House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 36% of the vote.
VIA Rail Canada Act February 20th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is to relevance. We are talking about passenger rail, not pipelines or oil by rail. I know the member is experienced when it comes to debate. He knows the rules of this House, and he should probably be instructed to at least stick to the matter currently before Parliament.
VIA Rail Canada Act February 20th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate today.
Passenger rail has played a critical role in our country's development, and the service provided by VIA Rail is of great importance and value to Canadians. That is why I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to private member's Bill C-640, An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.
As Canada's national passenger rail operator, VIA Rail provides Canadian travellers with safe, efficient, and cost-effective service. Our government recognizes the importance of VIA's passenger rail services in the lives of Canadians, as well as the critical links that VIA provides to remote communities and the important role it plays in the national tourism market. Our government continues to support VIA through annual subsidies for its operations, with last year's totalling some $305 million; as well major capital investments, which have totalled over a billion dollars since 2007.
It is because of this government's commitment to VIA Rail and its objectives that we cannot support Bill C-640. This bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for the business affairs of VIA and includes a number of prescriptive measures affecting numerous aspects of VIA's operations and governance structure. These include changes affecting the selection of board members, routing, scheduling, the content of commercial agreements and even VIA's status as an arm's-length crown corporation.
While the intention of these measures may be to support VIA's services to the benefit of Canadians, in actuality the bill would have the opposite effect, creating inefficiencies that would result in poor financial performance and a greater burden on the taxpayer. The critical drawback of this bill is that it would increase government and parliamentary intervention in VIA's business affairs. This is a misguided attempt to secure VIA services that would actually hinder VIA's operations.
The bill proposes to intervene in VIA's affairs, designating the routes that VIA must operate and the service frequency of certain routes. Specifically, it would make VIA's current network routes mandatory and increase the service frequency on VIA's heavily subsidized long-haul routes from Toronto to Vancouver, and from Montreal to Halifax. Further, the bill would require extensive oversight by the Minister of Transport and Parliament to allow VIA to alter any routes. Should VIA intend to eliminate any service, the Minister of Transport would have to ask the Canadian Transportation Agency or a third party to review and make recommendations to be tabled in Parliament. The bill would allow as few as 20 senators or 50 members of the House of Commons to file a motion to amend or revoke a recommendation set out in the report. This means that a minority of parliamentarians could delay change to VIA services that could be required to meet its objective of providing efficient passenger rail services.
This intervention in VIA's business affairs that Bill C-640 proposes represents a total reversal of the national transportation policy that has been in place since the Canada Transportation Act came into force in 1996. That act affirms that we are most likely to maintain a competitive, economic, and efficient national transportation system by allowing competition and market forces to be the prime agents in providing transportation services. Public intervention should therefore be reserved for instances when our desired outcomes cannot be adequately achieved through competition and market forces. Accordingly, our government's position is that it does not intervene in the day-to-day running of VIA Rail.
As an independent crown corporation, VIA is responsible for its own operational decisions. That includes scheduling and routing. This approach allows VIA the necessary flexibility to assess its own operations and to decide how it can best meet its objectives. This may involve adjustments to train schedules and staffing levels, or the reduction or ending of a service to better align services with actual market demand. Given decreasing ridership and increasing costs, the financial challenges of operating VIA's current network cannot be addressed solely through operating efficiencies. All of VIA's routes currently require some level of subsidization by taxpayers. In this context, VIA's services have undergone rationalizations to ensure that they provide value to taxpayers while at the same time maintaining a national network of services that are important to Canadians.
By mandating VIA's routes and frequency and requiring considerable government and parliamentary processes and oversight to alter them, the bill would effectively prevent VIA from making its own business decisions to ensure that it operates in a cost-efficient manner by matching its services to demand. It would severely obstruct VIA's ability to react to changes in its marketplace and to adjust accordingly.
The measures proposed in the bill encourage inefficiency and would inevitably increase VIA's costs, including from running too many trains with too few passengers, for example. These costs would be passed along to taxpayers, as more public funds would be needed to augment the current subsidy to VIA. It goes without saying that this would not be in keeping with VIA's objective to provide efficient and cost-effective services to Canadians.
Furthermore, the increased oversight regarding VIA's business affairs would mean an expanded role for Government organizations like the Canadian Transportation Agency. The new responsibilities proposed in the bill would require additional financial and human resources, thus adding more costs to Canadians without merit.
The proposal to make VIA an agent of the Crown raises further financial concerns. This measure could make the government directly liable for any debts and losses incurred by VIA. This would be compounded by the bill's proposed borrowing limit of $500 million for VIA. All of this could translate into greater risk exposure for the federal government, and ultimately the taxpayers of Canada.
The negative financial implications of the bill reach beyond the confines of VIA Rail. Bill C-640 could have a negative impact on the country's economic growth by disadvantaging our freight rail system. The bill would amend the Canada Transportation Act to give VIA general scheduling and operational preference over freight rail in the event of a conflict.
While it may be intended to support VIA's on-time performance, giving VIA unfettered priority and rights over freight traffic could significantly impair Canada's freight rail operators. We all know the critical role that freight rail plays in our supply chains, and our government has taken action to strengthen its effectiveness and reliability. The bill would undercut these advancements and could jeopardize the performance of Canada's economy and our reputation as a reliable trading partner.
Our government is committed to supporting VIA in its objective to provide Canadians with safe, efficient, and cost-effective service. Bill C-640, however, would impede that objective. By dictating VIA's operational practices and requiring increased government and parliamentary oversight, Bill C-640 would encourage inefficient practices, decrease value to Canadians, and increase the burden on the taxpayer. Further, the measures in the bill could have a negative impact on our economic growth. It is clear that our government cannot support such a bill, particularly one that would undermine the efficient operation of our national passenger rail service in this way.
VIA Rail Canada Act February 20th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see a bill about support for VIA when that party consistently votes against the funding we put forward for VIA.
To the bill in question, first, I notice that the legislative framework that the NDP is proposing mimics the framework for Canada Post. I find that a little peculiar, because the business of sorting and delivering mail is substantially different from the business of passenger rail.
Aside from that, this bill proposes major restrictions on the independence and governance of VIA Rail such that it could not function properly as a corporation.
As well, there would be major legislated fixed costs to VIA if this bill were to pass. The most recent Amtrak statistics I have are for 2012, when Amtrak lost $1.4 billion. It loses somewhere in that range every single year. VIA had a subsidy of $305 million on behalf of taxpayers last year. Is the member trying to bury VIA or does he want the government to nationalize VIA?
Quebec Bridge February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, as the owner of the bridge, Canadian National is responsible for maintaining it and keeping it safe.
As I said before, our government committed to spending $75 million. Together with our partners, we have set aside $100 million for this major project. Now it is important for CN to come to the table with the rest of the money for this project.
Quebec Bridge February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the government promised $75 million to repaint the Quebec Bridge. Together, all three levels of government committed to spending $100 million on this major project. We want CN to come to the table with the rest of the money needed to make it happen.
Transport February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member was when the government gave its response to the Transportation Safety Board's report on the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic. This was one of the action points the department, of course, committed to, including important blitzes to see if there are any gaps in the training competencies of railway companies.
Transport February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are obviously relieved to hear that there were no injuries as a result of this particular incident.
For the benefit of the House, members should know that the minister's office has reached out to the local member of Parliament and will continue to provide updates on the incident in question. I understand, of course, that the Transportation Safety Board is on scene, and others. We will let the proper authorities determine the cause of this incident.
Rail Transportation February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that fatigue management plans must currently be submitted by railway companies to Transport Canada for its oversight. Transport Canada, of course, increases its inspections during labour strikes.
However, it is important to remember that the economy must be protected as well. Does the member opposite believe that we should be taking some important action to ensure that the economy keeps moving forward?
Rail Transportation February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it is the same question different language, but the same answer.
What I can confirm is that Transport Canada's role is to ensure that the qualification standards for locomotive engineers are followed. Railway companies have to ensure that those who operate trains are in fact fully trained. Transport Canada increases its field monitoring on locomotives during a strike to verify that the crews are qualified to operate the equipment and can do so safely.
Rail Transportation February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm, of course, is that Transport Canada's role is to ensure that the qualification standards for locomotive engineers are consistently followed. Railway companies have to ensure that those who operate trains are fully trained. Transport Canada increases its field monitoring on locomotives during a strike to verify that crews are qualified to operate the equipment and can do so safely.