Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Transport 2000 wishes to thank you for the opportunity to briefly present our points of view regarding Bill C-11. There are a few ancillary matters that constitute context, rather than directly belonging to Bill C-11.
As a general comment, we support Bill C-11, but we have some concerns with some proposed sections as the amendment now reads, because those proposed sections do not appear to serve our best interest as Canadians. There are four points, of which the middle two are really on Bill C-11. The first and fourth are contextual, Mr. Chair.
First of all, Transport 2000 would like to draw the committee's attention to the uncertain long-term prospects for VIA Rail. As a national business and public service provider, VIA continues to suffer from a lack of a legislative basis, which would ensure its long-term survival.
The second point concerns the national transportation policy declaration, particularly, the statement that prohibits investing in one mode of transportation to the detriment of another form of transportation. In our view, this would be highly problematic. Studies from other developed countries, and even our own studies in Nova Scotia, indicate exactly the opposite. In fact, the introduction of one form of transportation can actually increase the use of other forms of transportation in the same region. Such a catalytic effect could reduce our dependence on private vehicles and help achieve the emissions targets set out under the new clean air act.
The Nova Scotia work we did showed that when passenger trains were withdrawn from local runs, for instance, in the Annapolis Valley and up to Cape Breton, the number of bus passengers dropped immediately by 10%. We did a survey and we found it was because people were using the two services in a complementary way to increase frequency. When that frequency dropped, the number of passengers dropped by more than the number or percentage of runs removed.
The other effect is connectivity. People can travel on from a train trip on the bus, or vice versa. Adding a corridor may actually benefit both modes, and the same may be true of other modes, although there are some highly competitive businesses where that might not be so.
While we appreciate that the new act reaffirms established principles and embraces new ones, notably the environment, this strikes us as needlessly restrictive. This may be a surprising statement, but while both economic and environmental factors are identified, we urge the committee to go a step further and add a reference to sustainable development as a guiding principle of Bill C-11. Such a reference would include social considerations as well as economic and environmental ones. This is according to the definition of sustainable development by the Brundtland commission.
Finally, Transport 2000 has been advised that some members of Parliament have received complaints regarding noise from railways. Before resorting to costly measures, changes in operating hours, large sound barriers, or even removal of track, we advise the mediation service available through Transport Canada be first used. There are numerous options for such things as noise abatement. I won't elaborate on that, but if people want details, I'd be happy to supply them at another time.
There is an annex here called ”VIA Rail Service--the Importance of Investment”. It was written to mark the coming of 150 years of service between Montreal and Toronto. It limits itself to a statement about the value of rapid train service in the corridor, but mutatis mutandis, these considerations would apply in other areas of the country, such as the Maritimes, or between Calgary and Edmonton. Indeed, the whole VIA network is valuable economically for tourism, business, and visiting families and relatives.
Finally, we strongly support giving more protection to rural rail lines. The urban lines are and will be protected to a degree. Ottawa, for example, has benefited from this. On the other hand, on Vancouver Island there's the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, which is now in the hands of the Island Corridor Foundation. By the way, the mayor of Parksville, Mr. Jack Peake, sends you his greetings.
The Esquimalt and Nanaimo--the Island Corridor Foundation, as it is now called--is in the process of building its business case and would like to draw attention to a few points. First, protect rural lines the same as lines in towns. Second, the passage of a new VIA Rail act would be helpful for these people on the island. Finally, the language of a bill ought to be modified to include rural rail lines.
We also suggest removing from the bill any references to urban transit authorities, to be replaced with expressions such as transportation agency or similar body. This would allow such authorities, boards or agencies to be established in rural areas, as well. For example, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell plan to expand the territory served by the Clarence-Rockland Transit authority to eventually include the United Counties and even part of Glengarry County. This area is not at all urban, in a strict sense.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I have said what I had to say.
