Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-101 to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987. As the member representing Trois-Rivières, I would just like to point out that our region, Trois-Rivières in particular, makes extensive use of the railway system, with the northern part of the Mauricie using the CN, and the southern part, including the city of Trois-Rivières, mainly using CP.
It is obvious that the government is trying to harmonize this legislation to draw attention to the bill to privatize CN and make its acquisition more appealing to potential buyers.
Many of the amendments in connection with the National Transportation Agency are designed to remedy regulatory deficiencies which hinder CN and CP's profitability and cause operating deficits that these companies have to absorb in order to maintain existing lines.
It may seem commendable to strive to improve on the National Transportation Agency so that both companies can become profitable, but at the same time it is dangerous to try both to achieve these objectives through more flexible regulations for operators like CN and CP and preserve the intent of the law, which is to protect public transportation. It is dangerous to change the
perspective of the legislation which is intended to foster the use of public transportation, and particularly rail transportation, for the development of people and businesses.
The role of the National Transportation Agency should be to ensure proper balance between the CN and CP monopolies, commercial users and passengers. Since this bill is only at first stage, we can assume that heated discussions will take place when it is reviewed by the transport committee, which will hear many witnesses who will debate these amendments, including railway unions, commercial users and railway companies. These groups will not all agree with the new mandate that this bill proposes for the National Transportation Agency.
In that respect, I want to mention some of the concerns that will surely be raised by various stakeholders during the hearings which will be held regarding this legislation.
First, there is the ability for shippers to call upon the National Transportation Agency to block a rail monopoly. I am referring here to the approach used by Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, but the same could apply to all shippers of raw materials, such as the mining and forest industries which, by nature, ship enormous quantities of materials, usually from remote areas located far from the main industrial centres.
The 1987 act allowed commercial users of railway companies to call upon the agency to circumvent CN and CP's excessive monopoly power. These provisions are maintained, but new hurdles will limit the ability of shipping companies to use them.
Indeed, the shipper will now have to prove that he will suffer a serious prejudice in order to convince the agency to keep CN or CP from unduly raising its prices. We are not saying that the industry should not pay its fair share for the transportation of its products. The problem is that the notion of serious prejudice is not defined in Bill C-101, thus leaving open the possibility that a shipper may resort to political or court action to win his case before the National Transportation Agency.
It is difficult for the industry to prove the degree to which an increase in rates would be harmful to it, and more difficult still to prove that there would be serious prejudice or material injury.
It is vital to discuss what is meant by serious prejudice; otherwise it can be anticipated that too often the decision will have to be made in the courts, after time-consuming discussions have failed.
I would also like to discuss the issue of competitiveness in remote regions. It is essential that all regions have access to a competitive and affordable rail system in Canada that will permit them to compete in the export market.
How will the new changes to the National Transportation Act allowing rail carriers to raise charges or simply discontinue unprofitable branch lines take regional economic realities into consideration by spreading operating costs over the entire system instead of dividing it up into more profitable and less profitable branch lines?
For too long now, the cost of developing remote regions has been calculated without taking into account on the positive side of the ledger the development natural resources confer to the more urbanized regions.
Here again, the concept of serious prejudice might be sustained provided it is given a fairly precise definition in order to prevent rail rates from being raised, thus cancelling out the profitability of industries dependent on this mode of transportation, without any consideration of the wages earned by workers in these industries.
Another provision, which will probably raise questions, deals with agency membership. The bill proposes to cut from nine to three the number of members of the National Transportation Agency. This reduction could lead to a lack of understanding of regional issues across Canada and, in turn, to a misappreciation of any significant risk that shippers may be at a disadvantage because of the monopoly enjoyed by CN and CP.
It will be more difficult for shippers to draw attention to their needs and their regions if the agency is composed of three members instead of nine. Listening to witnesses at the hearings held by the Standing Committee on Transport will surely help us strike a balance between a reduced agency of three members and an expanded agency of nine members.
My comments will also deal with the establishment of short-line railways. The financial difficulties experienced by CN and CP in recent years have led to the recent establishment of short-line railways.
Since these small organizations enjoy higher profits, smaller management and fewer constraints in the distribution of work through their collective agreements, we will see more and more of them. Unfortunately, the phrase "short-line railway" is not defined anywhere in this bill. Furthermore, in many clauses of this bill, it is unclear whether short-line railway operators should be regarded as railway operators or simply as shippers.
Clauses 130 through 137 of this bill concern the identification of competitive lines. In the past, railway operators had their own systems and, already, the two antagonists do not like the idea of using the lines of their competition in return for fair compensation.
Public interest requires better co-operation in the management of CN and CP. For example, CP could pay a price to use CN's tracks,
and vice versa, without the tracks' owners being able to prevent such an arrangement.
This would promote free competition, while also giving a more accurate idea of the actual costs of transportation in a particular region.
Since my time is running out, I will immediately move on to the issue of regional development. In the past, under the act governing the agency, railway companies wanting to close or abandon a line had to comply with an elaborate process. Now, these companies will only have to announce their intention to dispose of a line.
The new process to transfer and discontinue the operation of railway lines will be very quick: a 60 day notice, a 15 day period for each level of authority, for a maximum of 105 days. This time frame will allow railway companies to dispose of their lines very quickly, without having to justify their decision on either economic grounds or grounds of public interest.
However, this new transfer and discontinuation process hardly encourages the establishment of short line railways. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a potential buyer in just 60 days. Quebec, and the same goes for any other province, will only have 15 days to decide whether or not to buy a line and continue to provide the existing service to the public.
In conclusion, I can only hope that, this time, the government will have the vision that it has been lacking so far, and think in terms of the future, including as regards the interests of Quebec. In this case, as in others, we find no reasons to vote No, but many reasons to vote Yes, and I hope that Quebecers realize this.