Denis Blanchette

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I share her disappointment, especially considering that, as she said in her speech, the railway has been so fundamental to the history of this country. As a method of transportation, it has really lost its lustre.

I wonder if the member could describe how she sees railway transportation in the 21st century. What would it look like? What direction should it take? At the same time, this will illustrate how this bill does not meet the expectations.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for once I gave a title to my speech, because I think it truly represents the state of mind in this House. The title is “Do they walk the talk?”

Normally, we would not have had to hold this opposition day. We would not have had to move this motion if the government had acted responsibly. If the government is late in appointing a senior public servant, it should have allowed for a transition period.

One wonders why, in recent years, since I have been here, important appointments have always been made late. The Conservatives know the calendar and they can follow it. Unfortunately, nothing is happening.

Therefore, I find it hard to understand why the Conservatives are first unable to follow a calendar and then unable to take responsibility for their mistake and do something really easy such as simply extending the mandate.

I now come to the crux of the issue. We live in a complex world. One of our main responsibilities here is to pass a complex budget. We have an institution that helps all parliamentarians do a good job and better understand what they vote on. It is Parliament's responsibility to pass the budget, but we must first understand that budget and know where it is going to take us.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is an essential tool in a modern government. Let us not forget—as pointed out by many members—that this institution was created by the Conservative government. However, we get the feeling that they are not comfortable with what they created. Yet, and I rarely say this, that was a damn good idea.

If we look at the mandate as such, which is defined in section 79.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer can do things that are done in every modern government.

Incidentally, the budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his staff is ridiculously low, compared to what we see elsewhere. For example, in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office operates with a staff of 250 and a budget of $45 million. That is 16 times more than the resources available to our Parliamentary Budget Officer. Considering that the U.S. population is 10 times larger than ours, we can see that much more resources are provided to help members of Congress follow what could be called budget tentacles.

That is a strong trend among OECD members. A task force made up of senior OECD budget officials established a group that allows them to follow the parliamentary process, which is the equivalent of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Contrary to what the Conservatives say, we should not necessarily be following the best practices of the private sector, but rather the best practices of governments around the world. That is what the OECD is advocating and that is what we should be doing.

Last year, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I am a member, released a report entitled “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”. Recommendation 15 states:

That the House of Commons give its Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates the mandate to undertake a study of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer;...that...the Committee should consider all structural models for the Office including, but not limited to, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reporting directly to Parliament.

Having the Parliamentary Budget Officer report to Parliament rather than the Library of Parliament has been discussed before. This would give him the powers he needs to do his job. Despite the roadblocks put in his way, he has done an outstanding job.

Consider the evaluation of the F-35 costs. It was not the Parliamentary Budget Officer but someone else who was out in left field. Despite the obstacles he faced, he managed to keep us and Canadians well informed. Obviously, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's role is to restore parliamentarians' ability to have some say in the budget process in order to provide more rigorous and exact oversight.

What I find ironic about this is that it was the Conservatives who suggested creating the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, when the President of the Treasury Board was answering questions about why he was not providing information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he said that they are reporting to the House in the usual way. Thus, he is saying that what we had before worked better than what they created, which is nonsense.

That is a real-life example of not walking the talk, of someone who talks about open, transparent government and then hides behind the old approach to accountability. We want openness and transparency for parliamentarians, but also for Canadians who are interested in public affairs, and we want to move forward. We need to remember that we do not work in a vacuum; we work for the people of Canada. We tend to forget that we are accountable to Canadians and that we work for them. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to limit the public's access to information.

I am happy to hear about open data, but we need to know what data will be open. If we are just talking about weather data, that will not make a big difference in our lives. That is why it is important to have an institution that allows us to analyze the implications of each of our decisions. That is always an issue—evaluating the consequences of various actions.

How will this affect our bottom line? How will it affect government operations? Before the institution of Parliamentary Budget Officer was created—and I can now say that it is an institution that we need—we were lost in a fog. And look at what happened when the Titanic got lost in the fog. We cannot have that happen.

At a time when we have a tight budget, we have a lot of debt and we are looking to maximize the effects of our budgetary measures, I feel it is important to have an institution that allows us to keep track of what is happening. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is a crucial tool. And I would like to take a moment to acknowledge his work and his courage. Given his mandate and the situation he was facing, it could not have been easy.

Canadians need an independent office, in the name of transparency and accountability.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the answer to my colleague's question about the difference between governance and management. Clearly, it goes without saying that we do not want the government to take care of the management side of things. However, we know that the new Parliamentary Budget Officer will not be hired right away and so there will be a period of time in which we do not have a Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Would it not be acceptable to simply extend the mandate of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer by a few months, knowing that he is willing to stay in the position? Such a transition would allow the selection committee to do its job of managing.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his excellent question, since indirectly, that is what is at the heart of this bill. It is about the capacity of a vast nation like ours to service the entire country, regardless of the population density of its geographical sectors.

That is why the railways were built, and it is unfortunate that, in recent years, the focus on profit at all costs has made it difficult to develop and maintain businesses in Canada's most remote regions.

That is why it is important to once again strike a balance, a word that I have used on several occasions, between profit-driven logic and the capacity to support regional development.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

I touched on the issue of committee work. In fact, I asked him a question regarding this during his own speech. I said that I wanted debate in committee broadened to go beyond the scope of Bill C-52 and focus on problems, so that rail transportation can get better.

I hope that my colleagues will agree with me regarding the need to open up debate and see what members have to say about other issues in the report that the bill does not address.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

At the beginning of his question, he mentioned that there were continental relationships when it comes to shipping. That fact is undeniable. If there is one thing that CN and CP customers want, it is that their goods be delivered as quickly as possible. That is the problem. And the reason the government has decided to act after many years of standing idly by is that market-driven logic unfortunately failed this time.

Moreover, that is why, in my speech, I called on CN and CP to change their corporate culture, which is focused solely on profit, in an environment where it is really not possible to be ruled by completely market-driven logic. Indeed, you cannot create 10 competitors for CN and CP just like that. As members are aware, this kind of infrastructure makes it is quite difficult to develop competition.

I said in my speech that CN and CP should view this bill as a warning sign that things are bad and that they need to improve their practices. We are here solely because there is a problem that needs to be addressed through Bill C-52.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. In a fundamental way, it is all a matter of relations between the various groups, quite apart from numbers, profits and services rendered.

What is important, and what will have to be increasingly so, is that some companies do not really have any competition. We have to admit that fact. It was acknowledged in the rail freight service review report, which we have already discussed, that the competition was going to be tough.

So it is important for those businesses to be aware of the fact that, given their internal culture, they will have to start cooperating with others.

In a last-ditch effort, they have started to improve certain types of services, but that is unfortunately too little, too late for this bill. On the other hand, I believe that, if they are getting the message, we might perhaps have something better in future.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when I had to interrupt my speech, I was talking about the report on the mediation that was unfortunately not successful. We tried to open a dialogue between the clients and the service provider. We were unable to resolve the problem and that is why we have this bill before us today.

CN and CP wanted nothing to do with this bill. But it might be a kind of wake-up call for these two companies. It is a little bill that does not do too much or ask for much and that we would like to see improved. For the rail companies it is a sign that everything is not just fine.

There are things to improve, and these companies will be tasked with improving them. If they do not, other more restrictive bills will be introduced. Even though, depending on the region, they have either a monopoly or a duopoly, they will have to develop a corporate culture based on customer service. They will have to find a balance between profit and customer service, so that customer service is not sacrificed for the sake of profit. That is the message we must get across.

I would now like to talk about the vision of transportation as such. In some respects, this bill manages a crisis. We have let the rot set in and we have waited until the very last moment. Minimal action has been taken. However, it is not our job here in the House of Commons to engage in short-term crisis management. Our job is to stamp out a vision for our country for tomorrow, for the day after tomorrow and for decades to come. Right now, we lack this vision.

I would therefore like to share with you some elements of a vision which has been dubbed, among other things, a national transportation policy. It would be entirely appropriate to address issue. It is my hope that once the bill passes second reading stage and has been referred to a committee, committee members will expand the debate to consider the overall evolution of the rail transportation system.

We live in a global world. We have a phenomenon called the Internet. It allows a supplier to advertise a product on the web and a customer anywhere in the world to buy that product. The logistics of delivering that product is the ensuing challenge. For Canada, a country of wide open spaces, the rail transportation system is absolutely critical to the process of delivering goods.

So then, it is important for us to continue focusing on this issue. However, I want to stress the importance of striking a balance. Much has been said about striking a balance between an industry’s ability to make a fair and reasonable profit and the possibility for captive customers to have a service that meets their needs and allows their business to grow. Such a service would help people stay in their regions and prevent a population exodus. It would be one way to develop resource regions. This matter is extremely important to us.

On the question of balance, we can take it further. We can talk about striking a balance between the transportation of people and freight. Even though there are problems with respect to freight transportation, passenger rail service often takes a back seat to freight transportation. How many times must passenger trains pull over onto a siding to allow a freight train to pass?

It all comes down to a matter of balance. Therefore, we need to examine all of these aspects and put an end to any short-term vision. We need to come up with a plan for a rail infrastructure worthy of the 21st century. This is important.

We are still living with an infrastructure that is a holdover from the 19th century, albeit an infrastructure that helped cement our national unity. Why not take another stab at improving it so that the companies that provide the service as well as the users and citizens can all benefit.

Finally, I want to stress that the main reason we want a national passenger and freight transportation policy in place is to be able to plan and make the right moves at the right time, rather than merely react to situations.

A business owner always looks to get a positive reaction from customers. Right now, there is no positive response and that is why this legislation is before the House.

In conclusion, I will say that this is a step in the right direction, a very small step. Everyone has agreed to support it. In fact, everyone is operating on the principle that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. So we are taking this small step today. We hope to improve service to suppliers. We hope the government will accept some of the amendments that will be proposed. Ultimately, we are probably addressing the most glaring part of the problem, but, since there have already been some reports and mediation attempts, and because we at least want to solve certain problems, I believe this requires cooperation by everyone, and especially by the various stakeholders, so that the House has to intervene as little as possible in the development of the railway system. It will be important for citizens, suppliers, customers, the economy and especially for Canada that we resolve that.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss this bill, as this may be the dawn of a new era in rail transportation. It has been my sense that the sector has been in decline for decades.

When a bill is introduced in the House, it is usually because there is some problem that needs addressing. Laws are not passed just for the sake of passing them. We do not set out to bore people. We are not in the business of hurting market sectors. We are here to make things better.

The Liberals acted hastily when they privatized CN in 1995, and they failed to think through the consequences. Monopolies were created in some regions of the country and duopolies in others, and we know what this led to.

In my riding, for instance, one of the consequences of the privatization has become a recurring election issue: the upkeep of the Quebec Bridge and its rail lines. The matter has been before the courts for seven years and is the direct result of privatization. The Conservatives only ignored the problem. When CN was privatized there was no consideration given to the consequences for the users of the different services. It is not worth mentioning VIA Rail because we all know what the problems with it are. We will have other opportunities to discuss this. The users of these transportation services have had problems for years.

The government has finally decided to act, but it is doing the bare minimum, and more needs to be done. We intend to support the bill at second reading and propose amendments to improve it.

If the Conservative government ends up introducing regulations, one can be sure that it is because the problem has dragged on for some while and something really must be done.

Is the fact that it is a private company the cause of the problem? No, the problem is that there is a monopoly. In this situation, there are two conflicting priorities: a company's need to make a profit and provide a dividend to its shareholders, and the service that it must provide its customers.

If there is no incentive created by competition, customer service suffers for the sake of shareholders' dividends. Moreover, an increasing number of sections of railway are being closed in rural regions, more and more services are being dropped and more and more cuts are being made to passenger service. This era has seen the decline of rail transportation.

And that is despite the fact that ours is a huge but sparsely populated country with vast distances to cover. That is why we need an efficient long-distance transportation system that causes as little environmental damage as possible. Rail transportation would fit the bill, but the government is letting the system go downhill.

The government waited years to act. It should come as no surprise that people using the service began to get together. I am not suggesting that they began to unionize, because that would freak some people out. People who use the system felt the need to talk to one another about how the level of service does not make sense. They started to exert pressure on the government because the level and quality of service were poor.

Globalization means that we have to deliver products all over the place, and quickly. Obviously, if someone has a product, be it from a forest, a mine, a farm or anywhere else outside a major centre, that product has to be packed up and shipped quickly. Global competition means that we need to provide this kind of service and we need the infrastructure to do it.

So the question is, how can we balance the need for a business to make a profit—be it a farm or a major corporation in a remote location—with the needs of many companies that often have no alternative form of transportation? Throw into the mix the need for transportation to be as green as possible. How can we bring these needs in line with each other? This has always been a problem.

That is why, in January 2011, Transport Canada released a final report on its rail freight service review. The committee's mandate included the following:

Conduct a review of the rail-based logistics chain...with a focus on service provided to Canadian shippers and customers...

Identify problems and issues with respect to railway service including those stemming from other elements of the logistics chain.

Rail transportation is one part of the logistics chain for shipping to various clients.

For shippers located on shortlines, determine if there are any problems with logistics and, if so, the source of the problem including service, operating, or marketing practices of the main-line carriers.

Signs were already pointing to a deep-rooted problem. At the end of the report, of course, there are a number of recommendations. There is a whole range. For example, the first recommendation is as follows:

The Panel recommends that railways, in collaboration with their stakeholders, continue to develop commercial measures to improve rail service.

In 2011, it was acknowledged that there was an issue. That was two years ago.

The second recommendation is as follows:

Prior to implementing changes in local train service, railways should consult affected stakeholders and provide a minimum notification period of 10 working days.

That recommendation relates to previously identified service issues.

And here is the third recommendation:

Railways should enter into good-faith negotiations to establish service agreements upon request by stakeholders...

That recommendation truly concerns the scope of Bill C-52, and the bill addresses only the third recommendation.

There is a fourth recommendation:

The Panel recommends that railways, assisted by a facilitator appointed by Transport Canada, should engage in negotiations with stakeholders...

That happened a bit later. I will speak to that in a moment.

And the fifth recommendation is as follows:

Railways should provide improved supply chain visibility through enhanced reporting.

Basically, there is a lack of communication between the service provider and the clients. Plain and simple. We could keep going.

Last year, in May 2012, the facilitator's report also came with recommendations.

The first recommendation is as follows:

Transport Canada should make the service agreement template...available to rail freight stakeholders...

There is mention of a service agreement template, a dispute resolution process, and so on.

This is a fundamental problem. Clients often have no choice. Even rural or more remote areas are producing goods.

That is the beauty of globalization. We can produce goods across the country and deliver them to anywhere in the world. To do this, we need world-class infrastructure. We have a serious problem when it is totally impossible for users to get adequate service.

We see that people are dissatisfied and have lost confidence. We also have to consider the economic consequences for users of this service, one of which is the erosion of market share. We often forget this, but we are sacrificing Canada's economic driving force.

That is why I think this bill is a step in the right direction. We are slowly trying to solve the problem through this legislation. Although it does not do everything we would like it to and it does not come close to creating a national transportation strategy, at least we are trying to come up with solutions. We are getting closer to something better for the entire supply chain from the perspective of producers in rural and remote areas.

If we do not address this issue, Canada's ability to compete will be compromised. God knows that Canada's competitiveness is important. We therefore cannot allow rail service and our providers' ability to improve that service to deteriorate.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In his speech he mentioned many positives about this bill, which we support.

Could he expand on what he would like to see in this bill? Aside from a dialogue between the various stakeholders, what would he like to see improved while the bill is in committee?