Mr. Speaker, even if we did not have the opportunity of looking at the details of the CP offer, for lack of relevant documentation and because the government did not deign to consult us, the opposition is nonetheless relieved to learn today that it has decided to reject the offer.
Indeed, we are of the opinion that CP's bid was too low, as pointed out in a study by Morgan Stanley, and involved too many drawbacks for the people of Canada and Quebec.
We were not unconcerned by the creation of a monopoly east of Winnipeg and there was no indication of how local railways would be treated under this new monopoly. We do agree with the government: this offer of CP Rail had to be rejected on financial and public interest grounds.
However, the question of Canadian National and the Canadian rail system still remains unresolved. It is particularly disappointing to see how undemocratically the Liberal government is treating the opposition around this issue. No opposition member, neither from the Bloc Quebecois nor the Reform Party, was asked to sit on this committee.
This is above all a partisan parliamentary group studying the privatization of CN. The eight Liberal members and the federal senator on the committee have worked their way toward recommendations which have no doubt already been drafted, long before the so-called hearings are over.
On February 18, as the Official Opposition's transport critic, I asked the Standing Committee on Transport to give priority to the matter of rail service. I asked again when the House reconvened on September 19, and the minister's response was the creation on September 29 of this partisan Liberal working committee.
Last week in committee, although it had been agreed to put aside consideration of the national airport policy to concentrate on ports, we again asked the committee to give priority to rail issues and travel to the regions to hear what the people have to say.
The government is set to introduce a global rail policy in 1995 without even consulting the elected members of the opposition. I hope that the government will reconsider its approach in this matter, and not in cavalier fashion either, because it is totally unacceptable. We hope that the minister will be much more open and democratic with the democratically elected members of the opposition.