[k6zzehvNd7U]

“VIA Rail’s latest filings reveal that it is in big trouble,” said Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North). “VIA Rail announced service cuts a year ago and tooted about how ridership and revenues would be boosted, but VIA’s plan has gone off the rails. Its annual report shows operating expenses up and ridership down. There are fewer trains…and they are emptier and later. Clearly, VIA intends to abandon Canada, except for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.”

The report noted the main problems for passenger rail in Canada include:

• Lack of a federal vision, national strategy, legislation, and funding (contrasted with Australia and the US)
• Resistance by CN and CP to prioritizing passenger rail on existing lines
• VIA Board of Directors reticence to a truly national passenger rail network

“I raised my concerns with the deteriorating state of VIA rail in January,” said May. “I am grateful that Bruce Hyer has commissioned this in-depth report. Canada’s passenger rail system is in crisis and those of us who care about it need to speak out.”

“One or two MPs alone cannot win the battle to restore passenger rail in Canada,” said Transport Action’s Greg Gormick, co-author of the report. “Hyer’s initiative must be accompanied by a public campaign to reinvigorate VIA rail and passenger train travel in Canada. This report provides a clear analysis of the failures of successive governments to support passenger rail, and lays out a clear plan to reinvigorate train transportation in this country. Equally important, it requires political will and renewed national commitment in the form of a federal strategy for passenger rail.”

The post Independent Report: Canadian Passenger Rail Coming Off Track appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[nS4PQoBNcbg]

It is unfair and it is not just the member for York Centre. There is a continual effort to beat up on one member of the House who was very active in the ACTRA community before being elected. I just feel it is egregious.

John Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question per se, but within any tax system, there are provisions that allow and provide a road map for taxpayers to pay their taxes, in specific instances, within economic action plan 2013. The member mentioned McCarthy Tétrault as one example of a company that provides advice to its clients. Every auditing firm and legal firm across the county does, similarly, in helping their clients to meet their tax obligations in a fair and legal way.

The post Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013 (Bill S-17) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[4tKhmXmIaw4]

I am well aware that we are here tonight to debate Bill S-17 and that it deals with tax treaties. I have not heard a single member of this place suggest that they do not want to vote for it. I find it strange that on a treaty and a bill of no consequence, which everyone supports, we have time for debate and we have committee hearings, but on something that threatens the sovereignty of Canada, such as the Canada-China investment treaty, we have neither had hearings nor adequate time for debate.

Would my hon. friend from Souris—Moose Mountain like to join me in urging that we still have time for debate before that treaty is ratified?

Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the member that soon we will be off on summer break so time will be short.

To say that this treaty is of no consequence surely must mean the member has not read the legislation or has not listened to business, because business is quite clear. It wants this agreement. It wants to know what the rules of investment are. Billions of dollars are transferred that create jobs and long-term prosperity in both countries. Therefore, it is important that we deal with the legislation here today and that members are given the opportunity to debate this.

If we had said that members do not have the opportunity to debate this particular tax treaty, I cannot imagine what the member might have said. Perhaps, “We must have the time to debate it.” We have provided the time to debate it and the member talks about something else.

I know there are a lot of other issues and a lot of other pieces of legislation. However, today we are dealing with this legislation. If the member wants to debate she should debate this legislation, not something else.

So far what I have heard from the opposition is a debate on all kinds of other issues that may be of some significance but nothing to do with the tax treaties. If you want time to debate, when time to debate is given, debate the issues before you and not something else.

The post Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013 (Bill S-17) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Recently the railway industry in our country picked four pillars as its priorities going forward. One of those is sustainability, particularly with respect to reduced greenhouse gases and the fact that shipping goods by rail is much better for climate action than shipping by transport trailer and truck. I wonder if the hon. member has any thoughts on what opportunities we have missed in this piece of legislation to also recognize the greenhouse gas benefits of shipping goods by rail.

Mike Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, one of the government’s reactions to comments about the pricing portion of the bill was to suggest that shippers have another alternative. Many of them, but not all of them, have trucks as an alternative. Well, trucks consume considerably more fossil fuel and have a larger environmental footprint. As a result, we should be encouraging the use of rail rather than discouraging it through inaction on the part of the government.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The numbers [p. 386] show VIA Rail’s budget going from $475,651,000 in 2012/2013 to a dismal $187,783,000 in 2013/2014. This would represent a 60% budget cut.

“At a time when forward-thinking governments around the world are making strong new investments in passenger rail as the backbone of a sustainable transportation system, these possible cuts to VIA Rail are particularly short-sighted and appalling,” said Chris Turner, Mass Transit and Transportation Critic for the Green Party.

“Passenger rail is a vital component of Canada’s transportation infrastructure and it has been neglected for far too long. Once again, Harper’s Conservatives have shown themselves willing to sell off Canada’s future for its own short-term political goals,” added Turner.

“The estimates are not the final word on VIA Rail’s budget next year, so I’ll continue pressing for an increase of VIA’s budget. I recently sent a letter to VIA Rail’s CEO regarding the recent cuts to service and changes to policy that appear designed to drive away their customer base. Crippling VIA Rail in order to better privatize it would be textbook Harper,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The post Greens Denounce Threat of Extreme Cuts to VIA Rail appeared first on Elizabeth May.

January 28, 2013

Dear M. Laliberté,

As leader of the Green Party, I have long been a strong advocate for passenger rail.  Prior to a life in politics, I was one of VIA’s best customers, frequently travelling the Ottawa to Halifax route, as well as several times a month the Ottawa-Toronto and Toronto to London routes.  Since 1993, I have managed to make at least one trip a year from Vancouver to Toronto.  As an MP, I continue to promote the train and travel by rail often.

My grandfather used to repeat the saying, “this is no way to run a railroad.”  I think he could have been speaking of current VIA Rail management.

I say this without intending any disrespect, but I will set out what I am seeing transpire and ask for your response.  I will publish both in an effort to increase public awareness of the challenges facing VIA Rail.

I am mindful of the huge level of challenges VIA Rail faces.  The structure of rail ownership, in which freight owns the tracks and VIA has to abide signals forcing passenger rail to the sidings to allow freight to pass by, the cost of diesel, the rising costs of pensions, the recession, the on-going problems with the Renaissance cars purchased from the UK, among other challenges, all make it difficult to run a profitable railroad.  The fact that, unlike Amtrak in the US, Canada has no legislative framework for running VIA is not helpful.

It needs to be argued that on-going investments in VIA are essential.  For example, we really need VIA investment in the E and N Railway on Vancouver Island.  I know a request for VIA support is outstanding. Many of VIA’s routes are not serviced by buses.  It is essential that any modern country have an efficient and well-run passenger rail option. The airports receive government support and to a much larger extent, so do our highways.  We desperately need a national transportation policy that addresses all transport components in some sensible public policy framework.  The fact that we have none of these things is not the fault of VIA Rail management.

So, permit me to focus on recent cuts to service and changes to policy that appear designed to drive away your customer base.

The cuts have received some media coverage.  We are now down to only two trips a week from Vancouver to Toronto in the off-season and only three a week for “The Ocean,” in the heavily travelled Halifax to Montreal route.  Cuts to service in the Windsor-Quebec Corridor have been especially severe in the London and Sarnia routes, but fewer stops between Ottawa and Toronto will also lose VIA business. These cuts, of course, fall after devastating reduction in services in the 1980s, when we lost many important rail links.

Moving from these huge cuts to matters of policy, I wish to itemize changes in policy I have observed over the last year.

1. In the past, when a train was full, new cars were added. Given these cuts, the least one would expect as policy would be that the drastically reduced number of trains should add cars to accommodate more passengers.  Yet, the policy appears to be that “Sold Out” notices are posted when in the past, more cars would have been added.  I recall being on the Halifax to Montreal route some years ago when there were 700 passengers.   Why cut service in half on popular routes and then further deny service by refusing to add more cars for the few trips that remain?
2. Another area of new policy that appears designed to drive away business is the refusal to wait for a connecting train to allow passengers to make the connection.  Airlines do this.  Why has VIA Rail now decided that an on-time start is more important than waiting for as little as 5 or 10 minutes to allow passengers to complete their journey?
3. Why is VIA trying to make it harder to buy tickets at the station and trying to drive passengers to purchase on-line, even offering discounts (and losing the company more money)?  It seems another way to shut down stations and service at stations, but a loss of service runs the risk of  losing more business.  VIA needs to increase its customer base.
4. Why has VIA decided to refuse to allow passengers to carry their bags on board trains where there is ample baggage space?  The new “carry-on” rules work toward undoing one of rail’s single largest advantages as compared to air travel – ease of boarding and no hassles.  Requiring bags to be weighed and then insisting on tagging bags over 50 lbs and taking them to the baggage car, requires passengers to come earlier.  I witnessed a man trying to board VIA 1 have his bag taken from him (he was all set to carry it on board himself) and then he was told his bag would arrive at his destination on a different train, hours later than his arrival. It is absolutely illogical.  No one is asked to pay more, so it is not a matter of the weight of the bag and the drain on fuel as it would be on an airline. There is ample baggage space in the VIA 1 cars.
5. Lastly, I am concerned for the impact these changes (and the lay-offs) are having on morale of VIA staff.  One member of staff dealing with baggage told me they are punished if they allow any passengers carrying their own bags to sneak through the weight line-up. There are people watching them all the time, he said.  The on-board train crew is fearful and demoralized.  Another clear competitive advantage at VIA has always been corporate loyalty and a high level of personal service.  Now what I hear from train personnel (across Canada, and in station and on board staff) is “I am just waiting to get my pension… I used to love working here, now I am just counting the days…”.

My criticisms are intended to be helpful. I am very fearful that the direction of investments in improved rail cars and investments in new stations on the Windsor Quebec corridor give rise to concerns that VIA may shed its Toronto to Vancouver and Montreal to Halifax routes altogether.  The loss of the Calgary to Vancouver route in the 1980s to the private sector for tourism is not something Canadians would ever want to see happen again.  We need a cross-country passenger rail service.  We need to keep it, invest in it and improve it.

Please consider me an ally in any efforts to improve rail service. I look forward to your response.

Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

The post Letter to VIA Rail’s CEO regarding the recent cuts to service appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, a national transportation strategy is not new. One could probably trace it back through the last decade as one of those issues that needs to be dealt with. The Liberal Party has been advocating for it for a number of years. At the end of the day, I suspect that it is in all of our best interests.

There are opportunities in terms of passenger transportation. I would love to be able to hop on a train, for example, to go from Winnipeg to Regina. I cannot do that. Yet those are two very important communities, not only in my life but in the lives of millions, I would argue. The transportation corridor from the 905 belt to Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa all the way down to Hamilton and Windsor is a wonderful opportunity.

There needs to be that overall transportation strategy. I suspect that at least three of the four political parties are going to have a detailed strategy going into the 2015 election.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would like to ask my friend from Newton—North Delta if she does not agree. The committee might not be able to get at it because it exceeds the scope of the bill. However, this legislation could be used to leverage and push for more of a national transportation strategy that would take into account the need to move goods and people efficiently by rail.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We no longer have people on board in the last car, the caboose, which used to be required under regulation, to monitor safety. I believe that the spill at Wabamun Lake, which the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona knows about very well, occurred largely due to the cutbacks of key safety positions of personnel on board freight.

It needs to be reliable and safe. We are having far too many derailments.

Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has made a series of recommendations, some of which are on staffing. Others are on the need for advanced technology to be installed in rail cars. For example, voice recording in the locomotive cab has not been done yet, even though the recommendation is eight years old.

There has been a recommendation for a positive train control system that would provide an automatic braking system. If the conductor happened to miss a light, a track or a red light stop sign, the train would stop automatically based on GPS technology. Unfortunately, that recommendation is again being ignored by the minister. The United States made it mandatory that all trains have automatic braking devices for safety, but we do not have such legislation in Canada.

Therefore, both staffing and technologies should be in place to keep train services safe.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to raise one issue with my colleague that has troubled me for a long time as an advocate for passenger rail. The member pointed out quite rightly that VIA Rail does not own its own tracks. It must get permission and lease them from freight. The increasing problem is that freight trains are getting increasingly longer, which means they can no longer use the sidings that are available. That means that passenger rail always has to go to a siding, because of shorter trains, and wait there while freight goes by. That is undermining the efficiency of passenger rail through freight.

I wonder if my colleague would have any comments.

Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, the future of transit in this country should be focused on making passenger transit more efficient. The environmental impact of that would be tremendous for Canadians. I would note too that the emission intensity of passenger rail over the last 20 years or so has improved by about 26% and there is lots of room for greater improvement for passenger rail.

It would be wonderful if there were a way to give passenger rail greater priority on the tracks, to work out some system, so that freight travel could also continue in a competitive and efficient way as well.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.