sets out similar guidelines for a review, which I suppose if one was a social scientist, an economist or an an accountant, would say that this establishes the base line for the future review. It establishes the same parameters and the same requirements. It looks at the same things the review in 1999 will look at but does it on the first year of the agency's activities. We will see in 1999 whether progress is made.

It will be very difficult to do a proper job of the review in 1999 if there is no base study done now. This sets up the opportunity for the agency to conduct such a base study. It will clearly establish the real costs of the system as of this coming year. When we have the review in 1999 we will know whether progress has been made and whether the act is a success or a failure.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I understood that you had included Motion No. 66 in the last group. It was not decided how to deal with it.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the grouping of the motions includes one from me. It states that Bill C-14 on page 72, section 155, requires a review where:

-the minister shall, in consultation with shippers, railway companies and any other persons that the Minister considers appropriate, conduct and complete a review of the effect of this Act, and in particular this Division, on the efficiency of the grain transportation and handling system and on the sharing of efficiency gains as between shippers and railway companies.

As we go further through section 155 which creates this study in the future, nothing requires the study to be made public. This motion has the effect of requiring that the results of such a study be laid before the House of Commons within 30 days of the completion of the review.

This is quite common and normal for reviews structured under acts of Parliament. I presume it was an error on the part of the government and it was simply missed. I expect that the government will be supportive of this since it has a similar kind of clause in 48 which deals with extraordinary disruptions to the system and those extraordinary disruptions are reported to the House of Commons. As well in clause 43, the minister tables the annual reports of the Canadian Transport Agency.

On such an important issue as this review of whether the whole system of deregulation has or has not worked, it is obvious that the House of Commons would and should be interested. I am sure it was simply an oversight on the part of the government and I expect the motion will be supported at the time of the vote.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-14, in Clause 155, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21, on page 72, with the following:

"(2) The Minister shall lay before the House of Commons a report concerning the review made under subsection (1) within thirty sitting days after the review is completed."

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

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.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

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.''

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this clause has been quite contentious among the users in the grain industry. They have some difficulty with the phrase "commercially fair and reasonable" which clause 112 contains.

This is not something that I alone was concerned about in the House. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster had also attempted to move a similar motion, hence the support by my hon. friend from Lisgar-Marquette.

The problem is that the provisions of this clause are to provide an interpretive direction to the Canadian transport agency when it is setting rates or conditions of service as they apply to carriers.

Since the clause now reads "a rate or condition of service established by the agency under this division must be commercially fair and reasonable", a lot of the witnesses who were before the transport committee, including the prairie pools, the National Farmer's Union, the three prairie provincial governments, indicated they could not support such a provision because there was no clear definition as to what constitutes fair and reasonable.

It was also indicated that clause 113 was to serve as a general guideline for the NTA. If that were the case, this kind of guideline should be conveyed to the agency through means other than legislation.

In their submission to the transport committee the three prairie governments stated clause 113 provides yet another potential avenue for railways to delay the process and to appeal rates established by formulas for interswitching and competitive line rates.

Since a large number of the people who will be affected by this clause think it should be dropped, I am in agreement and propose this amendment to strike this clause from the legislation.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 25th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 112.