March 14, 2018

Dear Ms. McCrimmon,

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on various transport-related issues. As the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and the Leader of the Green Party of Canada, I have engaged on many transport-related issues, be it in the House of Commons or in my riding. I have briefly summarized my thoughts on some of these issues below.

I was glad to hear the federal government confirm it will be contributing to financing the proposed Lac-Mégantic rail bypass, the construction of which I have long supported. Residents of Lac-Mégantic, many of whom are still affected by post-traumatic stress from the derailment, deserve to live in peace and security. Hazardous trains should not travel through downtown Lac-Mégantic, and I hope the government will act quickly in building this rail bypass.

It appears that Transport Canada has no intention to put in place proper regulation and setbacks for liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers and proposed transit routes. The LNG project in Squamish, B.C., should never have been approved without a clear regulatory framework for setback zones for LNG tankers. Approving LNG projects that drive up Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions hinders the efforts to meet our targets under the Paris agreement.

The expansion of the Ridley Terminals Inc. will further hinder any action in the face of the climate crisis. Like the now-shuttered asbestos industry, it is wrong for Canada to profit from the export of coal destined to be burned in foreign power plants to create pollution and dirty energy abroad, while at the same time we work to eliminate its use within Canada. We must do our part by curtailing the export of thermal coal from Canadian ports.

Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, should never have been presented as part of an omnibus bill. However, the navigable waters section of the bill holds out hope that protections will be restored for some of the waterways that were left vulnerable under Harper. But it provides for a strange and convoluted process whereby it must be proved that a waterway is used by humans for navigation before it can be added to the protected list. The Navigation Protection Act does not go far enough to restore protections for Canada’s waterways. I look forward to the bill being studied at committee, and hope that it may be improved with amendments.

As you know, I presented amendments to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on Bill C-64, the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I am pleased with the progress this government has made on the issue of derelict vessels, which is such a pressing issue in our coastal communities. I hope that Transport Canada will be given adequate resources to aid communities with the management and disposal of derelict vessels.

I also introduced a Private Member’s Bill in December 2017: Bill C-387, An Act to continue VIA Rail Canada Inc. under the name VIA Rail Canada and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I hope the government will support this effort to ensure VIA Rail, as a crown corporation, is governed by the laws of Canada, with a mandate to expand passenger rail service, to modernize passenger rail service, and to ensure that our key routes as they now exist are protected. It is similar to Bill C-370, presented by the honourable member for London-Fanshawe. Ideally, these two bills would be brought together as one and brought forward by the Honourable Minister of Transport to increase its chances of passage in the House of Commons.

While there are many other relevant issues that may fall under your mandate as parliamentary secretary, those mentioned above are some of the most pressing in my mind. I would be happy to meet with you and your staff to discuss these and other issues further.

Sincerely,

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

A PDF copy of the original submission is available here.

The post Transport Canada Parliamentary 2018 Consultation appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It really matters to ensure that grain farmers can move their harvest and that farmers in British Columbia have that grain as feed for livestock. Back in December 2013, farmers on Vancouver Island were desperate as a mere three-day supply of feed for livestock remained. High-cost and last-minute trucking got grain to the feed mills, but it was a very close call.

With the attention on serious concerns on our freight traffic, it is easy to miss the looming crisis in passenger rail.

VIA Rail is in trouble. While billions have been committed to VIA by the Harper administration, a very welcome investment, the spending has been concentrated in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, leaving the transcontinental, remote and rural rail service at risk.

Passenger rail in Canada is in crisis. The long-standing service The Ocean between Montreal and Halifax has lost half of its service in VIA cuts, from six days a week to only three. This route has existed since 1875, built as part of the Intercolonial Railway. Meanwhile, CN Rail has put 70 km of track between Bathurst and Miramichi, N.B., up for sale. It no longer uses that stretch for freight. The remaining user is VIA. Leaders from municipal governments, CUPE, local NGOs, Green MPs, and New Democrats have been pressing to keep the trains rolling from Montreal to Halifax.

Can we afford $10-million for this track? Considering that the February 2014 budget document (which I will insist we should call the “annual thick brochure” since it does not actually include a budget), committed $10-million to two years’ worth of snowmobile trails, I don’t know how the Harper Administration can credibly say “no.” I don’t think they want New Brunswickers imagining the 70 km passenger rail gap being handled by snowmobile relays.

At the other end of Canada, on Vancouver Island, rail service between Courtenay and Victoria is desperately in need of a new agreement, investment in rails and a new station in Victoria. The Island Corridor Foundation claims a tentative agreement has been reached with VIA Rail and the Southern Railway of B.C. to resume vital daily service on the E and N Corridor Railway, a claim VIA denies. With a growing population on southern Vancouver Island and the potential for properly scheduled passenger rail taking thousands of commuter vehicles off the road, this link is essential. We need the minister to ensure parties reach a firm agreement.

As the Toronto-Vancouver Transcontinental The Canadian snakes its breathtaking way across Canada, it must not be forgotten that just as is the case with The Ocean, while wealthier tourists love the bedroom and dining car service, lower-income Canadians need the economy train. Linking the country from coast to coast (sadly missing Newfoundland and Labrador at this point) is part of the national identity.

It could be improved by adjusting the route along the Great Lakes. One of the world’s most spectacular and popular scenic rail rides was the run from Sudbury to Thunder Bay. It was also profitable. Restoring it would add to the sustainability of VIA, and help boost Canada’s flagging tourism.

As VIA faces financial and ridership targets, the cutbacks inevitably cause a drop in passenger miles. The Ocean dropped four per cent last year, but its service was also cut in half. If its route through New Brunswick is not secured quickly, The Ocean could lose a whole season of tour operators and travellers—a disaster from which it would be unlikely to recover.

Unlike Amtrak, south of the border, VIA has no enabling legislation, no statutory mandate. Just before resigning her seat, Olivia Chow put forward a private member’s bill to establish such a legislative mandate. That bill should be taken up by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and used as a way to put her stamp on the sustainability of rail in Canada.

We need to overhaul the system for rail travel in Canada. We need to stop sabotaging VIA by the historical mistake of giving freight the ownership of tracks built through public investment. We need to update and modernize track to allow for high-speed rail along those routes where it would be profitable, starting with Edmonton to Calgary.

It is a feeble excuse to abandon passenger rail claiming our geography works against it. Why then do we maintain, at public expense, a vast highway system? Why do cars and trucks travel for free on our highways, when rail is stigmatized for requiring subsidies to operate? It’s time to get Canada’s rail, for freight and people, back on track.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Passenger rail in Canada is in crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I have read a lot of budgets, but I cannot figure out if we are up or down. We read that there would be more money for infrastructure, for Environment Canada, for the meteorological service and a bit more money for VIA Rail, but since VIA Rail was cut in half in the main estimates and there are no totals in the budget, what would VIA Rail get in 2013-14? What would Environment Canada get in 2013-14? I cannot figure out if we are up or down because the budget is missing the bottom-line numbers.

I ask my friend from Toronto Centre for his comments.

Hon. Bob Rae: I think the member is really on to something, Mr. Speaker. If I can compare it to other economic statements I have seen, I am used to seeing economic statements where the spending by departments is clearly listed, where there is a comparative number from year to year and where one would have a sense of what is happening.

The only thing we do know from this budget is that the government has to be finding its cuts somewhere. The relatively low level of program spending would lead to cuts. I do not think we have seen them. They have not been announced, and I do not think they will be announced. This is not a government that will announce cuts. This is a government that will simply sell the sizzle, sell the smell, not sell the reality. That is what we are into.

The post The Budget appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I have also gone through the budget, and the weirdest thing about the budget, which is pretty singular for any budget in Canadian history, is that it does not include numbers. It does not give us the bottom line, department by department.

In the case of VIA Rail, for example, the main estimates cut by 60% VIA Rail’s budget. Whereas it had been $475 million, for this year it would be $187 million. That is a $288 million cut.

The budget talks about money for VIA Rail, $54 million this year and $57 million over the next five years, but gives no indication of whether there will be supplemental estimate money that would keep VIA Rail viable, or whether this is really the death knell for VIA Rail with a couple of announcements thrown in to be band-aids on a gaping wound.

I wonder if my friend has any thoughts on what is really happening to VIA Rail in this budget.

[BpFywezt5xA]

Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for picking up my comments on VIA. It is a very serious concern for those of us in Atlantic Canada, the way the service has been gutted over the past few months. We are concerned that the Conservatives are setting the stage for the end of it.

It makes me crazy that the government does not follow through with any commitment. How can it when it is not prepared to have a national strategy on transit, for example?

The Conservatives talk about their commitment on skills training. We are one of the only developed countries in the western world that does not have a national skills-building and training strategy. It is deplorable to think that the government would solve the problem on skills training, for example, and it does not have any idea which way to go.

Countries like Germany, after which the government likes to model itself in the area of skills training, has a long history of working together with unions and companies, and it has a national strategy. We do not have a good history of working together, nor do we have a national strategy on skills training.

The post The Budget appeared first on Elizabeth May.

This budget shows a sensitivity on issues where the Harper Conservatives have been repeatedly hammered. There is money for the burial of our veterans and $8 million for the restoration of Massey Hall. Public outcry over the savaging of fisheries habitat leads to a small sop this time around — $10 million over two years to work with local conservation groups to improve fish habitat.

I was keeping a little mental checklist of all the suggestions in my submission to Flaherty where some action at least was taken: new funding for the Sustainable Development Technology Fund (although at $325 million over eight years, less than what had been recommended by the Pembina Institute); a commitment to go after offshore tax-havens; less money wasted in Government of Canada travel and greater use of telecommunications and video-conferencing; and (some) money for First Nations education.

I was pleased to see the funds for municipal infrastructure; while it’s less than what the crisis demands, it is certainly a step in the right direction. And finally, a sign that the Harper Conservatives have given up efforts to prop up the domestic asbestos industry: $50 million over seven years for retraining workers in that shameful industry.

There is language about mental health and homelessness, as well as small amounts of money for each. Unlike last year’s budget, the word “climate” is actually used without being restricted to the “investment climate.” The Copenhagen target is referenced, albeit with the predictable falsehood that we are “halfway to meeting (it).” (p.242) The same page even boasts of the accomplishments of the ecoEnergy retrofit program — a program they killed last year.

The problem with the budget documents is that they are increasingly “fudge-it” documents. We no longer receive the appendices with the total budget numbers for departments. So is the total envelope going up or down? Who knows?

For instance, VIA Rail is mentioned and gets money — $54 million this year and $58 million spread out over the next five years. But there is no context to tell us if the 50 per cent cut in VIA support in the Main Estimates would be redressed in the Supplementary Estimates, or whether the cuts are devastating and these amounts are band-aids on a fatal wound.

There is an announcement of $248 million over five years for Environment Canada for much-needed investment in our Meteorological Service. But without seeing any overall estimate for Environment Canada, it isn’t possible to know if this is robbing Peter to pay Paul — money taken out of some other part of the department.

The overall direction of this government is unchanged. Aquaculture is getting more funding, without any response to the Cohen Report on the fate of wild salmon ($57.5 million over five years). Accelerated Capital Cost allowances for mining remain, but are reduced to the same level as oil and gas, while the access 15 per cent Mineral Exploration Tax credit for flow-through shares for mining exploration, an incentive to widespread ecological damage, is extended another year.

What we will not know until we see the implementing legislation is how many egregious measures will be rammed through the House in a 2013 omnibus bill that claims to derive its legitimacy from this budget. The reality is the 2012 budget made no mention of the Fisheries Act — but C-38, claiming to implement the budget, destroyed fish habitat.

Originally published on iPolitics.ca.

The post Flaherty has changed – and more than just his footwear appeared first on Elizabeth May.

There is money for the burial of our veterans and $8 million for the restoration of Massey Hall. “Public outcry over the savaging of fisheries habitat has lead to a small sop this time around — $10 million over 2 years to work with local conservation groups to improve fish habitat –and a salmon conservation stamp,” said May.

Encouragingly, a number of the Green Party’s recommendations made during pre-budget consultations were adopted. These include:

• new funding to Sustainable Development Technology Fund (although at $325 million over 8, less than what had been recommended by Pembina);
• going after off-shore tax-havens;
• reducing money wasted in Government of Canada travel and greater use of telecommunications and video-conferencing;
• money for First Nations education, although much less than recommended;
• funds to municipal infrastructure, and while less than what the crisis demands, it is certainly a step in the right direction;
• a just transition for asbestos workers with $50 million for 7 years toward retraining of workers in that shameful industry.

Same Direction, New Tone

However, the overall direction of this government is unchanged. Whereas last budget’s only use of the word “climate” was restricted to “investment climate”, Budget 2013 actually references climate change and mentions the Copenhagen target, though predictably repeats the falsehood that we are “halfway to meeting (it).” (p.242)  The same page even boasts of the accomplishments of the ecoEnergy retrofit program – a program they killed last year.

“The problem with the budget documents is that they are increasingly vague documents.  We no longer receive the appendices with the total budget numbers for departments.  So, is the total envelope going up or down?  Who knows?” asked May.

“For instance, VIA Rail is mentioned and gets money — $54 million this year and $58 million spread out over the next five years.  But there is no context to know if the 50% cut in VIA support in the Main Estimates would be redressed in the Supplementary Estimates, or whether the cuts are devastating and these amounts are band-aids on a fatal blow,” continued May.

“What we will not know until we see the implementing legislation is how many egregious measures will be rammed through the House in a 2013 Omnibus bill that claims to derive its legitimacy from this budget,” said May.

“The reality is this is a fudge-it, a PR piece, rather than a real plan. The 2012 budget made no mention of the Fisheries Act, but Budget Implementation Act C-38, destroyed fish habitat.  So it will take a few more months to be sure the second of one of Mr. Flaherty’s new shoes is not about to fall,” concluded May.

The post Flaherty Changed More Than His Shoes 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.

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.