Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1995

Canada Transportation Act

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter into the debate on the Bill C-101, amendments to the National Transportation Act, now called the Canada Transportation Act.

The bill is to be referred to committee after first reading. I believe opposition members as well as the public in general will have ample opportunity for input into how the bill could possibly be amended in other ways. This shows the dedication the government has toward making the system of government more open and more visible by allowing people to be directly involved in legislation that affects them.

This is basically another bill that realizes that governments should be steerers and not rowers of the economy. What do I mean by that? Basically most people have come to the conclusion that the government should act as a referee, a regulatory agency, but not be directly involved in the actual operation of businesses.

The Oshawa Municipal Airport is in my riding. I am constantly reminded the airport is operated by the city of Oshawa and why that is not the best interest of the local economy.

I will deal with two aspects of the legislation, both of which deal with air travel. It is surprising that previous speakers thought this was entirely a railway bill. In fact it involves all sectors of transportation in Canada, not the least of which is air transportation.

I cannot underestimate the value of the whole transportation sector to Canada. Canada is the third largest country in the world geographically and yet we have one of the smallest population bases. It does not take long to realize that transportation has a major impact on how we develop our country.

I should like to talk about the north which we seem to have ignored. We have mostly spoken about transportation systems that occur in the southern parts of our country. In a recent study the

Royal Bank discovered that Canadians were the second wealthiest people in the world if we take into account natural resources.

I do not have to tell members or other Canadians that we cannot quite see where that fits into our bank account at the end of the week. Very few of us feel that we have been able to access those resources so that we spread the wealth across the country. The transportation sector is one major aspect of why in some ways Canada has not been able to access all its natural resources to the benefit of all its people.

Industries such as tourism, metal extraction and forestry are big factions that use the transportation networks. Due to the regulatory burdens that often occur in this area, northerners often feel victimized by the transportation sector. Let me illustrate this by a very simple analogy.

Last summer I visited Kenora which some people do not consider as being north. Certainly it is in northern Ontario. I was surprised to discover that the cost of air fare to and from Kenora was twice as much as it would have cost me to go to London, England, and back. When I saw the bill come up for debate, I was very interested in why such things occur.

I discovered a very interesting aspect of the old National Transportation Act. Basically it divided Canada in half and not consistently in half either. It took the 50th parallel from Newfoundland to the Ontario-Manitoba border, then took the 53rd parallel in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the 55th parallel in Alberta and British Columbia and created a designated area. What did that mean? It means we treated businesses in the northern part of our country differently than we did in the southern part.

Here are some of the aspects of competition that occurred in the airline areas in northern Canada. A test was used called reverse onus. Basically it allowed interested parties such as air carriers and communities to argue that the licensing of new services could lead to a significant decrease or instability in domestic service already provided.

Basically this meant a barrier to new carriers that wanted to compete with existing airlines. It also created in my mind artificial monopolies. Many people in the north suspect that these artificial monopolies acted as impediments to transportation in northern regions.

Bill C-101 serves to do away with that aspect. It allows the competition that exists in the southern parts of the country to apply in the north. Hopefully this will eventually result in lowering air fares to some of our northern communities.

Every once in a while we feel there is inappropriate business activity in the area of monopoly. This act also provides for a review of the fair pricing schedules of some of the airlines in the north, such that we could even affect a rollback if it were thought the monopoly that sometimes occurred due to the small number of users and smaller communities could be rolled back if gouging and price fixing et cetera had occurred.

Another aspect of the act which has not been mentioned to date is consumer protection. I am sure members are aware of the horror stories of people who travel south or even within our country. They buy airline tickets and show up at the airport on the day of reckoning and suddenly discover the airline has gone out of business. There has been no real mechanism for some of these people to get their money back. I am sure members are aware of horror stories of retired people who have saved for the trip of their lifetime to travel around the world and who discover they were jilted by the airline system for whatever reason and lost their money.

This legislation provides for a system whereby new carriers will have to be approved not only from a technical point of view as to whether they can fly planes but also from a financial one. These airlines will have to submit financial statements, et cetera, to show their fiscal ability to conduct their business. This can be nothing but good for consumers.

These two aspects as they affect air transportation in Canada are nothing but positive. It is one more step in the government's agenda of realizing we can do things better by making our regulatory framework simpler and more easily understood and, similarly, allowing small and medium size businesses to do what businesses do best, to compete in an open and fair market.

At the same time, the government realizes there is a need to protect consumers from possible unwarranted business activity and has put that in this legislation as well. There is an underpinning protection for the consumer and an ability to allow the industry to fully compete. Hopefully the benefits to this will be transportation at no financial risk to the general public. More important, hopefully it will reduce the cost of air fare in northern communities.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill C-101, known as the Canada Transportation Act.

This long awaited bill is the outcome of numerous independent and government studies concluding that the Canadian government must take steps to restore the viability of Canada's railway industry. The most recent of these studies was conducted by the National Transportation Act Review Commission. In 1993 it wrote: If Canada is not prepared to pay the price of serious deterioration in the rail sector as the decade progresses, it is indispensable that

carriers be authorized and encouraged to make the changes necessary to becoming competitive.

The Commission also said that Canadian railways will be unable to contribute to making the national economy more competitive without major changes to their cost structures.

The Bill the government is proposing to us today was therefore very much expected. Essentially, its objectives are to modernize railway legislation, to redefine the mandate of the National Transportation Agency and to rename it the Canadian Transportation Agency, and to further deregulate the airline industry.

Although some of the proposed changes had been requested for some time, other proposals miss their target because of these measures are incomplete.

For instance, one of the main provisions of this bill is to allow large national corporations like Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to get rid of rail lines that are no longer viable. Potential buyers would create so-called short line railways.

This has been very successful in the United States. In fact, like us, the Americans have had to revamp their legislation and regulations on railway transportation. They did so in 1980, when they passed the Staggers Act. One of the measures included in the bill was the development of short line railways. Since the Staggers Act was passed, more than 250 short line railways have started operating in the United States. This proliferation of regional railway companies made it possible to recycle more than half of the surplus rail lines abandoned by the large railway companies. According to information provided by Canadian Pacific, these short line railways, and I quote: "co-operate with the main rail carriers to provide efficient transportation for shippers located along lines with a lower traffic density".

In Canada, railway overcapacity is a major problem. In fact, according to CP Rail and I quote: "more than half-53 per cent, to be exact-of the 20,000 kilometres of CP Rail tracks in Canada carry only 5 per cent of railway traffic. The situation is similar at CN".

The railway company adds: "As far as CP's system is concerned, we are looking at more than 10,000 kilometres of rail that bring in insufficient revenue and on which millions of dollars in land taxes must be paid. -Establishing short line railways is one way of resolving the excess capacity problem. With their smaller cost structures, these railways are able to provide services that are not viable for larger railways".

The government claims to want to foster the establishment of short lines. In the background paper on this bill, the Canada Transportation Act, the government states that the new process was designed to encourage the sale or lease of rail lines to short line railways.

To this end, the government suggests that major railway companies develop a three-year plan in which they will identify how they intend to dispose of their railway lines. CN and CP will be required to put up for sale those lines they no longer want to operate before they can abandon them.

Interested short line railways will have five months to come to an agreement with the national company, after which time, if no short line railway has come forward and no agreement was reached by the parties, the government, whether municipal, provincial or federal, will be entitled to exercise the option of operating the line. And, if no interest is expressed by any government, the company will then be allowed to just abandon the line.

This is a simpler procedure than the one in place until now. It has the advantage of fostering the establishment of local and regional rail transport companies. However, the government went only halfway, failing to stimulate the development of these short line railways which could become major players in regional development. Moreover, the process provided in the bill to allow national railway companies to dispose of their railway lines is flawed in a number of ways.

For instance, the establishment of short line railways will require huge capital investments on the part of those interested in such a venture. However, the federal government does not include any measure to facilitate the funding of these new ventures, unlike what the Americans did with the Staggers Act. For example, the government could have included loan protection measures to help establish these short lines.

Also, it appears that, between the time when this bill is proclaimed and the time when CN and CP's three-year plans are available, there will be a gap during which railway companies will be able to divest themselves of part of their surplus lines, without any interested party having time to review the potential of these lines, or find the required capital to buy or rent them.

Finally, the bill provides that, if no company is interested in operating a line declared to be surplus, or if no agreement is reached between the potential buyer and the railway company, governments will only have 15 days to decide whether or not to acquire that line. Such a deadline is definitely not reasonable, in my opinion. In imposing such a short time frame, the federal government adversely affects the regions, since they will simply not have time to inform their officials of the situation that will then prevail. These three flaws in the bill could jeopardize the establishment of short line railways. The government must make appropriate changes before the bill is passed.

As for airline transportation, the government is proposing a measure which gives me great concern. I am referring to clause 70(2), which reads:

The Minister may, in writing to the Agency, designate any Canadian as eligible to hold a scheduled international licence and, while the designation remains in force, that Canadian remains so eligible.

That clause must be repealed. Indeed, it is common knowledge that this government favours Canadian Airlines, at the expense of Air Canada, which is based in Montreal. To grant the Minister of Transport the discretionary power to decide who can hold an international licence when a transportation agency was established for that purpose is just plain unthinkable.

Air service licensing should be open and impartial. The licensing process must not be subject to pressure from lobbyists, like it was last winter, when the Liberal government granted Air Canada only partial access to Hong Kong, while Canadian was granted unlimited access to the U.S., designated secondary carrier for Frankfurt as well as licensed to service Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

As the official opposition's critic for Canadian heritage, I am baffled by the fact that this bill gives such discretionary power to the Minister of Transport. I am afraid that this could create a dangerous precedent and become standard practice in all federal departments.

It worries me to think that such power could be given to, say, the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Industry regarding the CRTC. Imagine for a moment what could happen in Canada if, just by sending a memo to the CRTC, either of these ministers could make people eligible to hold a telecommunications or broadcasting licence. One can easily infer that, given such power, the government would not have had to issue an order in council to favour Power DirecTv.

Consequently, the Prime Minister's son-in-law would not have had to appear before the CRTC and American T.V. would have flooded the Canadian airwaves.

Giving discretionary power to a minister jeopardizes collective good and interests. That is why I ask the government again to delete clause 70(2) from Bill C-101.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-101 to committee prior to second reading.

This massive document is supposed to be the first step in moving toward a rail system that will survive into the 21st century. It falls a little short. The rail transportation system has undergone major changes in the past decades but nothing compared to what is needed to ensure its future contributions to Canada's transportation needs.

The end of the Crow signalled the end of federal government subsidization of the railway companies. The rail companies must now be wholly dependent upon consumers paying for their services which is a novel idea in a country that has historically fostered government dependency.

We commend the Liberal government for realizing that changes must take place in the rail industry, however there must be more than just a realization that changes must be made. Tinkering with the rail system will not get to the route of the problem.

In the spring session we saw a number of bills rammed through the House without proper analysis.

Bill C-89, the commercialization of CN Rail, was sent to committee directly following first reading. In theory this should have allowed the committee to seriously examine the legislation and make amendments prior to second reading. In practice, this was smoke and mirrors and referral to committee was a ploy to allow rapid passage of the bill by short circuiting debate.

There should have been an opportunity to analyse the bill in detail but that never happened. The Liberal majority had no interest in even debating proposed amendments, much less giving them serious consideration. It now appears that Bill C-101 may be following the same fast track taken by Bill C-89.

Other bills that followed a similar process in the spring session were Bill C-64 on employment equity and Bill C-69 on electoral boundaries. There were some amendments on that one but they were only Liberal amendments and then it was fast tracked through. Another was Bill C-91, reorganization of the Federal Business Development Bank, and on and on.

The Reform Party will not be conned again into supporting this devious strategy. Bill C-101 has enormous implications for rail transportation in this country and it deserves serious assessment which it will not get if the government spirits it away to one of its neutered committees where the Liberals and the Bloc can, as usual, collude. They do not have to take seriously or even consider the smallest changes which we in the real opposition might propose.

The Reform Party has categorically stated numerous times that distortions in the marketplace caused by subsidies and regulations must be removed. Although subsidies to the rail companies ended with the death of the Crow, many of the regulations will remain in place.

I am going to briefly outline a number of concerns that Reform has with Bill C-101 with regard specifically to the agricultural sector. The legislation as it now stands calls for statutory review of the freight rate cap four years after the act comes into force. It will then be determined by the minister whether or not to repeal the cap and move toward a more market oriented system. It has been

suggested that because a cap is a double edged sword, rail companies will automatically charge the maximum freight allowed for as long as they can.

The Reform Party supports the move away from a regulated system toward a system where freight rates are freely negotiated between shippers and carriers. Having a maximum rate does little in the way of promoting efficiencies in the industry.

We accept the need for a transition period between regulated rates and those determined through competition. This should be accomplished in the shortest possible time. Four years as originally proposed is ample, more than ample.

A less regulated system will allow for more efficient rail transportation. Rail line rationalization of high cost, low volume branch lines will permit an overall reduction of system costs. Several grain companies and farmer owned groups are already preparing for this type of system by building high throughput elevators on economically viable rail lines.

With respect to the creation of short lines, these should operate without government funding in locations where they will provide a viable cost effective alternative to other means of transportation. Short lines must be allowed to compete with other carriers on a level economic playing field. If they cannot compete, then they should not exist.

There are competitive short lines in Canada. The line operated by Railtex between Truro and Sydney, Nova Scotia, the Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway, carries coal, steel and general freight. Last year it had a profit of more than $3 million which was shared among the owners and employees. A second success story is the 70-mile Goderich-Exeter Railway, also operated by Railtex.

Efficient cost conscious short lines work even when they are grain dependent. A couple of good examples are the little Southern Rails Co-operative in southern Saskatchewan and the 114-mile Northeast Kansas and Missouri line south of the border.

A glaring fault in Bill C-101 is that under the proposed process for discontinuance, a railway company abandoning a branch line will be able to stifle competition by refusing to negotiate seriously with prospective buyers who want to operate a short line, notwithstanding section 144(3) which is window dressing. Canadian taxpayers, having financed these branch lines through the rehabilitation program in the 1970s and 1980s, have a very legitimate stake in this process.

In order for a competitive transportation system to develop, cumbersome regulations and restraints must be lifted in all sectors. This is very evident in the marketing and transporting of grain. A large number of producers and shippers close to the United States no longer want to be held captive by Canadian rail companies. Many farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan want to see more Canadian grain shipped on the U.S. rail system in order to take advantage of the efficient and economical elevation and terminal facilities south of the border. This would indirectly result in a more competitive environment for Canadian railways especially where, as in my riding, one carrier has a monopoly.

In summary, there are a number of stakeholders with legitimate concerns about the proposed legislation. It is essential that these concerns be heard, reviewed and assessed accordingly. If the referral process to committee is just more smoke and mirrors on the part of the Liberals, then there is very little reason for the bill to go to committee.

The Reform Party wants the consideration of legislation to be meaningful and open to all stakeholders. It therefore opposes the fast track ploy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-101, the Canada transportation act.

It is important to note that the opportunity to speak on this bill prior to its going to committee is different from what the previous speaker from the Reform Party has indicated. It has really given the public a greater opportunity to put forward their concerns and to hopefully have them addressed and acted upon.

Since the House was informed under Standing Order 73(1) of the intention to refer the bill to committee before second reading, there have been a lot of letters and submissions coming in to members of Parliament from provincial governments, organizations and individuals. I have found them in the main to be well thought out and well researched. This gives us the opportunity to investigate their concerns and apply some forethought to the bill from a number of different perspectives.

Today I will address my remarks to some of the points being raised in some of those submissions, particularly points relative to the grain transportation industry and its impact on agriculture.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

In P.E.I.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member from Reform indicates in P.E.I. I have found the people from the prairies continue to come to some of us who did live out there for a while because they cannot get the kind of response they want through the Reform and they naturally have to come to the Liberals in other areas of the country.

I bring these points up partly because of my past experience in this area and my identification of transportation as extremely important to the development of agriculture and the development of this country.

During extensive hearings last spring the subcommittee on grain transportation which I chair, in reviewing the impact on agriculture of changes to the WGTA, ARFAA, MRFA and feed freight assistance, we heard a lot that relates to some of the Canadian transportation act points. We are currently awaiting a response from the government on some 14 recommendations.

The minister was able to highlight the positive aspects of the legislation. I will try to highlight those aspects of the legislation which may-and I underline may-require adjusting and amendment.

In April, Transport Canada briefed the provinces on the impending transport legislation. The four objectives outlined at that time were: one, allow the railways to dispose of surplus trackage by offering lines for sale to short line railways prior to initiating abandonment; two, maintain provisions in NTA 1987, which have improved bargaining of shippers and extend these provisions to shippers served by short line rails; three, provide for limited running rights for short line railways over CN and CP lines; and four, reduce regulatory controls on CN and CP providing the railways more freedom to manage. These objectives are sound but we must ensure the legislation actually meets these objectives.

In a submission by the ministers of transportation for the three prairie provinces on Bill C-101, they claim the legislation does not meet these objectives. Although I will raise a number of points discussed by the prairie governments, I also want to indicate that a number of other submissions from prairie pools, UGG, NFU and others have raised similar concerns. I will table them to ensure the committee looks at them and considers them seriously.

Having been a farm leader in the past I might say it is very, very important for the committee to develop an understanding of the people who are most affected by these changes. I would very much encourage the standing committee to get out of Ottawa, get away from the bureaucracy and go where the people are to hear their concerns relative to this bill. It is only in that way the committee will really understand the impact of this bill including how it will affect the lives of people especially those in the agricultural community.

The three prairie provinces are specific in addressing their concerns the first of which is the role of the National Transportation Agency. The three prairie governments indicate in their submission: "Bill C-101 significantly changes the scope and authority of the NTA. The Canadian transportation agency will no longer have the authority to initiate enquiries". The prairie governments' submission continues: "The result is greater restrictions on shipper access to the agency and a weakening of legislative provisions intended to address and/or redress situations where competition is weak or absent".

The committee has to go out to the prairies so it can understand where the prairie governments are coming from on that point of view and in order to get some balance so that there is fairness to the railways and to the communities and players involved.

It is critical that the committee study these concerns to determine the possible amendments that may be required to address any shortcomings in the creation of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The second point is rail line abandonment. Prairie provincial governments in their submission outline their concerns as follows:

Bill C-101 allows a railway to change its three-year plan without providing advance notice. A railway could indicate its intention to continue operating all of its lines and modify its plan each time it decides to sell or abandon a line. This would provide interested buyers only a minimum of 60 days to consider purchasing the line. This may not be sufficient time to develop a business plan and arrange suitable financing.

That point should be looked at by the committee to ensure the public has the time and that part of the bill does not jeopardize efficiencies in the system. Bill C-101 must ensure the issues of notice and disinvestment by the major railways are addressed.

The third point is legislative review. The prairie provinces and others have outlined that the review at the end of the four year period must address three specific issues besides the overview provided in the legislation: review financial performance of federal railways; assess the new line conveyance and abandonment procedures; assess provisions affecting the development and viability of short line railways. Those are important points.

The subcommittee tabled its report in June. Included were a number of recommendations. A very important recommendation relates to short lines which really could create some efficiencies in western Canada and could ensure that if the short line were brought into place on lines targeted for abandonment, the farmers would have to haul their grain longer distances as abandonment would likely cause.

Some key points raised in the report are: one, the appointing of an independent ombudsman to monitor freight rates; two, process of consultations with all affected parties prior to major decisions respecting grain handling and transportation; three, that there be appointed a consultant to undertake a special study to identify rail lines potentially operable by short line railways; four, that federal and provincial ministers meet to consider alternatives for approving branch line takeovers; five, that the cost benefit review of the NTA of grain dependent lines take into account total transportation efficiencies.

I want to review the points in the act that the committee has to give serious concern to regarding submissions coming from the agriculture community, particularly the west. I will not elaborate

on the points but simply indicate the clauses. Clauses 27.2, 34 and 113 require extensive investigation by the committee.

I hope the committee gives serious consideration to travelling. It should go out and develop an understanding. This bill has major implications. It can develop our future in a positive or a negative way. The government wants to develop it as positively as possible. To best do that we need input from the people most seriously affected.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes and Rimouski, I think this bill lacks both transparency and clarity. This is why I will vote against it.

In introducing Bill C-101, the government said it had three goals. First, it was to modernize legislation on rail transportation. Second, it was to redefine the mandate of the National Transportation Agency, which, in the future, would be called the Canadian Transportation Agency. Third, it was to further deregulate air transportation.

With your permission, I will start with this last point, which, I must admit, causes me considerable concern. Clause 70 of the bill specifically provides that the minister must give his approval for the Agency to issue a licence to operate a scheduled international service.

Thus, the minister is given full discretionary power in the issue or non issue of licences. This is a lot of power. I do not want to impute motives to the minister, but we have to admit that, in certain circumstances, a minister might well act a little less than rigorously and risk striking a nasty blow to this government's integrity and transparency.

By way of example, we might recall the awarding of international air links and the treatment given Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International in this area. Is there some bias in favour of Canadian? I do not know. All I know is that these two companies do not compete on an equal footing.

That same clause stipulates that the Minister shall also issue the same type of authorization to all non-Canadians wishing to hold this same type of licence. At this time, with Quebec sovereignty imminent, we have doubts about the Minister's ability to remain impartial despite all his good intentions. What guarantee do we have that Quebecers will be treated with the same concern for fairness and equality as anyone else? Might there not be another repetition of the double standard to which the federal government has accustomed us Quebecers ever since 1867?

This is important. Last winter we were all in a position to see what solely political considerations and powerful lobby groups can accomplish, how they can influence government decisions. Keep in mind how Air Canada and Canadian Airlines contracts were awarded. Moreover, can we have any certainty that the minister's decisions will place public interest above everything else and, if so, how can we have that certainty?

The government would have been far wiser to have taken advantage of the opportunity available in this bill to mandate the Agency to assess proposals from carriers and to decide on allocation of international routes through an impartial public quasi judicial process.

Bill C-101 also affects the railways, and some of its provisions would benefit from a review. Clause 90 is a perfectly beautiful example of flexible federalism. While this government is unceasingly singing the praises of Canada with this bill, it is once again exhibiting an extremely unhealthy tendency to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. This government's flexible federalism means that the provinces give in and the federal government invades their jurisdictions.

Take the short line railways, for instance, which are a purely provincial matter. Nevertheless, clause 90 of the bill authorizes Parliament to pass legislation declaring any railway, including short line railways, a work for the general advantage of Canada. Basically, this means that provincial legislation no longer applies and that the company is regulated by the federal government.

While Quebec is doing everything in its power to encourage the creation of short line railways, the federal government, with its continuing tendency to interfere with the business and jurisdictions of the provinces, is doing everything it can to discourage or prevent Quebec investors from investing in short line railways.

Clauses 140 to 146 refer to the sale of railway lines. We read that potential investors have only 60 days to indicate their interest.

Sixty days to indicate their interest, to make an assessment of and collect the capital required to purchase the lines available. This is hardly encouragement, unless it is supposed to encourage them to drop their plans.

As a member from a region-the riding of Champlain-where railways are practically non-existent, I think I can say that this government gives no consideration to the development of the regions which, you may recall, were severely affected by the abandonment of branch lines. The federal government is letting the regions die a slow death.

While the Quebec government supports decentralization towards the regions, the federal government is interested in the regions only

insofar as that they give it an opportunity to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

As I read this bill, I wondered whether the Minister of Transport consulted his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, when the bill was being prepared. At a time when the Quebec government invests millions of dollars so people will "think green", when Quebec schools teach our children at an increasingly younger age about protecting the environment, the bill before the House today does not provide that the agency shall conduct an environmental study before authorizing the construction of a railway line. Why give more power to the auditor general under Bill C-83, if we cannot even ensure protection of the environment in an area relating to transportation?

Is it not our duty as lawmakers to protect the future of our planet and, therefore, any legislation that could have an effect on the environment should contain clauses to ensure this protection.

I cannot support this bill because it is unclear. It is totally vague. Is this government's trademark not its lack of clarity? The fog settles in without clarifying anything about the new Canadian transfer. And yet, the government was saying a few months ago that this was the key that would unlock Quebec's claims. The same was said about unemployment insurance reform.

One thing is sure, Quebecers know the sort of society a yes vote will take them into. Whereas a no vote does not reveal what sort of Canada we will be in. No doubt it will be a foggy Canada, because discussions on this keep being put off.

For these reasons, I will vote against Bill C-101.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the motion to refer Bill C-101 to the Standing Committee on Transport prior to second reading. As we are all aware, in the past a number of bills have been sent to committee prior to second reading. Bill C-45, Bill C-64, Bill C-89 and Bill C-91 are a few of the bills which have gone through that process.

Originally Reformers supported this new process since we believed the government when it said MPs would play a much greater role in shaping legislation within committee. However, committee reform has come to represent yet another broken promise within the Liberal red ink book. That faulty document states that MPs will receive a greater role in drafting legislation through committees. It goes on to say that committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures.

It will come as no surprise to anyone who has sat on a committee that none of these things has come to pass. In most cases the opposite is true; the role of MPs at committee has been diminished or their efforts have been deliberately obstructed by Liberal committee members.

The best example of this is the fiasco which arose over the committee hearings surrounding Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity. As I mentioned earlier, this bill was sent to committee prior to second reading under the premise that it could be more easily studied there and amendments could be brought forward and discussed at length.

However the proceedings were completely mismanaged and the whole examination of the bill was so skewed in favour of the government's position that Reformers boycotted the hearings. For instance, only four of the fifty witnesses to be called before the committee were accepted from the list submitted by the Reform Party.

Furthermore, debate on each clause within the bill was limited to five minutes. This meagre five-minute allotment included the introduction of amendments, debate on the amendments and time to ask questions of departmental officials. Government members of the committee refused to accept amendments printed in only one of the official languages, and it is reported that numerous voting irregularities occurred. This was the new and improved committee process we were promised in the red book.

Before referring Bill C-64 to committee prior to second reading on December 12, 1994, the minister of human resources stated that the process represented: "innovation on the part of the government to turn over a bill after first reading to a committee so it can help in the actual drafting of the bill".

As we have heard, MPs from my party were allowed almost no input in the final drafting of Bill C-64. However the futility of committees is not constrained to that one example. If we turn to Bill C-89, a piece of legislation that would see the privatization of CN Rail, we can also point to instances whereby opposition MPs were simply ignored with respect to amending legislation.

The Reform Party put forward a number of non-partisan amendments to the bill that were in the best interests of the Canadian National Railway, the industry and the taxpayer. Again these amendments were ignored and the bill was ultimately fast tracked with no amendments being introduced. MPs who were promised input into the legislative process were thwarted.

Further, it comes as no surprise that the government fast tracked Bill C-89 and is now attempting to do the same with Bill C-101. Bill C-89 permits shares of CN Rail to go on sale this fall. Bill C-101 is an attempt to bring the Canadian rail industry into a more competitive position with respect to its U.S. counterparts. Bill C-101 attempts to make it easier to establish short line railways and abandon lines. It reduces the number of regulations and taxes

imposed on the rail industry. Should Bill C-101 be fast tracked, CN Rail shares will look more inviting to potential investors.

In all, Bill C-101 is a huge piece of legislation which shippers, railways and provinces have serious concerns over. All these parties have a right to be heard and that right should not be denied because the government wants to ensure CN Rail shares will sell this fall.

In August the minister of agriculture stated that the legislative process surrounding Bill C-101 would be open and amendment friendly. However, as I understand it, the Standing Committee on Transport has imposed arbitrary deadlines for submissions by stakeholders.

Further, I am told that while submissions have been received by the committee, the committee has yet to make them available to committee members. Why should we believe the minister of agriculture or anyone else with respect to the promises of openness and thoroughness at the committee stage?

The minister of human resources promised the same in relation to Bill C-64 and Reform MPs were shut out of that process as well. The government is long on promises, awarding MPs greater powers at committee stage. However it is short on delivering on promises, as we have already seen in a number of bills.

Therefore it will come as no surprise to members of the Chamber that I cannot support the government's motion to refer the bill to committee prior to second reading. Reformers will not assist in fast tracking such an important piece of legislation to spruce up CN Rail's profile for sale of its shares this fall. Reformers will not help the government limit access to committee hearings under any circumstances.

All parties affected by Bill C-101 have a right to come forward and be heard. We gave the government the benefit of the doubt and supported its promises of parliamentary reform through the committee reform system. It has done nothing to revamp the process and its promises amounted to nothing but so much Liberal hot air, of which we have had enough in the Chamber, let alone at committee.

I guess committee reform will just have to be added to the long list of Liberal broken promises. Accordingly I will not support the motion presently under debate.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-101 respecting the Canada Transportation Act. In my capacity as chairperson of SCOT I had originally planned to speak to the bill after committee review. I believe it is my first duty to hear and evaluate the concerns and issues raised by various stakeholders who may be affected by the legislation to ensure an effective legislative process.

Speaking of process, I was listening very carefully to the misleading statements made by the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke and felt compelled to respond. A full seven minutes of the ten-minute slot allotted to the member to speak to Bill C-101 were devoted to procedural matters that were not at all relevant to the substance of the bill. Plain and simple, the member chose to play politics, something the third party promised not to do when elected to the House.

Bill C-101 was introduced in the House by the Minister of Transport on June 20. Privileged to be the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, I attempted with the consensus of committee members, as stated in my letter to the stakeholders dated July 17, 1995, to "solicit written submissions throughout the remainder of July and August in order to ensure that you and other stakeholders have ample opportunity to apprise committee members of your concerns prior to formal consideration of the legislation in the fall".

In other words, I first appealed to the opposition members of both parties to proceed with a pre-study of the bill. The notion was flatly rejected. Step two was to make an appeal to the stakeholders, as previously stated, to send along their written submissions to give committee members, especially members of the third party, an idea of the concerns raised by stakeholders as early in the process as possible.

I asked them to prepare not 25 copies as alleged by the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke earlier this day but 15 copies, if possible, to cut down on committee expenses, something else the third party preaches ad nauseam. We also asked that submissions be sent in both official languages. Unfortunately many were not. Therefore, before the clerk could circulate the submissions, we had to have them translated and that takes time.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Tell your colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I understand that at all times matters of importance bring out strong views and strong feelings. However I remind all members to make their interventions through the Chair.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

There was no secret agenda to hold back submissions as the hon. member for the third party has suggested. I explained all this to the member verbally last week. I went over there, sat down, explained it all to him, and then I followed it up with a formal letter addressing each and every one of the concerns he raised in the House today.

That did not satisfy the member opposite, not at all. Finally and quite frankly the chairperson, committee members, the government-

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

And the parliamentary secretary.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

And the parliamentary secretary, the member for London East. We are doing our level best to produce effective legislation.

Because of my appeal to the stakeholders backed by the consensus of the committee in July, our committee clerk has received over 70 written submissions and close to 100 requests to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport. We have done our homework.

I assure the House and all my colleagues that, as I stated in my letter to the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, every stakeholder who has contacted the committee clerk to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport is being provided with the opportunity to do so with or without a written submission.

We look forward to working on Bill C-101 as put forward by the Minister of Transport to create the effective legislation the country needs to go into the next century with a transportation system that will be unmatched by any other country in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commence, albeit briefly, debate on the bill. I recognize that in only a few minutes we will be adjourning to commence proceedings under Standing Order 31.

However, in the few moments afforded me, I want to talk about the bill in question respecting the Canada Transportation Act.

I guess it is now time for question period.

[The Speaker]

We always welcome astute comments.

It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Fleetwood Trailers

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to announce that the Fleetwood trailer facility in the town of Lindsay, Ontario, has won the customer satisfaction award for the fourth consecutive year.

The Prowler trailer plant competes against 15 other factories in North America every year and it is the only facility located in Canada. Its rating was over 95 per cent.

It was my pleasure to present a Canadian flag to our friendly American vice-president of operations who attended from California to help congratulate the Lindsay plant employees on their championship.

I say congratulations to the Lindsay management and employees on their success.

Fight Against Aids

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 40,000 people, including 25,000 in Montreal, took part in the walk against AIDS. The purpose of this third Farha Foundation walk-a-thon was to collect funds for those organizations that assist and support people with AIDS.

With serenity and respect, the procession observed a minute of silence to pay tribute to AIDS victims so that no one will forget them or forget that this disease is still causing too many tragedies.

Saint-Exupéry used to say that everyone was responsible for all. The walkers showed this kind of solidarity. As for the federal government, it is still waiting to assume its responsibilities and take real action against this disease. Will the federal government finally listen to reason? It is worth repeating that "everyone is responsible for all".

Communities In Bloom

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Quesnel, British Columbia, in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin was a finalist last weekend in the Canada-wide competition called "Communities in Bloom".

Each year proud community minded citizens across the country are pleased to show off their towns and cities to the judges. The finalists were judged on the quality of their green space, the diversity and originality of landscape, general tidiness, environmental awareness, and the level of community involvement.

The people of Quesnel are very proud of the natural beauty of their city at the confluence of the Quesnel and Fraser Rivers. They have worked hard to make it beautiful for themselves and very attractive to all visitors.

I am proud that Quesnel was awarded the prize for originality in floral plantings.

I ask my colleagues to join me in warmly congratulating the citizens of Quesnel for this outstanding achievement.

Supreme Court

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn legislation passed by the House regarding the advertising of tobacco products is the latest evidence of a shifting balance of power away from Parliament toward the unelected and unaccountable Supreme Court.

In this and other decisions the court has extended the rights of individual citizens to business corporations as presumed legal individuals. This presumption has transformed the charter from a guarantor of individual rights to a political lever that allows corporations to evade the legitimate regulatory actions of a democratically elected government and House of Commons.

In addition, the court has also in some cases interpreted laws or extended them in ways deliberately not articulated by Parliament at the time the law was passed. This growing shift in power toward the court requires new measures to improve the accountability of the court.

I call on the government to consider a royal commission to propose measures that would add transparency to and wider participation in the process of selecting Supreme Court judges in a manner consistent with our parliamentary system of government.

New Brunswick

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again New Brunswick is on the cutting edge of the emerging new economy. It is leading in the area of making governments more user friendly and making it easier for Canadian businesses to compete in the global economy.

The federal and provincial governments will combine efforts on trade promotion and will share information on export programs. The program being announced today in Fredericton is to be known as "Trade Team New Brunswick", the first of its kind in Canada. This program will simplify the process of helping exporters develop new markets.

Under the trade team concept an entrepreneur will be able to get information on both governments' programs from any economic agency of either level of government. The trade team concept is a result of ten months of work by eight different government agencies.

I congratulate Premier Frank McKenna and the federal Minister for International Trade on this great achievement. I also extend my best wishes to the Canadian Exporters Association which is meeting in my riding today for its 52nd annual conference.

Federation Of Sterea Hellas

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome a group visiting the nation's capital region today.

The Federation of Sterea Hellas represents over 15,000 Canadians who descended from the central part of Greece known as Roumeli. The federation is involved in many worthwhile projects and is primarily concerned with issues of an ethnocultural nature.

This year the federation has unanimously decided to recognize the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada for his longstanding commitment and service to our nation. It also commends him on his efforts of national unity, world peace and his undying belief in democracy and human rights.

I wholeheartedly support the federation in its decision and congratulate the Prime Minister on this well deserved recognition.

I also extend a warm welcome to the federation, its president, Mr. Constantin Bikas, and Mr. Chris Geronikolos. I hope their stay in Ottawa will be an enjoyable and informative one.

Joseph Richot

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, representatives from all political parties gathered this morning in the rotunda of the Manitoba legislature to unveil a plaque to commemorate Father Noël Joseph Richot.

Father Richot was an adviser to Louis Riel and led the delegation that negotiated the terms of the Red River Colony's entry into confederation. Through his arguments, the colony obtained provincial status and bilingual and bicultural institutions. Father Richot worked to expand the francophone population in Manitoba.

With this 125th anniversary of Manitoba's entry into confederation, it is appropriate to honour Father Richot at the Manitoba legislature, a provincial institution he helped create.

Fédération Des Femmes Du Québec

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a majority of members of the Fédération des femmes du Québec support sovereignty. An exceptional proportion of 83 per cent of them have said yes to change. Each day, more and more women consider Quebec's sovereignty as a prerequisite to the progress of equity and justice in our society.

Whether it is for pay equity, parental leave, preventative withdrawal of work or child care services or to prevent regressive federal reforms of old age pensions and unemployment insurance, the women of the Fédération des femmes du Québec are convinced that only a sovereign Quebec will fulfil their needs.

The Bloc Quebecois invites all Quebec women to participate actively in the debate on Quebec's future.