Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone agrees that the principle of Bill C-14 is a good one: rationalizing, unifying and modernizing the existing legislation on public transportation, most particularly rail transportation.
No one can be against these goals of unification, modernization and rationalization since no one, even the official opposition, can be against virtue. We are, therefore, in favour of the principle. We also consider some of the clauses to be good ones, but others are so bad as to be unacceptable.
The amendments we moved to correct those shortcomings have all been defeated. For these reasons we are opposed to Bill C-14 and will vote against it.
The key reasons why we are opposed to Bill C-14 can be summarized into four points. The first deals with the creation of the short line railways, which represent the secondary elements of the system. Because the system's future depends on them, their creation ought to have been facilitated. The minister has just pointed out that, very recently, such secondary lines have multiplied greatly in the U.S.A., to the public's benefit.
The second reason why we are opposed to this bill is that the procedure for a company to abandon a trunk or other line looks at virtually nothing except profit issues and goals, whereas the public interest ought to hold far more importance.
Third, the bill maintains privileges for the west which accentuate or maintain the differences we are already used to between the west and Quebec.
Fourth, and most important, despite all the talk about decentralizing powers, we see that the government has not been able to resist the ingrained habit, any time new legislation is introduced, of taking advantage of the opportunity to nibble away at provincial powers, as well as to ignore the provinces when their interests are quite obviously concerned by the measures planned.
The first point, then, is the creation of short line railways. I would remind my listeners that these are entities whose development can ensure the survival of the secondary part of the system, which, it must be pointed out, has been scandalously neglected from the maintenance point of view. This has been both scandalous and profitable, perhaps, since the objective was to obtain permission to abandon the lines in question. In order for them to be abandoned, they have not to be used anymore. In order for them not to be used anymore, they need only not be properly maintained, and the result is achieved. Except that now certain sections of this secondary network are in bad shape.
Buyers, generally small companies with little capital, are being asked to take these sections in their existing bad state. Because the legislation governing the railway companies resulted in the network's being in such bad shape, we asked for but failed to get a mechanism from the federal government whereby railway lines would be repaired before being put up for sale, since local companies potentially interested in taking over the lines generally have little capital. Our request was not met. The SLRs that might have been the future of the secondary network are getting no help in setting up.
The other reason we will be voting against this bill is because the abandonment procedure follows market logic only. In the past, when a company wanted to abandon a section of rail line, the National Transportation Agency had to call public hearings. I recall having testified before agency commissioners in defence of a section. Public hearings are no longer held. If a railway company finds that a section of line is not profitable enough, it declares its intention to abandon it. It is true, and this is a good point, that the bill requires a company now give longer notice in announcing its intention to discontinue service and that it be according to a plan previously drawn up and made public.
But once the information procedure relating to the sale of a section of the network is completed, the rest is pure mercantile logic. If there is no buyer, well, there is no buyer. If there is no buyer, public authorities at the municipal, provincial or federal level are given some time to express their interest in buying it.
Of course, there is hardly enough time for these authorities, and especially municipalities, to organize public hearings. Up until now, we were happy with the current procedure whereby the Canadian Transportation Agency held public hearings before allowing companies to abandon rail lines.
The third reason we oppose this bill is that it perpetuates a system that is biased in favour of the West and that constitutes another example of the imbalance in the treatment of Western Canada, on the one hand, and Quebec, on the other hand. This bill contains a number of clauses we want to see deleted. Clauses 147 to 155 amend but also restore certain privileges for Western Canada.
These clauses set a maximum rate and special conditions applying to the transportation of western grain. These provisions were introduced in the National Transportation Act in 1987, when the Western Grain Transportation Act or WGTA was repealed and the subsidy eliminated.
At that time, western farmers were compensated generously, to the tune of $3 billion, for the elimination of the subsidy and the abrogation of the WGTA. In its bill, the government reintroduces the provisions that were originally in the National Transportation Act, 1987. Yet, western farmers were generously compensated, unlike their counterparts in Quebec. In fact, dairy producers received no compensation whatsoever for the recent elimination of their subsidies. Western farmers should therefore be in a good position to face the new transportation conditions in Western Canada and to adjust to a commercially oriented rail system, since we are told that the main purpose of the bill is to commercialize the network.
Giving unequal treatment to western and eastern shippers, as these eight clauses tend to do, can only lead to inequitable development of the rail system by adversely affecting the resources carriers can invest in the eastern network.
But what is really telling, although it was to be expected, is that the government and the minister are giving themselves discretionary powers in this bill, without even providing for consultations-and I mean mere consultations-with the provinces, in situations where the provinces should obviously be consulted.
There are several examples of that. Take clause 7, which deals with the Canadian Transportation Agency, formerly the National Transportation Agency of Canada which, incidentally, also has a new role. Clause 7 provides that the governor in council shall appoint not more than three members for a term of not more than five years. The expression "not more than" means that there could be one, two or three members appointed. The minister may also-he may but he does not have to-appoint three temporary members, for a term of not more than one year, from the roster of individuals established by the governor in council.
This is not a criticism, just a comment in passing. If there are three members for a maximum of five years, and if the minister may appoint other members, it seems to me-unless I do not understand French-that the CTA could be made up of only one individual. This is indeed a possibility, given the wording used.
The provisions on the CTA's membership include no criteria, benchmarks or obligations for the minister regarding the various interests of carriers, users and the general public. The whole process is discretionary.
Yet, it might have been appropriate to appoint members from a list of names submitted by interested parties. There are not even geographical criteria. Imagine that there are four members. I am just making a point but, strictly speaking, all four could come from the same region. There are no criteria and we want to at least correct that situation by saying that members, whether temporary or not, should be appointed on the advice of the four regions. Ten provinces was too much. We had defined four regions: the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the Western provinces. That was rejected out of hand and it is now up to the government to choose the members of the CTA.
One good thing is that the bill provides for situations that it defines as extraordinary, in which the governor in council may take special decisions recommended by the minister to cope with situations that require urgent action or for which there is no particular provision in any other act of Parliament that would offer a solution.
In this case, situations defined as urgent are those that could endanger the interests of the operator, all the interests of users and the public interest, with the exception of strikes.
In such situations, the governor in council can take special measures. But, if an urgent situation arises in a province, how can provincial authorities be left out of it? In addition, how can the matter not at least be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport? None of this is covered. We have the government arbitrarily taking control, setting itself up as the sole arbiter.
Another measure, good in principle, contained in the bill is the provision requiring that the legislation be reviewed after four years. However well thought out a piece of legislation is, the final test is obviously how well it stands up to real events over a period of time, before a decision can be taken to leave it as is or to introduce amendments. It is therefore a very good idea that the bill includes a provision from the outset for a review of this legislation in four years.
All this is fine and well, but who will review the legislation? It will be reviewed by individuals appointed by the minister. Once again, we are not told that these individuals will be chosen with the approval of the provinces or from lists prepared by the interested parties. No, not at all. The bill provides for a review after four years. There is no guarantee that all interest groups will be called upon to give their opinion on the legislation because shortcomings have shown up in practice. They say that the communities will be consulted, but this is obviously very vague.
We wanted the agency to be consulted, and the provinces, but there is nothing new. The omniscient, and therefore omnipotent government, as infallible as the Pope, will decide.
The bill provides for the construction of new rail lines, which is not something that happens much these days. In particular, we ought not to expect to see HSTs in the near future. Soon we may be the only country, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe, not to have high speed trains. However, the legislation does provide for the construction of new lines. The agency will grant authorization to a company requesting to build a new line, if it meets certain criteria, and if the route appears to serve the interests of the carrier, the users and the regions it crosses.
But-and this is truly incredible-the province concerned is not even asked for its opinion. If there is one field that is really specific to the provinces, it is the development of their territory. Either the province exercises that right directly, or the municipalities do so on its behalf. This is an exclusively provincial area.
In Quebec, the municipalities draw up land use plans for authorization by the province. These then lead to zoning plans. Imagine, a new line is to be constructed in a municipality. It is possible that the zoning plan, the land use plan, did not include the route of that line. Thus, we must trust the federal government's wisdom not to trash the zoning plan and the land use plan by putting the line through. It is absolutely incredible that putting in a new line-part of the development plan of a region-does not require consultation with the province, yet this is a specifically provincial jurisdiction.
And now for the icing on the cake: centralization disguised as decentralization. Clause 89, against which we tabled amendment No. 17. I must read it, because it is such a juicy tidbit.
- If the construction or operation of a railway is authorized by a Special Act passed by the legislature of a province and the railway is declared by an Act of Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, this Part 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.
This is absolutely typical. It would, however, have been simple, rational, and respectful of the provinces to state in a general and unrestricted way that a railway constructed by a special act of a provincial legislature remained under provincial authority. That would have squelched the federal government's hunger for power, which is totally contrary to what it is saying.
Sadly, I must conclude that, with Bill C-14, railway transportation is losing some of its noble mission of public service. Essentiality, railways are intended to serve the public. Rail transportation is tending to become a business like any other, serving not so much
the public as the political interests in power. The state has bowed to market pressures.
I must thank the government for again giving Quebecers, in this bill, one more demonstration that there is absolutely no hope within the federal framework of one day seeing the logic of public interest cease to be constantly subordinated to political or profit making imperatives.
With Quebecers at least, Bill C-14 will have that one positive aspect. Thank you for that, Mr. Minister of Transport.
