Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents involved in the tourism industry suggested that rather than me being referred to just as the member for Kootenay East, I be referred to as the member from the part of the beautiful, fabulous, magnificent, sensational, thrilling Canadian Rockies.
I had a look at the old Bill C-101, which was the evil twin of this bill, and found a speech which I had actually prepared for Bill C-101. The design of the bill at first reading was rather interesting because it was designed at a time when it was going to go to a committee. There were things in the speech where we were basically saying: "The difficulty is that we really cannot trust the Liberals in this process because of the way they have been seen to use pile drivers to put nails into boards. We really cannot believe that they are really to be open to the amendments that are required".
What is particularly scary as I reviewed this speech, which I should note I never had the opportunity to give, is that I realized that virtually everything in this speech came to pass. Therefore I go ahead.
I come from a riding which relies heavily on rail transport. Mining and forestry combine to make up a substantial part of the economy in Kootenay East. It is understandable that when I had my office contact companies in my constituency for their opinions on the bill we were inundated with responses. I have compiled a substantial amount of information. We received from some companies detailed amendments to the bill which I will outline in my remarks.
Before I carry on, as I say, this was a speech which was intended to be made at first reading in the hopes that the Liberals would actually follow through on their word and would make this a workable process and make the legislation better. However, they did not. All of the companies responding to our request for
information made it clear they feel strongly that the bill is vital to maintain and enhance competition in Canada's railways.
One forest product company in my riding told our constituency office that it no longer ships its plywood and lumber by rail. Rather than be captive to rail, this company trucks its plywood to Calgary. From there, it is shipped down east by rail but the company has a choice of railways in Calgary.
For the past several years this company has shipped its lumber by truck south to the U.S. to be loaded in rail cars there. It is just a matter of 30 miles south of the U.S. border, which is the bottom of my constituency, where there are two U.S. rail companies that have freight yards.
The person we talked to said that it was cheaper to go through that whole process than to simply put the wood on rail cars to the point of origin. Lumber is also shipped east directly by truck.
I do not blame this company for taking these measures to maintain and retain its position as a viable company. However, having said that, I have to point out the pounding of our park roads and the pounding they are taking in my constituency.
In my constituency I have Yoho National Park and Radium Hot Springs. They sit adjoining Banff and Jasper Parks. Highway 1 goes through there and the amount of traffic that goes across there, plus Highway 16 through Jasper, is growing. It is absolutely immense. The pounding that is going on on those roads is beyond all comprehension. However, the companies are forced to take these moves, to do these things which are really deleterious and detrimental to the parks and to the environment of the parks because of the ongoing legislation of the Tories and the Liberals.
This issue happens to fit hand in glove with the issue of funding our national parks. As a critic of the heritage department, one of the largest concerns I have is how we will continue to fund these roads and continue to make them safe. That is an issue which is directly related to the issue of rail and this rail act.
In the southeast corner of British Columbia, the out valley in my constituency, coal country, there is deep concern about the proposal to eliminate the railway statutory common carrier obligations. The people vehemently oppose this proposal since it would practically render competitive access provisions ineffective. It is extremely important that legislative reform allow Canadian shippers to have access to a truly competitive transportation environment so that our goods can get to world markets at globally competitive prices.
Another coal company in the same area said that the threat to competitive rail prices lies in the overtaxation taking place on rail companies. This example could also be attributed to the forest product company that I mentioned earlier. Canadian railways are taxed at a rate of 53 per cent more than the U.S. and this bill does nothing to address this serious problem.
As a Reform MP, I am dedicated to give credit for any positives if they exist. In this case there are a few places where I can comment on the brighter aspects of this bill. My understanding is that one aspect of the bill, actually supported by a majority of shippers and the Reform Party, is the ability of railways to abandon track that is no longer economically viable. The reason for this is that shippers hope that a more cost efficient railway will eventually translate into benefits for them.
We could also see smaller private rail companies pick up these abandoned tracks and operate them with low overhead and a higher rate of return. However, there are many negatives. As mentioned, smaller private rail companies could take over the operation of smaller track lines. However, this could mean tracks located within provincial boundaries would not fall under the new Canada Transportation Act but instead be regulated under provincial jurisdiction.
A classic example, in this case in my constituency, is where the CP Rail track comes through the Crow's Nest Pass, passes through Sparwood on its way to Fernie on its way to the coast. The difficulty is that the spur line which services three mines, two of which are not associated with CP Rail, would be at the mercy of the following little activity.
If CP Rail said it wants to abandon this line and does so and a subsidiary of CP Rail picks up the line, then these two companies, which are not associated with CP Rail, would come under the direct power of the subsidiary company of CP Rail. This would mean that it would be able to charge the rates it wanted to and the Canada Transportation Act would not apply. They would come under provincial jurisdiction. There is much concern on the part of the people in my constituency over that little sleight of hand.
Unfortunately, many provinces have no or inadequate legislation to deal with rail transport. This bill has made an attempt to deal with this problem but it has been unable to rectify it. Smaller rail lines or short lines would be of possible benefit in regard to service and rates but there remains the fact that short lines will still have to feed on to the main line of CP or CN Rail. These companies therefore do not lose the traffic, just the costs of running it, over the now abandoned or sold lines. This leaves the shipper now having to negotiate rates with two separate companies. In the example I just gave we can see how that could become very convoluted and anti-competitive.
A final concern on short line operators is the possibility of main line railways using the availability of abandonment as a threat
during rate negotiations. This would leave the shipper forced to make a deal rather than lose access to the main line.
Other concerns have been outlined for us with respect to the increasing lack of recourse a shipper has at its disposal to obtain relief to a transportation rate or service.
In section 27(2) a shipper is required to demonstrate that it will suffer significant prejudice if the relief sought is not otherwise available. There is concern first that the term "significant prejudice" is not defined in the bill, nor is it a term which has been introduced or verbalized in the previous railways legislation.
I see from my notes that in spite of the fact that shippers have lobbied hard to have this clause deleted from the bill and the government had recently seemed to be coming around on this concept, it nonetheless quickly extinguished Reform's motion at report stage which called for the deletion of section 27(2). As I said at the outset of my speech, the difficulty we on this side of the House have is that the words of the Liberal government very frequently do not match the reality of what it actually follows through on.
Further, section 34(1) of the proposed legislation enables the agency to award damages against a shipper should it be found that an application is frivolous or vexatious. Unfortunately, this will leave many shippers spending a lot of time and money trying to determine whether or not there is a valid argument.
Section 40(3) of the National Transportation Act, 1987 enables the agency to grant an interim injunction in an appropriate case. This provision does not appear in the bill. If this provision is not included in the bill, and it is not, it will mean that unsatisfactory service will remain intact until a final determination is made by the agency.
I also note that clause 112 of the bill does not clearly define the terms of commercially fair and reasonable. The language of this clause should be defined as a rate which does not cause either party to operate below cost. The reality is that the government has been unwilling to amend or delete this clause. A motion put forward at report stage to delete clause 112 was also shot down by the government despite the vocal concerns expressed by the shippers.
It really makes me wonder. In this and in past debates I have observed the Liberals consistently talking about how they would change the system to make it fair, balanced and equitable. They have said they would expedite the system, when clearly all they do is turn around, give us the words and give us the very old Liberal actions which date back to 1867.
One forest company in my riding said that it spent $6 million a year on rail transportation. It fears because of the points I have just raised that it will be at the mercy of the rail line which will most likely face increased rates with the implementation of this bill.
This was the concluding paragraph in my previous speech: In conclusion, it is important that we see substantial amendments
some of which are included in the legislation. However, because of the intricacies and potential impact of this legislation, and the fact that this Liberal government has yet to exhibit an ability to listen and understand the concern of Canadians, the legislative process for this legislation is suspect. We are hoping we are wrong, but fear we are right. One thing Canadians can count on, as Canada's national opposition, the Reform Party is going to become extreme in its vigilance to see that the government really listens.
We tried. We really did try as we try on so many issues. No matter what the issue is, we try to make the government listen but the government will not listen. It has an aggressive growing arrogance. Sooner or later, Liberal members are going to be revealed for the people they truly are.
This legislation is not only badly flawed but additionally, the legislative process it went through was a joke.
