---

Dissenting Opinion -
Reform Party

Introduction1

While the work of the Standing Committee of Transportation was quite comprehensive in its review of the current passenger rail system in Canada, the Reform Party members of the Committee felt that, in many cases, it was simply accepted that passenger rail would continue under government supervision, as would the subsidy.

There was neither a willingness to discuss fundamental policy questions such as the need for passenger rail, nor meaningful debate over fundamental reorganizations such as the privatization of VIA Rail in whole or in part. Thus the Committee's final report became a series of recommendations on a reorganized, subsidized VIA Rail rather than a new approach to passenger rail in Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Policy Objectives

While we agree that there has been a serious policy void and that the status quo is not acceptable, we disagree with designating funding to passenger rail for 10 years.

We recommend:

1. That the government clearly define its long-term policy objectives for passenger rail service in Canada including the route network, level of service, eligibility of service providers and level and conditions for federal support.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Subsidy Level

Reform Party members of the Committee disagree with recommendation 4. We recognize that, internationally, every passenger rail service is publicly subsidized to some degree. While we do not necessarily approve of subsidization, we insist that any subsidy provided must be earned and should be available to any potential operator.

Therefore we recommend:

4. That any passenger rail subsidy should be performance based and re-examined every two years.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Competition

Although we agree with the thrust of recommendation 6, we find the wording to be somewhat ambiguous. Reform Party members believe that, as far as is practical, there should be a level playing field in passenger rail services.

Therefore we recommend:

6. That the government encourage competition in the passenger rail sector while committing the government to the least amount of interference in the form of regulations, subsidies or other measures.

RECOMMENDATION 7: Track Access

Track access is a continuing and worsening problem. Access availability has been muddied by institutional battles between private freight companies and VIA Rail. Reform members do not believe that government should be the primary arbitrator in these battles.

Maximizing track capacity is in the best interest of both freight companies and passenger rail service providers. Capacity is a variable element that is affected by both seasonal demand and business cycles. The efficient movement of containerized freight from eastern ports is of paramount importance. If containerized freight cannot be delivered on time, business of Canadian seaports will be lost to the U.S.

Therefore we recommend:

7. That access problems should be resolved, not by government regulators, but by track owners and passenger rail service operators.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Governance

Recommendation 9 contradicts the spirit of this report. The intent of the study was to provide new and innovative solutions to the provision of passenger rail service in Canada. The Committee was presented with a variety of governance options. It is our opinion that converting VIA Rail to a "commercial crown corporation" is, in effect, retention of the status quo. Quite simply, recommendation 9 moves VIA from Schedule III, Part I of the Financial Administration Act to Schedule III, Part II.2

Therefore, we recommend that recommendation 9 be deleted and be replaced by a recommendation that operators be given maximum managerial flexibility and the opportunity to provide a variety of market-driven services including contract maintenance of equipment and the carriage of mail and express.

RECOMMENDATION 11: High-Speed Rail and the Lynx Consortium

Time constraints have limited the Committee's ability to seriously evaluate the Lynx proposal for high-speed passenger rail. Therefore, we cannot recommend the commitment of federal funds to a detailed feasibility study. The Lynx proposal should be examined in greater detail and reported upon by the Standing Committee on Transport as a stand-alone study.

---

1 The Reform Party members of the Committee requested 7 pages for their dissenting opinion. However, the Committee voted in favour of a 3-page limit.

2 It was suggested by the Liberal members of the Committee that VIA should operate more like Canada Post as a commercial crown corporation. According to the 1997 Annual Report to Parliament, Canada Post is a Schedule III, Part II corporation while VIA is a Schedule III, Part I corporation.