Debates of March 22nd, 1996

Canada Transportation Act

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, for Mr. Guimond]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-14, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 13, on page 5, with the following:

"(3) The Governor in Council shall, with the agreement of the lieutenant governors in council of Quebec and Ontario and with the consensus of the lieutenant governors in council of the four provinces in western Canada and the four provinces in eastern Canada, desig".

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-14, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 16, with the following:

"47. (1) Where the Governor in Council, after consultation with the committee of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to transportation and with the government of a province that is affected by an order of the Governor in Council made under this section, is".

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-14, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 20, with the following:

"force, appoint one or more persons, after consultation with the Agency and the government of each province, to carry".

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House would give its unanimous consent to have Motions Nos. 9, 14, 15, 17, 27, 68, 72 and 73 deemed to have been moved, seconded and read in this House, as you indicated.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Moved, seconded and read.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-14, in Clause 53, be amended by replacing line 34, on page 20, with the following:

"transportation services, the government of each province and any other persons".

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-14, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 11, on page 39, with the following:

"way is declared by an Act of Parliament, after obtaining the approval of the province concerned, to be".

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 2, on page 64, the following new Clause:

"138.1 (1) A railway company under the authority of a provincial legislature may apply to the Agency for the right to run and operate its trains over and on any portion of the railway of any other railway company in order to facilitate the interchange of traffic or to procure a competitive interswitching point with another railway.

(2) Where the parties do not agree on the conditions or the amount of compensation to be paid, either party may apply to the Agency in writing to have the matter adjudicated by the Agency."

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-14, in Clause 160, be amended by replacing line 26, on page 76, with the following:

"the government of a province or a railway company under the legislative authority of a province; or".

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-14, in Clause 228, be amended by replacing line 26, on page 101, with the following: b ) the Governor in Council and the province affected consent to''.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-14, in Clause 228, be amended by adding after line 27, on page 101, the following:

"(3) The Minister of Transport shall not proceed with the expropriation of the interest in land under subsection (2) without the prior agreement of the province in which the land is located."

Mr. Speaker, I have nine minutes to deal with ten motions, or a little than a minute per motion. I will therefore group them, starting with Motions Nos. 4, 9 and 14, which deal with the administration of railways and assign certain powers to the governor in council and the minister.

These three clauses assign the power to appoint the chairperson and the vice-chairperson of the agency, to make orders on the steps to be taken in any extraordinary disruption to operations, other than a labour disruption, that would be contrary to the interests of users and operators, and thirdly, in No. 14, to appoint those who will

review the act to determine whether it is properly adapted to the situation, and to recommend amendments if required.

We are in agreement with this, except that we want the government to have the possibility of doing what it always says it is going to do, yet never does, which is, if not to decentralize, to at least consult provincial authorities on issues that are of concern to them.

That is the aim of Motions Nos. 4, 9 and 14, to associate the provinces in an advisory role with the exercise of these powers awarded to the governor in council and the minister, as well as to provide the agency with certain additional powers.

Now, turning to Motion No. 17, which addresses clause 89, one so interesting and significant that I am going to read it, despite the time constraints:

1. If the construction or operation of a railway is authorized by a Special Act passed by the legislature of a province-

If the construction is declared by an Act of Parliament to be "a work for the general advantage of Canada, this Part-in other words, this act-applies to the railway to the exclusion of any general railway Act of the province and any provisions of the Special Act that are inconsistent with this Part".

Clearly, we cannot accept this, for it is such clear evidence of how the government is taking advantage of this bill to satisfy its appetite for swallowing up the powers of the provinces. Our amendment is aimed at modifying the situation by adding the words "way is declared by an Act of Parliament, after obtaining the approval of the province concerned, to be". This strikes us as both obvious and minimal.

Now, moving to Motion No. 27, which is aimed at smooth continuity of services between the railway companies' systems and the short line railways. This is a text to be added after clause 138, which would give the short line railways the authority, for a fee of course, to operate on the facilities of the railway companies up to an interswitching point. This is the purpose of Motion No. 27, to ensure reciprocal rights for the short line railways equal to those given to the railways over them, which is totally justified.

Passing to Motion No. 68 on arbitration, I shall read my comment on this. It is merely a clause to ensure cohesion, given the amendments we have proposed to clause 138. We are amending clause 160 to ensure conformity with the preceding amendment.

I hope to have the time to say a couple of words on Motions Nos. 72 and 73, which address clause 228. If it becomes necessary to expropriate land for the construction of a railway, the company may ask the minister to have the land expropriated. According to the bill:

"The Minister, with the consent of the Governor in Council, has the land expropriated". The purpose of the amendment is to require the minister to also obtain the consent of the province concerned. It would be unreasonable for the situation to be otherwise, when we think of the provinces' responsibilities in the areas of urban planning and land use, as well as those of the municipalities under their jurisdiction.

This way, the province will have some say in what is done with its land. The provinces are the ones most directly responsible for regional development and land use, and it is therefore logical for the federal government to obtain their consent.

I think I have touched upon everything now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly touch on some of these grouped motions so it is very clear to everyone exactly where we stand.

The hon. member for Mackenzie put a substantial number of amendments together. While we rejected the majority of them, we have carefully examined each one and will support those that are supportable. This is the same in the case of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments.

We do not support Motion No. 4. This motion might be an aid in trying to prevent government patronage. We certainly are not in favour of supporting government patronage but unfortunately this motion would create such a stalemate that there would be a total lack of consensus within the CPA, which would basically grind it to a halt.

We are also opposed to Motion No. 9. It is very vague and cumbersome in how the consultation would take place and would bog the entire thing down.

We also oppose Motions Nos. 14 and 15. They are not necessary amendments.

We support Motion No. 17 because it is very compatible with the Reform Party's constitutional proposals. These are changes that should take place on a much broader basis and certainly are within the scope of Bill C-17.

Motion No. 27 deals primarily with running rights. As I explained, under the old problem of rail line abandonment, the railroads had to prove financial hardship. Therefore before they applied for abandonment they ensured they had financial hardship. This was contrary to the creation of short lines, an objective which we all wanted to see accomplished.

If it is not feasible for a main federal railway to continue to operate a line we want to try to ensure whenever possible that a

short line operation would take it over and continue rail services to the various communities on that line. If running rights are given to these short lines, they would take the customers of the former main line operator.

The main line operator that sold this line could then be forced to carry the goods of its formers clients over its rail line. These new short line operators could connect with the main company's competitors and it would simply revert to the old process. The main line operator would demarket and reduce the maintenance on these lines so that they would be shut down rather than having a new short line operator running over its tracks, carrying its former client's goods to its competitors, interfering with its operating schedules and many other problems.

I consulted with many of the short line operators in this country. With the exception of one I did not find any other operator that was interested in having these running rights. Therefore, we will not be supporting this motion.

We support Motion No. 68. It clarifies jurisdiction.

We oppose Motions Nos. 72 and 73 because certain things should be within federal jurisdiction, notwithstanding that we would like to see a lot of things taken from the federal government and given back to the provinces where they belong. The items covered under these two sections are not in that category. We should not be involving the provinces in something which is the clear responsibility of the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Kootenay West-Revelstoke for his support not only of the government but of the standing committees of the House.

Motion No. 4 proposes sharing with the provincial governments the power to designate the members of the agency to act as the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the agency. The proposal would mean that a provincial impasse could block the management and day to day operations of the agency. Accordingly, the government cannot support this motion.

This also applies to Motion No. 9. It would introduce considerable procedural delays in the powers aimed at enabling the federal government to intervene quickly and effectively in the event of a transportation emergency.

Motion No. 14 proposes giving an official role to the provincial governments in decisions on the way federal legislation is reviewed and the choice of persons to review it. This proposal would simply complicate and delay the review provided for by the act. Therefore, the government cannot support this motion.

As regards Motion No. 15, the wording of the clause as it stands already provides for the consultation with the provincial governments my colleague would like. There is, accordingly, no need to mention the provincial governments separately. Therefore, the government cannot support this motion.

Motion No. 17 proposes limiting Parliament's ability to declare by act that a particular work is for the general advantage of Canada, in other words, that it comes under federal jurisdiction. We cannot support this motion.

With respect to Motion No. 27, the existing railway companies have stated clearly that allowing secondary provincial railroads to operate on portions of federal lines would discourage the selling of tracks for secondary lines. This would go against one of the prime objectives of Bill C-14. It would simply cut the traffic and revenues of federal railway companies and deny them the opportunity to access other markets through the principle of competition. As you will understand, we cannot support this motion.

As regards Motion No. 68, mutually acceptable commercial arrangements between federal railways and provincial secondary lines are vital to the successful operation of the secondary lines. Accordingly, an arrangement imposed by an outside arbitrator on the federal carrier and the secondary line would not promote long term co-operation. The government cannot support this motion.

Motions Nos. 72 and 73 propose an official role for the provincial governments in the process of determining whether expropriation is to come under federal legislation. Existing legislation on expropriation already provides procedures for parties with an direct interest in the matter to be heard. These motions are not necessary, in our opinion, and the government supports neither Motion No. 72 nor Motion No. 73.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 4.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 14 and 15.

The next question is on Motion No. 17.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.