Debates of Nov. 15th, 1994

Points Of Order

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested in her comments that she was having trouble establishing the incompetence of the Department of Canadian Heritage and for very good reason. That is because it is headed by a very competent minister and is very well administered. I will leave that part of her remarks aside and deal with the substance of the procedural point that I know she wanted to deal with in her remarks. She got sidetracked by these kinds of partisan comments about the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The fact is that the parliamentary secretary who was here last night to answer was not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who was unable to be present last evening. She found herself in a position of having been given a set of notes in anticipation of a question on the subject that was not hers to deal with and that she had to give on the spur of the moment. As it turned out it was the wrong set of notes for the wrong question. A mixup had occurred for reasons beyond her control.

Accordingly she felt it inappropriate for her to attempt to come up with an answer to the hon. member's four-minute address on the issue. I may say the suggestion the hon. member has made, that the answer be given tonight on the late show in a special two-minute addition to the late show or a two-minute feature for the parliamentary secretary to give the answer, is one that is quite satisfactory as far as the government is concerned.

I am pleased, if the House agrees it be done, that the two-minute address be given tonight. I realize the hon. member would not have her four-minute speech before it but she gave it last night. We will have the four minutes last night and the two minutes tonight and I think everybody will be happy and in fact pleased to agree.

[The Speaker]

It seems we have found a solution to our little dilemma. I hope that is acceptable to the hon. member and all other members of the House, and it will be so ordered.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak briefly on the motion before the House.

I must admit that I was a little surprised and even amazed to see the motion that the Bloc Quebecois has proposed to us. On the one hand, the Bloc Quebecois often complains; its members claim to be concerned about the deficit and the debt and often say that we must cut unnecessary spending, we must cut what they call waste, a big term which is still undefined and for which we have never had a valid explanation.

I wonder if the Bloc Quebecois's definition of waste includes exceptional expenditures, which the government cannot make as a government. We still have to find out the answer.

[English]

Members of the Bloc inform us that they condemn the policy of the government in regard to railroad. I go on record as profoundly disagreeing with that proposition. As a matter of fact I congratulate the minister for having, and I will use the parliamentary term, the intestinal fortitude to address some very important issues in the area of transport, be it rail, maritime or air transport.

I never could understand, and the minister put it very eloquently in a speech that other members and I heard recently, when he said there were airports in Canada that were receiving two million passengers a year and getting zero dollars of subsidy and there were airports in Canada receiving $2 million a year in subsidies and getting zero passengers. There has to be something wrong with that system and the minister has the courage to address those important issues.

The same applies to rail transport. In my region, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, we have a rail line joining Ottawa and Montreal, the Alexandria subdivision. Trains use that track to reach these two big cities. But what happened? In 1986, CN threatened to close the subdivision. It was uncertain whether trains could run between Ottawa and Montreal, and of course it meant the end of passenger transportation between the two cities since VIA Rail uses the CN track.

Today, there is an agreement between CN and CP to maintain the subdivision jointly, and CN and CP trains use the track. This increases traffic on it, increases profitability and ensures the long-term survival of the line in question.

When the news that CN wanted to close the subdivision was leaked in 1986, you know what happened. Alexandria Moulding, a company in our riding that employed about 200 people, ended its expansion plans. Why? Because there was no long-term security. Today the minister is on top of these issues.

In my opinion the minister should continue in areas such as permitting local groups to start up short line railway operations. That process needs to be sped up. For instance, if CN, CP or both in the case of the Alexandria subdivision because it is to be jointly operated, need to shut down part of their operation and if there is a group of local businesses, municipalities or whatever that can keep that short line operation going, we should welcome it with open arms and not spend years and money arguing before various boards and organizations. We need to assure that whoever operates a short line railroad does so with all the safety standards involved and so on. That is guaranteed.

The process has to be accelerated to make these kinds of things happen. The minister is interested in it; he needs to be praised. On the other hand, some provincial governments, particularly those of the pink persuasion, our socialist friends particularly in Ontario, have established what are known as successor rights in the area of railways.

What have successor rights done? By the way the same thing has happened in Saskatchewan, and guess what kind of government it has. Yes, some more of those pink dinosaurs as well. The pink dinosaurs at the provincial level have established those successor rights laws in three provinces. The effect is such that some of the short line railway operations cannot get going because of successor rights.

Here is what happens. In one case in Saskatchewan a small piece of rail line was handed over to a local group. That small piece of rail line did not need a whole variety of employees. I believe it had 18 employees who at that point were in 14 different unions. Does that make sense? It does not make sense to me.

Let us use the example of an even smaller short line operation that would only require a handful of people. Because of the different union contracts a short line operation could not start up. It would have to hire staff it did not need. In other words, the person operating the breaker would have to be different from the person on the train because there are different unions and that sort of thing. Therefore people would be standing there doing nothing while the other one does his or her operation. Does that protect jobs? No, not at all. Instead of having a short line we end up having no service at all and no service at all does not give jobs to anybody.

Perhaps the people in charge of socialist regimes at the provincial level should remember that. If they do not they will not be in business very long anyway, particularly not in the province of Ontario. Their future is doomed about the same as that of the government replaced a little over a year ago by the excellent government we now have in power.

The members opposite are saying that the government should start putting in place a high-speed train system in Canada right away. In the past, these same members condemned the government for making expenditures we could not afford. I have a little problem with their proposals, with the logic used by the people opposite.

First, there is a study under way to determine if a high-speed train would be viable. The people opposite ignore the findings in these studies, but they want a high-speed train system right away and blame the government for not having done so already. Wait a minute. Keep this idea in mind for one minute, Mr. Speaker.

We can only conclude that the members opposite want to build a high-speed train, even if it were not viable. Otherwise, why would they not wait for the results of the viability study? But no. They want to build it, whether or not it is viable, so that when we find out that it is not viable, they can rise in the House to blame the government for building a system that is not viable and wasting money. That is the logic used by the people opposite. If I am not mistaken, the railway expert, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, has just told us that it is viable. We can conclude that he is referring to a study dating back to God knows when. He could perhaps share it with us so that the House would be better informed on this.

There are a number of other issues to be addressed. One of them is property taxes as they affect railroads. Property taxes in Canada generally cost something like 14 per cent of the expenditures of railway companies. That has been said by the Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg group of consultants. In the United States approximately 8 per cent of municipal taxation is applied to railways. That is a big difference for railway viability. It increases the cost of operating railroads in Canada and makes them less competitive.

Those are the kinds of things I know the minister is looking at. He needs to do that kind of work to make rail lines in Canada competitive.

In the long run if we do not ensure that our railways are viable, that they operate properly, the alternative will be no railway at all. We cannot continue with a system that inflicts debt after debt, loss after loss on the railway companies and expect they will be around for a long time. That is not going to happen.

We have to make them viable. We have to make them work properly and competitively so they can be around, provide transportation for Canadians, provide transportation for our goods which we export and import into Canada and provide jobs for those Canadians working in that very worthwhile industry, the railway and transportation industry.

That is why I cannot agree with the motion proposed by our colleagues across the way. I condemn it and I wish the members across would have offered something constructive to help save our railway industry in Canada.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not agree at all with the government whip, especially with his anti-union speech.

The high-speed train is viable. It will link the two most densely populated provinces, the two largest cities, Montreal and Toronto. Rail transportation is going through a serious crisis. I agree with the motion of the Bloc Quebecois which condemns the government's policies concerning the railway system and the gradual abandonment of the services provided by three companies, CN, CP and VIA, especially since these abandonments are occurring mostly in Quebec.

Thousands of jobs have already been lost and now employers want to reopen collective agreements to reconsider job security, fringe benefits and wages and to ask for some more concessions. They are acting in complicity with the government and especially with the Department of Transport and the companies, the employers. In Quebec, the rail transportation unions affiliated with the FTQ have joined forces and are doing a remarkable job.

I just received copy of a brief on the current situation in the railway industry prepared by local 4334 of the CAW, the Canadian Auto Workers. Quebec is hard hit, because services are being transferred to Western Canada. Is this the kind of Canadian federalism you want to force on us? Yes, Quebec is the province most affected by this crisis in the railway industry. Services are being transferred, mostly towards Winnipeg.

Would you agree to a moratorium in order to reconsider the situation in the railway industry, to set up a consultation committee made up of representatives of the governments, the unions and the companies to examine whatever remedial measures can be taken and to act before the railway system in Canada deteriorates further?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, three things ought to be pointed out. First, nothing in what I said was anti-union, quite the contrary. It is not anti-union to want and try to protect jobs in short-line railways. All claims to the contrary are false.

Second, as for the moratorium, the hon. member is aware that a parliamentary task force has just started a study on the whole issue of rail transportation in Canada. This task force will tour several Canadian cities and will report to the Minister of Transport.

The Minister of Transport will surely table this report in the House of Commons. So, if the hon. member is talking about a consultation process, we do have one where parliamentarians are meeting with the industry, rail users, employees and employers.

Mr. Speaker, there is a task force which is ably chaired by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing this motion today I would like to address the question of rationalization of the Canadian railway network, a matter of pressing interest to all Canadians.

Until recently rationalization meant only one thing, abandonment of rail lines and the loss of direct rail service to those shippers who still remain on the lines.

The rationalization options for railways and shippers have changed in recent years to include short lines and mergers. The fundamental realities, the factors which are driving railways to rationalize, have not changed; changing logistics patterns and requirements, continuing demands from shippers for reduced costs and improved services and competition from the trucking industry and U.S. railways.

The rail share of surface transportation markets has been steadily declining since the 1950s when trucking began to emerge as a serious competitor for rail services. Railways now hold less than a 40 per cent share of this market.

The direct consequence of this changing pattern of demand has been one of a gradual removal of those lines from the rail system that have seen traffic decline to the point at which the costs of continued operation of the lines far outweighed the revenues generated from the available traffic.

The traditional process of line abandonment has always been a traumatic experience for both communities and shippers. As a result, views on the viability of lines or their future prospects have been strongly held and voiced. Rail line abandonments have predominantly occurred east of the Manitoba border over the past 20 years, principally as a result of the fact that much of the rail network in the prairies is protected from abandonment until the year 2000.

However, it is also in the east that the greatest competitive in-roads into the railway's traffic base have been made by the trucking industry. I think of my own area of southwestern Ontario as being perhaps the best example of that fact.

Rail traffic in western Canada is largely bulk or resource based and less susceptible to truck competition, while traffic in eastern Canada has a much higher manufactured goods component which is strongly truck competitive.

In recent years intermodal traffic has come to be the highest traffic growth area for railways. However, intermodal traffic, particularly that in the shorter distance intermodal markets in eastern Canada, is highly truck competitive. Again I would cite the area of southwestern Ontario as an excellent example of that.

While rail line abandonment may have been the traditional means of rationalization, it is by no means the only method by which class one rail carriers can streamline their systems. Other alternatives include selling off so-called short line railways to new, lower cost operators, co-production which involves the consolidation of traffic from the lines of two parallel railways on to one of the lines and abandoning or short lining the redundant line, or merger and acquisitions.

Following the introductions of the Staggers Rail Act in the United States in 1980, American railways accelerated the process of rationalizing their systems. In some cases lines were abandoned although in many other cases rail lines were sold to other operators, producing explosive growth and what came to be known as the short line rail industry.

The term short line is quite broad and can cover railways ranging in size from mere spurs to extensive regional networks. In general terms short line railways feed traffic to larger, usually class 1 railways, have a lower cost structure than larger railways since their labour requirements and arrangements differ substantially from those found on larger railways, and offer services which are much more responsive to local needs.

The short line industry in the United States can be generally characterized as successful. The failure rate of short line railways is much lower than that experienced in other industries. This degree of success in the United States has not been lost on Canadian railways or potential short line operators in Canada.

Unfortunately while we have had some notable successes in Canada a domestic short line industry has been very slow in developing. Although the first Canadian short line, the Central Western Railway, emerged in western Canada, the majority since that time have been in eastern Canada. Again, one needs cite southwestern Ontario as a leading example of that fact.

Specifically the Goderich and Exeter railway in southern Ontario, some hour north of my own riding of London-Middlesex, is one of the premier examples of short line railways in Canada. Since its inception the Goderich and Exeter serving shippers along its line to Goderich, Ontario has succeeded in dramatically increasing traffic hauled by the railways and its revenues. The Goderich and Exeter was purchased from CN by a U.S. firm, Railtex, which owns some 20 other short line railways in the United States and more recently in Canada.

Railtex also recently purchased CN's Sydney-Truro line in Nova Scotia, renaming it the Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia railway, and has embarked on a similar program of increasing traffic and revenues and generally improving the level of services afforded shippers.

One of the key features of short line railways is that their cost structure is lower than that for class 1 railways, principally because short lines have fewer employees and generally more flexible arrangements with their employees which result in significantly reduced labour costs. Typically short lines employ about 50 per cent of the labour that a class 1 railway operating the same line would have.

While one of the principal attractions of short line operations from the viewpoint of a potential operator has been the ability of short lines to structure their operations to make optional use of labour, several provinces have recently adopted legislation to ensure that labour successor rights would be preserved during the transfer of ownership of the rail line from federal to provincial jurisdiction since short lines have typically been formed within provincial jurisdiction.

British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario have passed legislation which provides for labour successor rights when among other transactions ownership of rail lines passes from one jurisdiction to another. While B.C. has very few rail lines which could be considered to have short line potential and Saskatchewan's legislative changes are too new to assess the implications, several potential short line operators in my home province of Ontario have declined to pursue the purchase of short lines in this province in light of the changed situation.

Railtex in particular was negotiating with CN for the purchase of five additional short lines in Ontario. When the amended labour legislation was passed in Ontario Railtex immediately dropped the lines from further consideration. For all intents and purposes this legislation has stalled the development of a short line industry in this province, sad to say.

Despite early apprehensions and a lengthy Senate review of the proposal by Railtex to acquire CN's Sydney-Truro line the province of Nova Scotia now fully supports its short line industry. The second short line, the Windsor and Hantsport railway, recently began operations in the province after acquiring CP's Dominion Atlantic railway line.

New Brunswick, having recently adopted new short line legislation which could represent a model for others, is close to seeing its first short line development with the likely purchase of a portion of CP's Canadian Atlantic railway by the Irving Group. The line which has been ordered abandoned by the National Transportation Agency effective January 1, 1995 will likely be operated by Guilford Transportation Industries and provide service into New Brunswick and Maine.

Another company has recently expressed interest in acquiring the balance of the CP line to Sherbrooke, Quebec to add to its own rail network in Maine. Quebec for its part has been an advocate of the development of a short line industry in the province and has introduced legislation to support the development of this industry in Quebec.

In addition to being close to selling the line near Quebec City to a short line operator, CN has indicated that it wishes to sell a considerable number of its lines in northern Quebec and the Gaspé to potential short line operators. It is expected that CN will proceed soon with these transactions. CP has also offered its lines between Delson, Quebec, near Montreal, and Sherbrooke for sale.

What is clear is that our class 1 freight railways, CN and CP, not only have other alternatives than simply waiting for traffic on lines to decline to the point at which abandonment is the only possibility, but they are beginning to move more rapidly to spin-off short lines to potential operators while this makes good business sense for all partners.

This does not mean that rail abandonment will not be an option since a small number of lines in the east are unlikely to be attractive to even a short line operator with a more advantageous cost structure.

What it does mean is that rail line abandonment is much less likely, particularly where provincial governments are receptive to the development of a short line industry. While a small amount of trackage might end up being abandoned in any event, perhaps one-third of the current class one rail system, or almost 16,000 kilometres of line, would be attractive to potential short line operators. The resulting class one system would then closely resemble the high density, low cost U.S. rail systems.

Another alternative open to CN and CP is co-production, the consolidation of traffic from the lines of two parallel railways on to the line of one of the railways. Typically the redundant line would be abandoned, although there is always the possibility of short lining.

A current example of co-production is the Ottawa Valley Railway which has received National Transportation Agency approval for operation on CN and CP lines from a point near the Ontario-Quebec border to North Bay via Ottawa. Court challenges to the proposal are delaying its introduction. There are only a limited number of areas in Canada, however, mainly in Ontario, where co-production could be a possibility.

In closing, railway rationalization is not only inevitable, it is necessary. Pressures on CN and CP to reduce their costs mean they must adopt innovative, non-traditional means of responding to market signals. The key for railways is to find rationalization solutions that minimize costs to carriers and shippers while at the same time maximizing railway opportunities to achieve financial viability and shipper opportunities to maintain or enhance their access to competitive rail services.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

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-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. When members choose to share their time, they have ten minutes for their remarks and five for questions and comments. There is very little time left for the hon. member to answer or comment. I urge the hon. member to conclude right away, if he has a conclusion, so that the hon. member for London-Middlesex may give his answer.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

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

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will not need much time to answer because frankly I did not hear a question. I heard some interesting comments from my colleague.

He touched on a number of issues and I will simply highlight one. He spoke about rail abandonment as something he is not anxious to see. Let me assure him that coming from southwestern Ontario as I do, coming from one of the most busy rail parts of Ontario, coming from the long and proud railway family that I do, neither my colleagues nor I are anxious to see willy-nilly rail abandonments either.

Unfortunately the sad fact of the matter is that there are rail lines in the country that make very little economic sense as they are currently structured. The minister is to be commended for seeking to rationalize the entire system because it is simply too expensive the way it is and common sense tells us that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the member for the short response. I am close to being back on schedule.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take the floor today concerning the rail system, all the more so because the Bloc Quebecois is able to speak today despite the government's efforts to exclude the official opposition from its study on the privatization of the CN as well as from major decisions concerning the rail industry. That is why the Bloc decided to devote an allotted day to railway transportation. Otherwise, the government would again have acted secretly.

Today's debate is very important because of the National Transportation Act of 1987. As of January 1st, 1993, this act allows railway companies to close down as many lines as they wish. Of course, such abandonments must meet the National Transportation Agency's criteria in order to be approved, but these criteria are established according to accounting standards instead of socio-economic ones, as they should be. I will come back to that in a moment.

We are told the goal of such abandonments is to streamline the rail system in order to increase the companies' cost-effectiveness and competitiveness. However, we must realize that the idea of cost- effectiveness for a railway line does not take into account any notion of regional economic development. Of the utmost importance is the fact that the criteria applied by the government to allow the abandonments are very narrow-minded and reveal its lack of vision in transportation matters.

The National Transportation Agency examines abandonment proposals according to criteria which do not take into account the economic benefits that can ensue from the operation of a railway line. According to one of these criteria, the National Transportation Agency orders the abandonment of non profitable lines, when there is no way the situation could improve in the future. This type of reasoning is based only on the railway company's cost-effectiveness and does not consider the socio-economic benefits that bring about regional development. The other criterion provides for the maintenance of a line that is or may become unprofitable.

The agency takes public interest into account before deciding whether a line should be abandoned or maintained. However, the law is not clear on the public interest criterion for lines that have no chance of becoming viable in the future. So far, in practice these lines are simply abandoned.

Moreover, the agency is required to review line abandonment documentation only if abandonment was opposed so that, in the absence of opposition, lines can be abandoned without the agency having to justify the application. This is directly related to regional economic development, which is closely linked to the operation of these rail lines.

By abandoning some of these lines, Canada loses economic benefits that exceed carriers' operating losses on these lines. It is imperative that the government consider the total economic impact of line abandonment applications, and not only the financial data on carriers' profits and losses.

The Chibougamau-Chapais-Chambord railway line gives us a concrete example of economic spin-offs. The Lac-Saint-Jean rail system serves among others 16 businesses employing a total of 4,095 people. Abandoning rail lines with or without transfers to a railhead in Lac-Saint-Jean would affect nine businesses out of 16, which would be faced with imminent closure involving the loss of 2,200 jobs. This would directly affect three businesses, which would become unprofitable and face eventual closure. Only two businesses out of 16 would not be affected at all. This would be the concrete economic impact of abandoning these lines. Many people would join the already crowded ranks of Canada's unemployed.

It is unacceptable for a region like mine which already has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Rail line abandonment, a kind of Trojan horse given to Quebec by the Liberal government, will have major consequences on the road system. Roads, need I remind you, are a provincial responsibility. Clearly, the decision to abandon lines will have a direct impact on provincial finances.

Line abandonment will significantly increase road traffic, which will lead to major cost hikes. In some cases, new roads will have to be built to accommodate additional traffic. Maintenance costs will also rise. The life-cycle will be reduced in proportion to the increase in road traffic, while the risk of road accidents will rise.

Who will foot the bill and suffer the consequences on the economic activity level in these regions? The provinces. Of course, the road system will deteriorate more quickly and will have to be maintained to ensure its safety and quality.

The Liberal government should not try to contradict these figures. Studies prove beyond any doubt that this is exactly what will happen to the road system. Transferring this traffic from the railways to the highways will increase annual maintenance costs by about 30 to 40 per cent, due to the weight of traffic and the carrying capacity of the roads. This means additional maintenance costs for the transportation department of about $2 million a year for just 800 km, which is approximately the cost of another 2,200 km a year.

As for the exact number of trucks on the road, the Department of Transport estimated that the phasing out of rail service between Lac-Frontière and Vallée-Jonction since 1982 meant that 4,000 to 7,000 more trucks a day used highway 204 in 1989. In the Abitibi region, traffic on highway 117 would increase by 360 trucks a day with the loss of rail service.

Two other major studies were done for the Lac Saint-Jean and Abitibi regions, to assess the impact of abandoning rail service on the public purse. The first study describes various scenarios for abandoning rail service in the Lac Saint-Jean region. One of these is the complete elimination of rail service north of Chambord and the creation of an efficient intermodal end-of-line interface in Chambord. It is estimated that this would cost the Government of Quebec nearly $700,000 more a year. Although very large, this figure does not take into account the cost of building the roads which would be needed to increase the capacity of this highway system. Neither does it reflect the decreased life expectancy of the roads due to the increase in heavy vehicle traffic.

The second study considers the abandonment of rail service in Abitibi. It is estimated that total abandonment would cost the Government of Quebec $3.9 million more a year, even with additional revenue from fuel taxes and trucking licence fees included.

Clearly, abandoning rail lines has a considerable impact on the finances of the federal and provincial governments. The government should therefore consider developing a comprehensive rail-highway policy. Decisions should be made in co-operation with the concerned provincial governments, since provinces are responsible for the road network and also have to bear the consequences of rail abandonment.

Beyond the financial considerations, there is also a human factor which must be taken into account. Traffic increase has a major environmental impact, in terms of pollutant emissions and noise, for communities located along highways. This increase also raises the risks of traffic accidents. The Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec reports a 41 per cent increase in the number of people seriously injured in trucks, between 1988 and 1989. By comparison, the number of people injured in privately-owned vehicles dropped 12.9 per cent over the same period.

Another study allows us to conclude that an increase in the number of trucks on the road can only result in a proportionally much greater increase in the number of injuries and deaths.

According to the department's submission regarding the proposed construction of a railroad for the Laterrière plant of Alcan, trains are much safer than trucks. That document indicates that, while heavy road vehicles account for eight to nine per cent of registered vehicles, they are involved in about 23 per cent of all accidents. In 1987, there were 1,206 accidents involving trucks, compared to only three involving trains, for every million tons transported by these two types of carriers.

What is of more interest to us is the fact that freeways are four times safer than other roads for heavy vehicles. The problem is that there are freeways in central areas, but not in remote regions. These regions will be more affected by the higher risk of accident, on top of also being more directly affected from an economic point of view.

Railway transport is very important. It will face tremendous challenges in the years to come; competition is fierce and our society is on the wane. The federal government can no longer afford to subsidize unprofitable lines. It must find other ways to keep these lines in operation, because what is at stake here is the development of our regions.

Quebec does not want to see these essential railroads disappear and it does not want to foot the bill either. Quebec does not want to see its remote regions experience economic decline. It wants Ottawa to implement a co-ordinated transport policy. Quebec wants to have a say in the decisions affecting railway transportation. It wants policies designed to keep carriers financially sound and technically advanced, while preserving the existing network to the greatest extent possible.

Through the voice of the Bloc, Quebec will make sure it does not get taken. The consequences of the Liberal vision on railway transport are too dangerous for Quebec's future. This government should provide financial support to the establishment of short line railways. Indeed, Quebec does not want to see more of these lines disappear, since they are essential to its economy.

The federal government must include the provinces in the decision-making process, because they are in the best position to take action on this issue. The government must give provinces every means to allow them to set up an intermodal rail-highway system.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has drawn a rather accurate picture of the situation in the regions, especially where people depend on a railway system and where such a system is not only a guarantee, but also a tool for the economic development of remote areas, like the Gaspé Peninsula, large regions in Northern Quebec, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, and many more, I am sure.

I have a question for the hon. member, because I heard that the opposition could be interested in a national integrated policy on transportation. If this is true, then Quebec would have to agree to meet with the federal government and its provincial counterparts to come up with a common position and a real transportation strategy that would include rail, road and air transport.

I think we need to reach a consensus, a bit like what is done in other countries, like the United States, and even within the European Economic Community. Why does the Parti Quebecois, the political party in office in Quebec, not ask to meet with us in order to draft a national policy?

As Quebec members in particular know full well, road conditions in the province of Quebec are rather appalling. Repair costs are very high. It does entail significant expenses for Quebec, but if Quebec and the other provinces were to meet with us to elaborate a national integrated policy on transportation, I am convinced that we could not only guarantee the vital link which the rail system represents for remote areas in Quebec, but also maintain and reduce the expenses incurred to upgrade the road system in la belle province.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question which deserves a straightforward answer. Surely, Quebec is ready to sit with the other governments to discuss a complete and integrated policy for rail transportation as was done in the EEC countries that were just mentioned. These are sovereign countries that agreed on a policy, contrary to Canada,

which has not succeeded yet to come to an agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions.

Therefore, Quebec is certainly ready to take part in the decision making process and a sovereign Quebec will not isolate itself from the rest of Canada. Thus, I think it is important that Quebec has its say and that a consultation and discussion process is implemented to get a picture of rail transportation and to make the appropriate decisions.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we hear nothing but demagoguery from the opposition. It says that everything will turn out all right provided that Quebec becomes an independent country. But we must still recognize the following in the railway situation and the jobs that it represents for Quebec.

For instance, CN pays more than $500 million in salaries and benefits in Quebec. There are more than $300 million in purchases, more than $100 million in taxes, more than $100 million in pensions and benefits. Also, we should not forget that CN maintains almost 8,000 jobs in Quebec and that 30 per cent of all CN employees are in Quebec.

It is a fact that 68 or 70 per cent of senior executives are in the province of Quebec. To talk about the Constitution and tell us that Quebec's sovereignty is the only way for Quebec to pull through, particularly in rail transportation, is really giving a strange spin to the debate. I have asked the hon. member to advise his headquarters that we are ready to negotiate, to work as a true federation.

I must remind the member that the Canadian federation is a resounding success. You should explore this issue with a little more thoroughness and honesty, and try to back away from separatist and sovereignist partisanship, which does nothing to help the future of CN and transportation in Canada, particularly in Quebec.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone were to ask who is the greatest demagogue here, I really could not say. According to the facts and figures that were just quoted to us, a certain amount of employment is provided.

However, what the figures do not show is how many jobs disappear as certain lines come up for review or are phased out. How many ephemeral jobs will come in the place of these jobs that are very well-paying? That is the question.

As for the Canadian federation, we had a chance to see what is was worth during the past century. The federation is like a sinking ship. Just look at the deficit, the debt and the rest. I think Quebecers already know the answer when they consider the real figures, not figures that try to cover up certain facts. Jobs will be lost if these railway lines are abandoned, and they will be replaced by very ephemeral jobs.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I simply want to take this opportunity to remind all members to address the Chair. The parliamentary secretary.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, we were talking about VIA Rail and CN. In Quebec VIA Rail provides 1,600 jobs, or 45 per cent of all jobs with VIA Rail. What does the opposition suggest? I really do not understand. They talk about a national, integrated transportation system, and then they tell me: If we have a national, integrated transportation system, we first need independence, in other words, sovereignty.

Let us put this into perspective. I ask the opposition to say yes to the Canadian federation, yes we can work together, yes we want to keep the 8,000 or 10,000 jobs that depend on CN and VIA Rail in Quebec. After all, Montreal is the linchpin of the industry, and I think they will put these jobs at risk if they insist on pursuing a line of reasoning that does nothing to help the future of those employed in an industry that is so important to Quebec.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply comment on the last part of the hon. member's remarks. I have just been told that Montreal is the linchpin. Yes, but the linchpin is being moved elsewhere, as a result of cuts that were never queried, as a result of closing and abandoning certain lines, because when they did the calculations to close the lines, they added repair costs, although repairs were often done in other centres.

This means that the figures we have today do not show the true picture. I am sorry, but once again, I have to say that Canadian federalism does not serve the interests of Quebecers, although you may think otherwise.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support what my colleague said about the need to renew the railway industry in this country. I agree with him that rail transportation is very important to Canadian shippers. Canada's rail system is the third largest in the world and railways play a significant role in supporting other sectors of the Canadian economy and providing jobs for thousands of Canadians.

Our shippers face intense competition from global markets and rightly demand an efficient transportation system to help them flourish. Our exporters need lower freight rates to compete globally.

The railways have taken several initiatives to make them more efficient. They are attempting to sell or abandon their unproductive lines. For example, CN plans to convey its lines in northern Quebec, very likely to short-line operators. CP is currently in discussions with the Irving Group about selling part of its network in New Brunswick.

These sales would help to preserve rail access for some shippers and free the railways of lines on which they cannot become profitable. As my colleague pointed out, federal and provincial impediments to the creation of short lines from unprofitable lines of the Class I railways unfortunately exist. I also agree on including a review of this issue as part of our rail renewal effort.

The railways need to make progress on other fronts as well. They must continue to improve the service which they provide to shippers if they are to compete against truckers and U.S. railroads. The railways must also continue to improve their relationships with the trucking industry so that the whole transportation system can become more efficient for Canadian shippers.

But the railways alone are not responsible for making this improvement. Labour is a key factor in determining the competitive position and viability of the railways. A skilled and dedicated workforce is essential to the successful operation of a railway.

As my colleague mentioned, rail workers are among the highest paid in the transportation industry. Their collective bargaining power, based on the railways' historical importance, has enabled them to negotiate very generous wage rates and enviable job security provisions.

However, these agreements are no longer realistic in today's rail operating environment. The railways demand greater flexibility in deploying their labour resources than the current collective agreements provide. Employees and unions, however, want to protect the jobs and benefits which they already have.

Management and labour need to come to a common understanding of the current situation. The railways are struggling to be profitable, which makes it harder for them to achieve the efficiency that Canadian shippers will badly need as the 21st century approaches.

All stakeholders must contribute to the rejuvenation of rail transport in Canada, and our government recognizes that it has a role to play in this regard.

Government must create a sufficiently flexible regulatory framework so that the railways can maximize efficiency.

I agree with my colleague that the current system hinders the railways in several respects. They must go through a long and arduous process to implement decisions which, in any other sector, could be made on a purely commercial basis.

While recognizing the need to take into account the interests of shippers and the communities involved, we also should consider allowing the railways greater freedom to restructure and modernize their networks.

Both levels of government need to look at how they might simplify the rules under which Canadian railways now operate in competition with Canadian truckers and U.S. railroads.

Like my colleague, I think that the taxation regime is significantly more burdensome for Canadian railways than for Canadian truckers or U.S. railroads. The government should assess the importance of this factor in making the railways profitable.

As regards the industry structure, my colleague mentioned the government's consideration of the unsolicited CP Rail offer for CN's eastern assets, as well as the government task force on CN commercialization.

I take this opportunity to emphasize that government must examine all options for restructuring the railways, bearing in mind that corporate restructuring by itself will not solve all the problems of this sector.

I have pointed to areas for consideration by several stakeholders-railways, labour and government-in the efforts to renew the Canadian rail sector. The regional roundtables and national roundtable on rail renewal, sponsored by Transport Canada, which my colleague discussed, will be helpful in providing this government with input from stakeholders on its efforts in this regard.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that this government is making a great effort to rejuvenate rail transport, but all parties have a role to play. We must all come together to help ensure the viability of the railways, not just for their sake, but for the sake of the many Canadians who depend on them.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today as someone who is a great supporter of rail transportation and a great believer ultimately in high speed rail transportation, but within the context of an integrated transportation system in eastern Canada. I do not believe that ever again we will see one form of transportation being used at the expense of others in one part of the country or another.

In rising in this way, faced with the position of members opposite, I would like to explain to the House some of the background of the government's position on this very important matter.

In November 1991 the then federal Minister of Transport with the ministers of transport for Quebec and Ontario announced a joint study of the feasibility of operating a high speed train service in the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor, the busiest transportation corridor in the country.

That study was to take between 18 and 24 months and the cost of $6 million was shared equally among the three governments. The decision to conduct the study was based on the recommendations of a joint Quebec-Ontario task force report that was released in May 1991. The task force concluded that the final

decision on whether to proceed with a high speed rail project could not be made without undertaking more detailed study.

The current study includes traffic forecasts, routing, available technologies, environmental issues, funding alternatives by the private sector and by the various governments that are involved.

All of these matters are key parts of making a good decision on whether we should proceed with high speed rail transportation and if and when we do, how we should proceed. If this project is to be successful we need all information that is available.

The May 1991 report also recommended that the Government of Canada should be an active participant in the current study, and we are. The objective of the feasibility study is to recommend whether government should initiate and/or support the development of high speed passenger rail services in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor.

We know, as do members opposite, that often governments are not the best organizations to run projects of this type. Often governments are not the best organizations to fund projects of this type. Sometimes they are, but it has to be determined. It it is not a straight forward decision. If the government should decide to do something, the government should pay for it and then run it. This study is designed to show what is the best mix, private sector-government involvement, including the involvement of this level of government which as I said is very interested in this project.

Members opposite describe the government's current policy as shortsighted. In general, to me anyway, shortsighted means lacking in long term vision. I suggest that what we need in this case is long term vision, not short term expedient decisions. Studying the implication and impact of high speed rail in eastern Canada is taking the long range, proper view of the issue.

Putting in a modern railroad system is not like cutting a portage through the bush. It is not something you can set off with an axe and do. Likely you end up at the right place. It is a matter of great public interest and importance that takes time and planning. For that we need information and proper study.

I believe the federal government is demonstrating its sense of responsibility toward Canadians by not rushing blindly into deciding the future of high speed rail in this particular case. It would be irresponsible to decide on a project of this magnitude without having the benefit of all the necessary information.

The current study is the largest, the most in depth analysis of high speed rail ever undertaken in Canada. Over 30 consultants are involved. We must realize this study does not simply involve studying rail transportation and various options for that. The effects of these proposals on airlines, bus routes, trucking which the member opposite was just discussing and all other modes of transportation have to be considered.

My own riding of Peterborough is along this corridor. In Peterborough there is Trentway-Wagar which is one of the few large Canadian owned bus companies. We should nurture companies such as that in the same way we should nurture the Canadian trucking industry in the same way we should nurture the seaway along this route. The Quebec City to Windsor route is probably the most dense and complex transportation route in the world. The seaway is there. The House has received a report on the seaway which is having problems. We need the seaway. We need it in eastern Canada, we need it in western Canada.

Members opposite were concerned about highways in Quebec. I am concerned about highways in Ontario. I do know that what we need in this corridor is the proper mix: air, bus, trucks and the seaway altogether. That is why this government is looking at the impact, the overall positive, we hope, impacts of a high speed rail system on all of those modes of transport, their effects in eastern Canada and their effects in the whole country.

Is properly studying high speed rail for a period of time-we are looking ahead to 1995 and then ahead for many decades-inappropriate for a project so large with such wide implications? I would say not. I would say it is not shortsighted to undertake this study. We must look at the real costs and benefits over the long term to properly assess the feasibility of a multibillion dollar infrastructure project of this type.

Our decision on the future of the high-speed train should not be based on the apparent short term benefits. The government has demonstrated its commitment to deficit reduction. Given the very high deficits, governments will want to ensure that any new infrastructure project will not require large amounts of public funds.

We must look at the funds we are going to spend. We must look at the amounts that are involved and how those funds are going to be used. I repeat that the potential of a high speed rail service should be examined in the light of the broader context of the overall transportation needs of the whole of Canada.

The present schedule of the government provides for the tabling of a final report of this study I have described to the three governments, the government of Quebec, the government of Ontario and the federal government early in the new year. Like other members on this side of the House, I look forward to that report just as I look forward to our having the best possible integrated transportation system in eastern Canada.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to my colleague's motion on railway transportation in Canada. I will deal mainly with the passenger service and will use the Jonquière-Montreal and Senneterre-Montreal lines as an example.

According to some columnists and some comments we hear, when we speak about passenger rail service, we could just as well be speaking about a mode of transportation dating back to the 19th century and the horse and buggy. We must recognize that the passenger rail service is a modern and efficient mode of transportation and one chosen by many countries where passenger service is particularly efficient. Let met just mention Japan, Korea, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France and even the United States where the size of the territory is comparable to that of Canada.

It is obvious that passenger service has its problems in Canada. Population density is very low here. But the rail infrastructure is very large in our country. It is the third or fourth in importance in the world. Our history was built around the railroad. The railway companies either in the West or from Quebec towards the Atlantic shaped our history. They played an important role.

We could say that today Canada's rail infrastructure is quite satisfactory and that we are also well equipped in transportation facilities to serve train passengers. But there are problems. Some lines have difficulties. We all know that passenger service is highly subsidized in Canada, but we will come back to that item later on. We also know that the limited number of passengers creates a problem. Railway transportation represents 3 per cent of all passenger transportation in Canada and approximately 12 per cent of all mass transportation. I am not denying that there are serious problems, but before I proceed any further I must make two things perfectly clear.

First of all, I would like everybody to understand that rail is an efficient means of passenger transportation, which has a proven track record.

In Canada, in 1977, the responsibility for passenger service was taken away from CN and CP and given to the newly-created VIA Rail. This was a company created by the government, which decided that, in Canada, passenger service would be the responsibility of this new company. It had no start-up capital and no legislative framework, as it was created by Order in Council. Consequently, its autonomy, power and independence from the government were greatly reduced. The company was simply to manage and market railway transportation in Canada. It should be pointed out that VIA Rail inherited a fleet of locomotives and cars which could fairly be described as inadequate. The system had not been upgraded. Some equipment was old and in need of replacement.

However, VIA Rail got started. It was understood that the government would absorb VIA Rail's debts and its operating costs. Every year, VIA Rail receives a grant to be able to carry out its responsibilities. This grant amounts to around $300 million a year, but the Department of Transport is planning to make cuts in the years to come. It does not augur well for VIA Rail's future. In the past few years, a royal commission of inquiry on passenger service was set up, which, by the way, cost $23 million. I understand that it concluded that the market should decide which services should be offered and that user fees should cover the entire cost of these services.

In other words, a line of thought now prevails in Canada that views rail transportation as just another service, not even a public service, but a private enterprise like any other. If the operation does not break even, all it has to do is shut down without public authorities having any responsibility in its closure.

I think that we are facing a crisis. The regions, my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and Abitibi as well, owe their development in part to the railway. One might say that our attachment is purely motivated by nostalgia, but it is not so. We believe that, combined with other means of transportation, railway service can become efficient and cost-effective in Canada.

Take the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region for example. We have a passenger line connecting Jonquière to Montreal. There are problems, goodwill problems, although the number of train users has increased substantially these past few years. There are problems because the train is a little bit like a hidden public transit.

First of all, there are only three departures from Jonquière every week. This means that, in order to travel by train, you must have time on your hands or control your own schedule. The timetable is not particularly accommodating. Transfers pose serious problems. Take me for example. If I want to come to Ottawa on the train, I cannot get here in one day. I have to stop in Montreal overnight and take the train for Ottawa the next day.

Travel time needs to be reviewed. The actual transit time between Jonquière and Montreal is about eight hours. That is a long time and it could be made much shorter. There is room for improvement, given the applicable speed charts and the fact that priority could be given to passenger trains over freight trains, unlike at present.

Some technical problems also need to be resolved. I am thinking about ticket reservations. There is no terminal where reservations can be made in Jonquière. Every time you go to buy a ticket, the clerk has to phone Montreal. You could not find a better way to kill the reservation system. As for advertising, there is none. I never saw in my region advertising on passenger rail service fares or schedules. There are major problems.

This could be greatly improved. Last summer, my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain, submitted to the Minister of Transport a brief pointing out that several municipalities between Jonquière and Montreal and between Montreal and Senneterre do not have bus service. Rail is in effect the only means of public transportation for some communities with a significant population.

I am thinking in particular of the line between La Tuque and Senneterre, of communities like Weymontachie where 570 people live, of Casey with its 250 inhabitants, of Parent with a population of 815. People living along this line need rail service to travel to major centres and go about their business.

In some countries, passenger rail service is an efficient and sometimes viable means of transportation, of which we in Canada do not seem aware. The example I gave you involving the Jonquière-Montreal line clearly shows that nothing has been done to improve services. Nothing has been done to show people that this is an efficient means of transportation.

Mr. Speaker, before closing, because I want to give my colleagues an opportunity to address the House on this subject, I want to say that Canada, instead of easily putting aside a means of public transportation by raising the issue of viability and invoking some profit-oriented rules, should look a little further afield and realize, for example, that rail service can save energy and ensure a good quality of life for passengers. It is often much more pleasant to travel by train than to be packed like sardines at the back of a bus.

There are also savings in terms of physical space used, since the alternative to passenger trains is the bus and particularly the automobile. Based on what has occurred in recent years and what is anticipated in the future, the number of cars will increase tremendously. This means that more roads, and more space, will be required. There will also be a lot of traffic on these roads. This will create a rather major safety problem. If the number of cars continues to increase, we will also have to build costly infrastructures.

If, instead of merely taking a short-term approach, we integrate the railway system to other modes of public transportation and to motor vehicle transport, we can have a modern system which will take into account the needs of the public as well as the costs involved. I do not challenge the fact that we must reduce as much as possible the costs of railway transport and infrastructures, but we have to realize that a government subsidy to the railway sector will probably mean, in the long term, fewer roads to build and increased safety which, in turn, will translate into fewer automobile accidents. This aspect should not be overlooked.

Some say that cuts must be made in the passenger train service because it is not profitable, but let us not overlook the costs of highway transport in terms of infrastructures, pollution, environmental impact and space required for the construction of roads. Every aspect should be taken into consideration.

I hope that today's debate will make Liberal officials aware of their responsibility and that they will realize that railway transportation must not be overlooked when examining the issue of passenger transport in Canada.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened over the last little while to members of the Bloc speaking on their position. There are several things that seem to be fairly common throughout what they are saying.

First of all they are still looking for the government to pour more money in the form of grants and subsidies into the province of Quebec. This is to help with the continuation of rail service, a service which across the country is having a tremendous problem trying to break even.

We have listened while the Bloc on a number of occasions has promoted a rapid rail line from Quebec into Ontario. To date there is no substantive evidence whatsoever that this rapid rail line is financially viable. As a matter of fact any statistics I have seen have pointed to just the opposite. It is strictly a money losing proposition.

Surely the Bloc can recognize the financial position and the crisis Canada is in. I really wonder how members of that party can stand here day after day and request that the government in fact borrow more money to plough into the province of Quebec for infrastructure and services. It just does not make sense from a purely logical point of view that members of the Bloc actually think this money is growing on trees and that they have somehow been deprived for the last 20 or 30 years. In fact, Quebec has been operating at a transfer payment deficit for many years. The funds have not exactly been withheld from the province of Quebec.

Now I get to my last point. In addition to all this and the fact that the Bloc has requested over and over again that more funds be poured into the province of Quebec for infrastructure and services, this is the same party whose goal in this House is to facilitate the separation of Quebec from Canada.

Of all the illogical notions I have ever heard in my life, they have the audacity to stand here and ask for more and more money to be poured into the province of Quebec, when at the same time they are trying to separate from Canada. For goodness sake, where is the logic in what they are saying? Will they get their stories straight? It just defies logic to sit here and listen to them.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about pouring money into Quebec but about pouring money into railway transportation in Canada, because we believe it is an efficient way to transport passengers and freight.

The hon. member takes the accountant's perspective and talks about viability, but we suppose we look at Canada the same way and ask whether Canada is a viable proposition? Every day our Reform Party colleagues tell us that the debt is increasing and that we are on the verge of bankruptcy, and in that case, since Canada is not viable, why not close it? I say this tongue in cheek, and the hon. member knows perfectly well it is not that simple.

A country is supposed to provide certain public services to its citizens, including education, hospitals, roads and the army, and it has to raise taxes and allow for a minimum of administration, all of which, if considered from a very short-term perspective, could be said to be unprofitable. For instance, is the hospital in Jonquière profitable? I have the impression it costs a lot more than what people pay for the care they get.

So one option would be to privatize. But if we privatize hospitals, schools, roads, the army, prisons, and so forth, we will get to the point that we privatize the government, and there will be no more government, no more country and no more State.

I think we should carefully consider all the consequences. We should also look at history, and we will realize that since time immemorial, public services have been subsidized by the State, and that is why the State exists, so it can provide this public service, and we believe that in Canada, transportation, including highway transportation and railway transportation, which is a part of all this, is also a public service and that citizens, considering the taxes they pay, have a right to expect satisfactory service.