Debates of March 22nd, 1996

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Transportation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The following is the ruling on groups at report stage of Bill C-14.

There are 82 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence.

Motions Nos. 16, 20, 21, 33 and 34 cannot be submitted to the House as they did not receive the Governor General's recommendation. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice be given of the said recommendation no later than the sitting day before the day on which the report stage is to commence.

The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows. Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 1 and 69. Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 2, 28 to 32, and 35 to 55. Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 3 and 5.

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 4, 9, 14, 15, 17, 27, 68, 72 and 73.

Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8. Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 10 to 13 inclusive.

Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 18 and 19.

Group No. 9, Motions Nos. 22, 26, 71 and 74 to 82. Group No. 10, Motions Nos. 23 and 24. Group No. 11, Motion No. 25. Group No. 12, Motions Nos. 56 and 70.

Group No. 13, Motions Nos. 57 to 66.

Group No. 14, Motion No. 67.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions No. 1 and 69 to the House.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. After discussions with the House leaders and the party whips yesterday, I believe you will find that I have unanimous consent for my motion No. 25 to be included in group 1 for debate today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I might ask the assistance of the hon. member for Saint John. Is she referring to her motion No. 25 being in group No. 2?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, you are absolutely correct.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the request for unanimous consent to include motion No. 25 in group No. 2. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Therefore I will present group No. 2 and No. 11 before the House simultaneously for the purpose of debate.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with members of other parties and I believe if you seek unanimous consent you may find agreement to refer clause 27 of this bill back to the Standing Committee of

Transport for reconsideration, given the further input that has come from the field.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the the request of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, another point of order. I understand the groupings also include voting. Group 6 contains a motion to delete clause 27(2). That same grouping contains two different motions to modify clause 27(3), which is simply a part or refers to clause 27(2).

If they are voted on together and if the government chooses to defeat clause 27(2), which I suspect it will do, it will also defeat the minister's Motion No. 7. I do not believe that is the intent. It is going to add confusion.

Could we get clarification that these will be voted on separately even though they are grouped together?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I believe that could be clarified at the time of voting.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In response to the intervention of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, in review of group No. 6, Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 will be voted on separately.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-14, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18, on page 3, with the following:

"persons, including elderly persons and persons with disabilities,".

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-14, in Clause 170, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 81, with the following:

"bility of elderly persons and persons with disabilities, including".

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-14, in Clause 129, be amended by adding after line 41, on page 58, the following:

"(3) For the purposes of sections 129 to 136, the former Canadian Pacific line through Maine shall be deemed to be a route wholly within Canada, and any carrier serving any portion of the line between Saint John (New Brunswick) and Montreal (Quebec) shall be deemed to be a connecting carrier and any place where the line of a railway company connects with such connecting carrier shall be deemed to be an interchange."

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to amend this clause in two places, essentially where prescriptions for requiring railways providing transportation services to people are written. According to the way the bill is now presented it takes into consideration the special needs of people with special disabilities.

I have proposed to add the words "and the elderly", because it is not always easy to describe the problems that come with age: being slower, not able to make such long steps. There are special requirements that are caused as a result in loading and unloading of conveyances.

For that reason I thought it would be appropriate to include the needs of elderly persons as something of which providers of transportation would have to be kept aware.

I note that most of the airlines now do that to a certain extent. Elderly persons are loaded in advance but there is no requirement in the act. As the act is now written there is nothing requiring them to do this other than the exigencies of the market.

If we are going to draw attention to providers of service into perpetuity which this act will have the affect of doing, we should mention that it is a requirement of the Government of Canada for providers of those transportation services to keep the needs of elderly persons at the top of their order of priorities, along with the needs of people with special disabilities.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in support of Motions Nos. 1 and 69. I have a little difficulty in so far as there is a bit of redundancy in it, but I feel we should support it nonetheless.

The bill already contains a provision which provides no barrier to access for anyone disabled. I am puzzled as to exactly what kind of barrier we would put in front of an elderly person who was not already covered by the disabled part.

That notwithstanding, it may be possible and we should recognize nonetheless that there is a need for access for elderly people. As the hon. member has just mentioned, we certainly do not want it to appear that we have not given due consideration for their concerns. They have a right to full access to all transportation modes in this country. That would clarify it at least in the bill. I do not think they would have been unduly hurt had it not been there, but why not be generous and ensure that proper provisions are made for these people so that they are assured that they have not been left out.

With regard to Motion No. 25, I also think this is a fair consideration for Atlantic Canada. This does not provide any problems for anywhere else in Canada but it is a consideration that will have a significant impact on some of the Atlantic provinces in order to access some of the terms contained in the bill.

The bill has been put out with the idea of making the rail section of it more fair to shippers across the country. In doing so, it has certain provisions that shippers and rail companies must meet on

access to various services. To not include this would unfairly restrict Atlantic Canada.

It is consistent with the old policy held with the CPR line that ran through a portion of the United States in order to access the rest of Canada. We would be very remiss to penalize Atlantic Canada on what amounts to a technicality in the provisions of this bill. I will be supporting that one as well.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to my motion today in Group No. 2 concerning Bill C-14, the Canadian Transportation Act. I want to thank my leader, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, for seconding my motion.

There was one major omission in the bill and that is why I have introduced Motion No. 25. The provision of the existing National Transportation Act section 134(6)(c) designates the Canadian Pacific line from Saint John through to Quebec as a route wholly within Canada for the purposes of the competitive line rates or CLRs. This existing section of the NTA has been dropped in Bill C-14.

There are serious concerns that the wording of Bill C-14 is not clear enough to protect shippers in the maritimes from the captive position they would be in if CN would be the only railway which operates wholly within Canada from the maritime provinces to Quebec.

The provisions of Bill C-14 that deal with the issue of competitive line rates are found in sections 129 to 136. These CLR provisions are basically the same as those contained in the existing National Transportation Act of 1987. The purpose of the CLRs is to protect the shippers against potential monopolistic prices by a railway which has an exclusive position with respect to a particular shipper.

Without the CLR provisions there is the potential that a railway could threaten to charge unreasonably high rates for the exclusive portion of a route served by that railway. In virtually all parts of Canada other than the maritime provinces, there are alternative rail lines wholly within Canada over which the shipper may ship goods.

For over 100 years CP Rail operated a line of railway from Montreal, Quebec to Saint John, New Brunswick. The line went through the eastern townships of Quebec, across the state of Maine in the U.S. and re-entered New Brunswick at McAdam, New Brunswick and from there down to Saint John with a spur to St. Stephen.

Maritime shippers wishing to ship their goods to Quebec and beyond have the option of shipping through Moncton on the CN line or through Saint John via the short lines which now operate along the former CP line. Following an order by the NTA, CP abandoned a portion of its line between Lennoxville and Saint John effective midnight December 31, 1994. Four days later on January 4, 1995 the line was bought by several short line operators.

Those companies bought the line with the assumption that the competitive line rate provisions would still apply. Now with Bill C-14 the CLR provisions concerning the CP line have been eliminated. There seems to be no logical reason why such reactivated lines should be excluded from access to the CLR provisions under Bill C-14.

I hope the example I will give will create a clear picture for my colleagues in the House of the situation we face in the maritimes. Let us take the example of a shipper located in Bathurst, New Brunswick. This shipper is located on a railway line owned by CN and wishes to ship a product to Quebec. Section 134(5) of the present legislation, NTA-87, states:

Where the ultimate point of destination of a movement of traffic of a shipper is in Canada and there is available to the shipper more than one continuous route wholly within Canada that is cost effective and over which it is considered reasonable to move the traffic of the shipper, the shipper shall, in order to have a competitive line rate established, designate a continuous route that is wholly within Canada.

Section 134(6)(c) states that "the Canadian Pacific line through Maine shall be considered to be a route wholly within Canada". These sections allow the Bathurst shipper to request and obtain a CLR rate from CN for the hauling of goods.

Let us assume that Bill C-14 is law. The Bathurst shipper has put in a request to get a CLR rate. What would CN say to this request? CN would say: "Section 131(1) of Bill C-14 denies you the right to a CLR quote unless you and all the connecting carriers have reached an agreement on shipping your goods".

Under section 111 of Bill C-14, a connecting carrier is defined as a railway company other than a local carrier. Under section 87 a railway company is defined as a person who holds a certificate of fitness under section 92. One can only get a certificate of fitness under section 92 if one is federally regulated. The short lines that now operate the former CP line are provincially regulated, not federally regulated, and are therefore not deemed a connecting carrier.

Since the Bathurst shipper does not have an agreement with the connecting carrier under section 131(1), CN is forbidden to quote the Bathurst shipper a CLR. Thus, the Bathurst shipper would be placed at a competitive disadvantage as it would have to use the CN line and CN could charge whatever rate it wanted.

My amendment would solve this problem. It would deem the line from Saint John through to Quebec as a line considered to be wholly within Canada as it has been for Canadian Pacific. It would add a provision that carriers serving the line from Saint John to

Montreal are deemed to be connecting carriers. Thus, the Bathurst shipper would not be placed at a disadvantage.

CP's sale of the Saint John to Sherbrooke line to other railways in January 1995 should make no difference in principle to the analysis of this issue. The fact that the owner of that line is no longer CP is irrelevant to shippers. They still want the option to ship over a route they have shipped over for many years. I know the government wants the private sector to succeed. The only way those in the private sector can succeed now is that they be deemed wholly in Canada.

The purpose of my amendment is to gain a position for maritime shippers. It is not to gain a preferential position for them but merely to ensure that they have the same access to provisions of the CTA as shippers from other parts of Canada.

The short line operators that recently purchased the abandoned CP line through Maine to Quebec felt that this was the situation. There was a natural reliance on the continued existence of the current legislation.

The potential loss of domestic traffic on the former CP line would make it less viable and it is difficult to imagine how it could survive. The maritime provinces cannot afford to lose any more. We have taken unproportional cuts in the last three budgets. We have lost our regional freight rate assistance program that enabled us to get our products to market at a competitive price. The inability of shippers to get these competitive line rates will only make an already bad situation worse.

I have asked myself why the term "wholly within Canada" has been dropped from Bill C-14. Has it been dropped only because CP has sold that line to a number of short line carriers? Are the short line carriers not as important as CP was? Is it that the shippers are not as important in the maritimes as they are in the rest of Canada, or is it because we want CN to be more attractive for sale?

If the government does not accept this amendment, it will be perceived as discriminating against the maritimes. I am sure it does not want that to happen. I ask my colleagues, including government members, to support this amendment for the purposes of protecting an industry and maintaining the competitiveness of the railway and the ability of shippers to compete.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot and will not support either of Motions Nos. 1 or 69.

Concerning Motion No. 1, the national transportation policy already recognizes there should be no undue obstacle to the movement of all persons. The motion does not add to that and there will be no need then to make specific reference to elderly persons.

With respect to Motion No. 69, we cannot support this motion. The government feels there is no need for a regulation which specifically addresses the mobility needs of elderly people. As I mentioned when I spoke to Motion No. 1, provisions are already in place for that kind of requirement.

With respect to Motion No. 25, while we commend the concerns of the member, the government cannot and will not support this motion because there is already a non-legislative alternative available to resolve the problem.

Specifically, the New Brunswick Southern Railway could put into effect immediately provisions that would overcome all problems the railway has mentioned to date and which the previous speaker has indicated. The Eastern Maine Railroad Company, an affiliate of the New Brunswick Southern Railway, could enter into an agreement with the New Brunswick southern to use the Saint John connection with CN. That would result in two federally regulated railways, CN and Eastern Maine Railroad Company, connecting Saint John. This would create an interchange that satisfied the eligibility requirements for competitive line rates which would then address all the concerns of the member.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the government's response to Motions Nos. 1, 69 and 25.

Motions Nos. 1 and 69 go a step further and add to the list of people for which there would not be any barriers to transportation. The act already talks about persons of disability and the motions would include elderly people.

There was some concern mentioned earlier about why we should include elderly people, that if they had disabilities they would surely be covered under that section. There is a grey area. People are living longer. They want to stay in their home communities rather than go to care facilities hundreds of miles away.

I know several elderly people who live quite active lives but their eyesight prevents them from driving. Sometimes they might even have difficulty renewing their drivers' licences. It is not that they are totally blind, it is not that they fall into the disabled category, but there is a need there. It is also a transportation need, particularly if their eyesight is not good enough to allow them to drive on the highways. They still have this tremendous need to go to other centres for medical services or to visit family members and so forth.

The amendment simply wished to spell out that elderly people should also be included in the grouping. If the government does not accept these motions, it will be because of the bureaucrats who do not like to see any changes to what they have proposed.

Motion No. 25 was introduced by our colleague from Saint John. She made excellent sense in presenting her case. I am again surprised the government has not listened to the legitimate concerns which are being expressed. Instead, it is listening to the

bureaucrats and ploughing ahead with what the bureaucrats have deemed, which is not what common sense would dictate.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of my colleague who asked whether the government of the day cares adequately for the needs and interests of Canadians in Atlantic Canada.

It seems the hon. member for Saint John told us very clearly why this is a rather significant issue. We should be very careful to look after all sections of Canada, not just one. I lend my support to her appeal to the House to support motion No. 25.

With regard to the other amendments being proposed to look after the interests of the elderly and put them into a situation where they are looked after and adequately provided for, the Transportation Act does deal with people who perhaps cannot move as quickly and who may be handicapped. However, we must recognize all Canadians need to be looked after.

It makes excellent sense that we have two motions dealing with the elderly, that they be treated fairly, responsibly and equally. In addition, we must look after the interests of those in Atlantic Canada who want a fair and equitable market that will provide adequate facilities, efficiency and competition in the area.

With regard to Motion No. 38, will we again see that the government does not have the interests of Atlantic Canada at heart? It is particularly significant that it recognize that all parts of Canada belong together.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record that I do not know why hon. members opposite want to discriminate against the elderly. There are people who at the age of 90 do not want to be considered disabled, who do not want wheelchairs, et cetera. Then there are people at age 60 who do require a wheelchair. For the ones who do desire assistance, it is already in the act and is already being practised. People are flying. Airlines provide wheelchairs for people of all ages.

Why would those members discriminate against the elderly? I believe the elderly would be offended if that motion were adopted.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.