Debates of March 25th, 1996

Canada Transportation Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 70 defeated on division. Therefore Motion No. 56 is defeated.

(Motions Nos. 56 and 70 negatived.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

We now go on to Group No. 13.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, for Mr. Guimond]

moved:

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-14, in Clause 155, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21, on page 72, with the following:

"(2) The Minister shall lay before the House of Commons a report concerning the review made under subsection (1) within thirty sitting days after the review is completed."

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

Mr. Speaker, I will defend Motions Nos. 57 to 65 together. They have the same purpose, are related to clauses 147 to 155 and are not intended to amend them. The sole purpose of the motions is to delete these clauses from the bill.

These provisions are back, with special benefits for Western grain transportation. We are opposed to such benefits. Let us remember that just a few days ago, in this House, the hon. member for Frontenac expressed his disagreement with the fact that dairy subsidies had been eliminated, with no compensation for dairy producers, while the same had not been the case for Western grain transportation and production.

These clauses deal with the introduction of a maximum rate and special conditions for the transportation of Western grain. These provisions were introduced in the 1987 legislation, when the Western Grain Transportation Act, the so-called WGTA, was repealed and the subsidy eliminated. But Western farmers were generously compensated, to the tune of close to $3 billion, for the elimination of the subsidy and the WGTA. In this bill, the government is reintroducing the provisions introduced in the 1987 legislation.

Western farmers have been very well compensated, unlike their counterparts in Quebec, as I have just mentioned. They should therefore be able to cope with the new conditions for transportation in the West, and to adapt to a rail system operating on a strictly commercial basis, as is the case here.

Treating Eastern and Western shippers on an unequal footing can only result in an inequitable development of the rail system by adversely affecting the resources that shippers in the Eastern network can invest. It is for these reasons that we are asking that these clauses be deleted from the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of short observations.

If this motion is passed, it will negatively impact on western grain transportation. If Bloc Quebecois members were to rise in the House and say that they are a regional party, interested in specific partisan points within the province of Quebec, then their motion would be perfectly understandable.

However, for them to say that they are a national opposition party, the official opposition, and vote on such partisan views is totally unacceptable. We will not be supporting this motion.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the grouping of the motions includes one from me. It states that Bill C-14 on page 72, section 155, requires a review where:

-the minister shall, in consultation with shippers, railway companies and any other persons that the Minister considers appropriate, conduct and complete a review of the effect of this Act, and in particular this Division, on the efficiency of the grain transportation and handling system and on the sharing of efficiency gains as between shippers and railway companies.

As we go further through section 155 which creates this study in the future, nothing requires the study to be made public. This motion has the effect of requiring that the results of such a study be laid before the House of Commons within 30 days of the completion of the review.

This is quite common and normal for reviews structured under acts of Parliament. I presume it was an error on the part of the government and it was simply missed. I expect that the government will be supportive of this since it has a similar kind of clause in 48 which deals with extraordinary disruptions to the system and those extraordinary disruptions are reported to the House of Commons. As well in clause 43, the minister tables the annual reports of the Canadian Transport Agency.

On such an important issue as this review of whether the whole system of deregulation has or has not worked, it is obvious that the House of Commons would and should be interested. I am sure it was simply an oversight on the part of the government and I expect the motion will be supported at the time of the vote.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 57. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The deferred division will also apply to Motions Nos. 58 to 65.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I understood that you had included Motion No. 66 in the last group. It was not decided how to deal with it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question on the member's motion will only be put depending on how the vote comes out on motion No. 57.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 72, the following new Clause:

"155.1(1) After consultation with such participants as the Agency deems appropriate, the Agency shall, on or before March 31, 1997, on the basis of the most recent calendar or crop year for which appropriate costing information is available, complete a review of and determine, for that year, the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain and the line-related variable costs of the railway companies for grain-dependent branch lines as designated by the Agency pursuant to section 41 of the Western Grain Transportation Act.

(2) In carrying out the review and making the determination referred to in subsection (1), the Agency shall a ) take into account all costs actually incurred that are directly related to the provision of an adequate, reliable and efficient railway transportation system that will meet future requirements for the movement of grain; b ) compute the costs of capital and adjust that cost by any amount it deems justified in light of the risks associated with the movement of grain; c ) exclude the costs of capital and depreciation in respect of branch line assets provided under the Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation Program and in respect of railway cars that have not been funded by the railway companies; d ) exclude the costs incurred by the railway companies in providing for and holding public meetings referred to in section 56.1 of the Western Grain Transportation Act; e ) reduce the additional costs directly attributable to the joint line movement referred to in sections 49 and 50 of that Act by an amount equal to the additional revenues derived by the railway companies pursuant to those sections; and f ) reduce the additional costs directly attributable to the acquisition by the railway companies of railway cars for the movement of grain other than box cars or hopper cars by an amount equal to the additional revenues derived by the railway companies pursuant to sections 51 and 52 of that Act.

(3) The Agency shall, on or before March 31, 1997 and on or before March 31 of every fourth year thereafter, complete a further review and determination of costs in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) on the basis of the most recent calendar or crop year for which appropriate costing information is available.

(4) In carrying out the review referred to in subsection (1) and further review made pursuant to subsection (3), the Agency shall assess the appropriateness of the level of the contribution to the constant costs of the railway companies referred to in paragraph ( b ) of the definition ``estimated eligible costs'' in subsection 34(1) of the Western Grain Transportation Act and make recommendations to the Minister thereon.

(5) In assessing the appropriateness of the level of the contribution referred to in subsection (4), the Agency shall be guided by the following objectives: a ) to ensure that the overall revenues of the railway system are adequate to meet its long-term needs; and b ) to ensure that the contribution to constant cost provided by the movement of grain is fair in relation to the contribution provided by other commodities.''

Mr. Speaker, this motion falls neatly behind the one I spoke to just a few moments ago. It fleshes out a little more the kinds of consultations the agency should engage in when doing a review. It is for an earlier review than the one required under the previous motion. In the previous motion the review was to be completed by 1999. This sets out similar guidelines for a review, which I suppose if one was a social scientist, an economist or an an accountant, would say that this establishes the base line for the future review. It establishes the same parameters and the same requirements. It looks at the same things the review in 1999 will look at but does it on the first year of the agency's activities. We will see in 1999 whether progress is made.

It will be very difficult to do a proper job of the review in 1999 if there is no base study done now. This sets up the opportunity for the agency to conduct such a base study. It will clearly establish the real costs of the system as of this coming year. When we have the review in 1999 we will know whether progress has been made and whether the act is a success or a failure.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 67. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?