Bill C-8 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation)

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act with respect to railway transportation.

Canada Transportation Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 is the third and final bill amending the Canada Transportation Act. Two previous bills, one on international bridges and tunnels and other provisions of the act, were passed in the previous session.

The Canada Transportation Act is the legislative framework that, among other things, regulates the economic activities of the railways, in particular services and rates. While the act generally relies on market forces, there are a number of shipper protection provisions to address the potential abuse of market power by the railways.

I remind all members that Bill C-8 is extremely important to shippers. I am sure that many of us in the House today have heard how important the bill is.

Many members have undoubtedly heard many complaints from coast to coast about railway service and rates over the last few years. Bill C-8 strengthens the shippers' provisions in the act. By doing so, it improves shippers' leverage when they negotiate with railways, which contribute to better service and lower rates.

Bill C-8 is great news for Canada. Over time it is hoped that this will also improve the relationships between shippers and railways.

I also wish to remind members that Bill C-8 is the result of extensive consultations, dating back to the statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act that took place in 2000-01. This provided an opportunity for shippers to develop a very strong consensus in support of the bill. In fact, a couple of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I sit, commented on how unique it was to see such a strong, solid consensus from an industry sector such as the shippers in this case.

I ask members to keep this in mind during third reading debate. Shippers like the bill. They want it to be passed as soon as possible. Let us not disappoint them.

The bill is also important to railways and their investors because it gives them certainty. It gives them regulatory stability and they know this. Providing regulatory stability will improve the investment climate and facilitate investments by the railways and their networks, equipment and crews so they can maintain and even expand their operations.

Canada is a trading nation and railways are important to our future growth in our economy. This in turn will help shippers compete in domestic, continental and international markets. It will also facilitate the achievement of government objectives to improve the transportation gateways in corridors in western, central and eastern Canada.

What the government is doing is making this an even stronger trading nation, ensuring we have all the inventory and assets necessary to become that strong nation.

When asked at committee stage whether Bill C-8 would cause the railways to cancel any investment plans, Mr. Cliff Mackay, president of the Railway Association of Canada, replied:

The short answer is no, we will invest. We need to invest. It's part of our business. It's very important.

I believe Bill C-8 re-balances the regulatory framework in an appropriate manner. Shippers are clearly looking forward to the new provisions. At the same time, however, there should not be a significant impact on railway investments. The bill is necessary for our future, and the government is going to pass it.

During the consultative process in the summer of 2006, the minister encouraged the railways to look at potential commercial solutions to address the concerns of shippers. The intention was that improved commercial mechanisms would complement amendments to the shipper provisions.

The railways discussed a commercial dispute resolution proposal with shippers. For some period of time, we heard at committee that they discussed this. Good progress was made, but discussions eventually broke down as both sides could not find a solution that was satisfactory to both sides.

The government is hopeful that the discussions will resume once the bill is passed and sets a framework for those. An effective commercial dispute resolution process is preferable to regulated remedies. A commercial approach would be more expeditious, less costly and less confrontational and better for long term relations.

I will briefly discuss the main provisions in the bill that have been endorsed by the committee.

Under the existing section 27 of the act, the agency must be satisfied that a shipper would suffer “substantial commercial harm” before granting a remedy.

Shippers have long objected to this test. As members can imagine, it can be quite onerous. The railways argue that this test is consistent with the commercial approach reflected throughout the act and have pointed out that based on agency decisions to date, the provision has not prevented shippers from accessing remedies. The government concurs with shippers that the substantial harm test is not required.

It is a serious matter for a shipper to seek a remedy under the Canada Transportation Act.

First, it can have an adverse impact on a shipper's relationship with a carrier. Many shippers across the country only have one carrier, one railroad to deal with, and this relationship is very important to them.

Second, pursuing a regulatory remedy can often be extremely expensive. For small farmers, independent operators, it is almost impossible in some instances to afford or even to launch such a discussion.

The test itself is unwarranted and is being dropped under Bill C-8, great news for shippers.

The bill also contains a new provision that would allow shippers to complain to the agency if they were not satisfied with railway charges or the conditions associated with such charges, other than freight rates. The principal remedy for freight rates will continue to be final offer arbitration. The charges I refer to include what are often referred to as ancillary charges such as fees levied for cleaning or storing cars.

The new provision would also deal with such charges as well as some other charges related to the movement of traffic, such as demurrage. Demurrage is a payment incurred when a shipper takes too long to unload or load a car. Sometimes these circumstances happen as a result of something beyond their control.

The agency will have the authority to review complaints about such charges and to order a railway to revise the charge or so stated conditions if the agency finds them to be unreasonable. These charges have become an issue with shippers over the past few years and shippers are very pleased that the Conservative government has introduced an effective measure to address them.

The last major element of Bill C-8 is the introduction of group final offer arbitration, commonly referred to as group FOA. The existing final offer arbitration provision is one of the more popular remedies with shippers. A shipper can apply for final offer arbitration if the shipper is not satisfied with the railway's freight rates or associated conditions.

Under the process, the shipper and railway each submit their final offer to the arbitrator. The arbitrator must select either one or the other and is not allowed to change or modify either of the final offers. Imagine what that would lead to. It encourages the two parties to be fair and reasonable, which is most important, or else they lose the arbitration itself. The process often leads to a negotiated settlement and that would be good news as well.

Bill C-8 would allow a group of shippers to apply for final offer arbitration subject to three main conditions.

First, the agency must be satisfied that the group attempted to mediate the matter with the railway first. This is to encourage a commercial solution if at all possible, and would be in the best interests of the Canadian shipping industry.

Second, in addition, the matter must be common to all the shippers.

Third, they must make a joint offer, the terms of which apply to all of them.

The concept of commonality in terms of both the matter and the offer is essential to group final offer arbitration. Otherwise it simply would not work and we would all be wasting our time. In this case it will be and it is again great news for shippers around the country.

The former Bill C-58, which was reinstated as Bill C-8, was tabled on May 30 of this year. At that time, the minister announced there would be a review of railway service. This would commence within 30 days after the bill itself has passed.

It is important to note that shippers strongly endorse the proposed review and look forward to it. The review will focus on solutions to railway service issues, including commercial solutions. Transport Canada officials have had some preliminary discussions with shippers on the terms of reference for this study. More consultations will take place before recommendations are submitted to the minister and before any final decision is made, again, great news for Canadians.

There is a widespread support for Bill CC-8 among all political parties. As I mentioned, the former Bill C-58 was tabled in the House on May 30 of this year. Second reading debate was concluded in one day, on June 14. It moved very quickly, with all party support for the most part of all clauses of the bill, before the session was prorogued.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard witnesses at three meetings last month. The witnesses included the minister, the railways and the shippers. We have heard from stakeholders.

The committee heard a clear desire for the bill to be passed expeditiously without amendments. I have seen many emails and have had many phone calls from shippers across the country. They want the bill passed as quickly as possible.

The standing committee was able to conclude clause-by-clause review in less than 30 minutes. The committee approved one technical amendment to clarify that the new power being given to the agency to address complaints about railway charges would not apply to freight rates. In essence, it was simply an amendment to ensure and to clarify that we would have less litigation.

The bill is extremely important to shippers from coast to coast to coast from all types of industry. They have been waiting for results since 2001. The statutory review of the act was completed in 2001.

The bill would also provide regulatory stability sought by the railways. This is good news for Canadians because we are a trading nation. The economy of Canadians is tightly woven with the success of our shipping from coast to coast.

The standing committee dealt with the bill very quickly. I want to personally thank all members of the standing committee for their efficient review of the bill.

I now urge the House and all members to get behind the bill and to pass it as quickly as possible so Canadian shippers and manufacturers can rely on the great work of the House.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was at a committee and came here the middle of the parliamentary secretary's presentation on Bill C-8,

I do not know if he covered this, but one of the things we hear from the forest industry and other big shippers is they feel they are often left with no alternative other than to deal with CN.

I know in my experience in the forest industry, many of our mills and the company I worked for did not have any options. It was CN and that was it. Therefore, the shippers feel that in some cases they are gouged in terms of the rates.

Is there something in Bill C-8 that deals with this issue, something like final offer arbitration or some way of arbitrating these differences where CN has a monopoly position and there are no reasonable alternatives?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the very crux of the issue itself and of Bill C-8.

There is group final offer arbitration, which was asked for by many groups that are shippers. If the member wants more personal information for his own constituents, I will be more than happy to meet with him and provide that.

However, that is exactly what the crux of the bill is. It is to help shippers. It is to help with what we call a duopoloy situation or a duomonopoly situation, where the railways have in some instances had excessive fees, or similar types of complaints from farmers or other shippers across the country. The bill is speaks exactly to that.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to voice the position of the Liberal Party, the former Government of Canada, on this bill.

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for having had the elegance of thought to acknowledge that this bill was presented by the government of which I was a member and which saw another reincarnation as Bill C-58.

I think other members of both parties are probably equally thankful that the bill has seen its way not only through this House but also through committee. Witness, of course, the fact that report stage went through without comment and that we received, to all intents and purposes, the unanimous consent of all members of this House so that the bill could receive its third and final reading, be voted upon, be sent to the Senate, and be proclaimed.

Why would something like that happen? All members of Parliament have a special interest in ensuring that there is a rebalancing of the relationship between the railway companies and the shippers, be they large or small. More than anything else, I think that members of Parliament, at least from my party, the Liberal Party, the official opposition, has always looked for a balance in the relationship between those who need a particular service and those who provide that service.

The parliamentary secretary used the words “to reintroduce balance”. I thank him for thinking in terms of what needed to be done, and that is to restructure the relationship that had started to develop in a counterproductive way between the railway companies and the shippers. He noted in establishing that interest of balance that all the shippers want this and he is probably right.

Those who came before committee, those who lobbied him, that lobbied me, and that lobbied the Bloc, all said exactly the same thing. They all said that it was time that the relationship that has evolved between them needs to have the Government of Canada, through the agency, establish a relationship that would regenerate the competitiveness of the shipping industry and all those who buy our products.

What he really meant, I guess, is that without this bill we could see the competitiveness of many of our producing companies and those industries, be they agricultural, lumber, or mining, suffer at the hands of the negative impacts of the monopoly behaviour that had been established by the two monopolies in the railway industry that essentially put the shippers at their mercy.

It was not always this way. Obviously, there have been difficulties between the supplier of the service, the railway companies, and the shippers who need that service in order to get their product to the emerging markets that require Canadian produce and commodities.

What has happened over the passage of time is that the railways, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, have established their position of predominance over the shippers that they serve. What is the result?

First of all, there has been an inconsistency in the predictability of the service required by the shippers, so that they in turn can provide for their own marketplace, a guarantee that their product will be delivered on time as prescribed by the contractual arrangement between the buyer of that commodity, usually abroad in the Pacific emerging markets, or even in the United States.

Second, that the price that was agreed to initially would suffer as a result of the delay, the ancillary services, and the other penalties that occur as a result of the railways not providing, as agreed, the kinds of services that had been contracted.

We have heard many stories in committee, many anecdotes, that have angered the shippers and, in turn, the small producers that feed into the shipping companies. As I say, whether they are farmers or lumber companies, all of them have faced great difficulties. They could not guarantee a price because they could not guarantee a time of delivery to the markets that they wanted to penetrate or they had in fact already developed.

The kind of relationship that the railways had established and imposed, in fact, upon the very people they purported to serve, proposed to serve and for whom they had made investments to serve had turned out to be counterproductive. It is counterproductive from a Canadian point of view, from a macro Canadian interest point of view, from the point of view of a Canadian economy that needs to grow and provide assurances for all of its markets that it is capable of producing a timely product with timely delivery, and a price that is competitive worldwide.

They have been unable to do that and so the parliamentary secretary calls this the shippers bill. It is more important than that. It is not just a bill that is important for shippers. It is important for the competitiveness of the Canadian economy.

As a result, we see that there are provisions in this bill to ensure that the monopolistic behaviour of the railway companies is moderated to the point that it is capable of delivery and what Canadians, through them, must have. They must have a guarantee of service at a predetermined price and in a timely fashion that will allow for a revenue stream to come back to the shippers and producers, so that they can then access the financing they, in turn, require in order to make investments in the production of said products.

It does not take much in terms of rocket science to appreciate that the bill is not a shippers bill. It is a bill for you, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill for all of us to ensure that which produces great wealth for Canada, that contributes to the positive side of the ledger in international trade is guaranteed.

We cannot put in jeopardy either our producers or shippers, the very people, the very production systems, the very industries that ensure that we will be able to generate wealth. We cannot put them in a precarious position and at the mercy of those who deliver their product from point A to point B.

That is absolutely crucial because now we are entering into the area of the viability of Canada's infrastructure. Given the great distances between not only our people but the source of those products and commodities and the markets, we need to be able to have an infrastructure that is reliable.

That does not mean simply having a road that is paved. It does not simply mean having a railway track that functions without incidents or accidents on as frequent a basis as we have seen. No, it means that we need to have that type of infrastructure function in an efficient and economic fashion that continues to regenerate the business which makes its existence mandatory.

What do we do with a bill like this one? As I said earlier, it received the support of all members of Parliament in committee and, I dare say, will receive the support of all members of Parliament in the House, unless, of course, some in the NDP decide that they want to filibuster.

They will receive the support of Canadians everywhere because, in effect, what will transpire is a new infrastructure of legislation to govern the mandates given to the railway companies and to the shippers as stewards of Canada's natural resource wealth, a wealth that needs to be materialized, realized and brought to fruition in foreign markets, so that Canadians can say, yes, this wealth will be distributed for the good of all citizens, one and all.

Mr. Speaker, the bill, as you already noted at second reading, was examined by members of the committee on your behalf very thoroughly, and I might add that, subsequent to the debate such as it was, there was no need to amend the bill.

Imagine, no need to amend the bill that saw its genesis in 2005 with the then Liberal administration, saw its regeneration again as Bill C-58 last May, and is now again before the House as Bill C-8 with not a change, not a comma, not a semicolon, not a capital at the beginning of a sentence, nothing.

Why? Because it has been a bill that has been thoroughly researched. The consultation has taken place with all of the stakeholders and even the railways have not objected as strenuously as one might expect from those who are compelled to do something with which they are, at least in the recent past, not familiar and that is equitable behaviour. But they see the wisdom of the legislation.

We will see that certain mechanisms in this bill, those clauses that ensure the balance is regenerated back between the shippers and the railway companies, are at the core of everything. When things are balanced out, everyone realizes that fairness is the basis for any relationship that develops as a result. What is fair? What is fair, of course, is that shippers contract to have their product taken from point A to a port where the railway companies will deliver the cars required or that product to be picked up at a time contracted so that everybody's expenses are diminished. That is fair.

Therefore, this bill says we are not going to dictate at which time, which day and under what circumstances said number of cars are going to be delivered, but if shippers contract to deliver said number of cars on said day at such and such a time, then railways must deliver and if they do not, there are commercial consequences in the appropriate court.

One might say, well one might say we would go to court anyway. Well, no, not when David is facing Goliath. The government has accepted the will of Parliament and we have decided no more David and Goliath relationship. We are going to ensure that the shippers are adequately protected in this unbalanced relationship.

If there is a price agreed, there shall be no changes to those prices unless companies have given at least a 30 day notice of same. We have seen this: prices subject to change without notice. That is good for those who benefit from that, but it is not good for those who project their business plan on the basis of a guaranteed price down the road. The railways have to give at least a 30 day notice that prices are going to be changed while still delivering the service which they have contracted to deliver.

It sound fair. The parliamentary secretary says that it is reintroducing balance. That is a backhanded way of saying the other guys have been taking an unfair advantage of a situation. Is that being critical? It should be. What else does it say?

My colleagues from the Bloc will recall that we had some discussion about ancillary services. What are they? In one instance, the railroad said that it had six points to consider. Another one, a shipper, pointed out that there are something like 30 to 60 items that are added on to a price.

One of our colleagues on committee said that it sounded a little bit like going in to buy a car, but after we have contracted the price the dealer says, by the way, if we want a motor it costs this much more, and if we want tires on every wheel, it costs this much more and so on. By the time we are finished, we might well be paying twice as much for the car as what we initially contracted.

Therefore, there is transparency of cost. There is transparency of the final price for the product that is being delivered, not necessarily by the shippers, because they already have to do that with their producers and the people over at the ports where they are going to deliver the material. It is something that the railways must be able to guarantee their shippers.

I think the minister agrees, because he put that into the bill. However, we need to make sure people understand that this is what balancing the relationship between railways and shippers is really all about. It is ensuring that no one takes undue advantage of a relationship of power that has developed over time.

As I said, the ultimate beneficiaries of course will be the Canadian public and the Canadian marketplace. If nothing else, it will mean that producers will get their product to market at a time when the market thinks it is appropriate to receive it.

It was not that long ago that in another capacity I was dealing with business people from China. We talked about buying Canadian product,and in particular, agricultural product. Their complaint was not so much that the Canadian product was not of exceptional quality. They really do enjoy Canadian quality. It was not so much that the price was not right, because of course it was.

However, they said, “What is the use of us buying good quality at the right price if we cannot get it to our market?” If our railways cannot deliver their product to the port of Vancouver or Prince Rupert in a timely fashion, what is the purpose of them putting their ships out off the port, wasting time, costing them money and redoubling the expectation of the price they needed to pay in the first place?

Under those circumstances, it does not do them any good to buy Canadian product. They might as well look for it some place else, they said, not because the product is not any good, not because it does not get delivered to port, but because it does not get delivered when they need it.

Therefore, if there is one criticism about all this, it is not that the bill itself will not be capable of delivering what it purports to deliver, but it highlights the importance of having an infrastructure program that includes this relationship as well as the physical infrastructure that must be put in place and which guarantees that the fruition we expect from this bill will be brought to bear and materialize down the road.

Whether it is in the Pacific gateway, as we have come to know the development of an infrastructure for delivery outside of Canadian borders out west, whether it is an Atlantic gateway, in the event that we have minerals and other products that need to go through the Great Lakes and out through the Maritimes, or whether it is in fact the gateway at the central part of the continent through Ontario, Quebec and the Great Lakes, we need to have an extension of the bill and the principles which it tries to address through the physical infrastructure that can only result in the continued growth of the Canadian economy.

As I said earlier, the bill does not punish anybody. The bill is designed to bring parties together so that the wealth of Canada, which contributes to the positive side of the foreign relations ledger in foreign trade, is an opportunity to be realized to its maximum.

I know that all members of this party, the official opposition, will vote in support of this bill at third reading for all of those principles that I have so humbly put forward. I know that the government is going to be supportive of this. I think even my good colleagues from the Bloc are going to be delighted to support it. All other good members may, but I urge all Canadians to get behind this bill.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the representative of the official opposition who explained his support for the bill and illustrated the importance of restoring the balance between shippers and the railways that own them.

I remember an earlier bill concerning these same railways and the noise and problems they were causing in marshalling yards. We did some constructive work on that one in committee too, and adopted very good amendments to balance the interests of railways and the residents and municipalities that surround railway facilities.

Unfortunately, even though a number of amendments improving the bill were adopted and the bill itself was passed as a result, the railways, which did not necessarily agree with the balance we wanted to restore, lobbied the Senate. In the end, the Senate cancelled the major amendments we had made. When the bill came back to the House, both the official opposition and the government capitulated to the Senate's supreme decision.

I wonder what happens next. If the same thing happens with this bill—given that these are the same railway lobbyists—what will his party do if amendments undo the proper balance we want to see in this bill?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. He wanted to highlight the rapport among the members on the committee, who work together to improve the Canadian condition, both commercially and socially. He made a reference to another bill, in which the circumstances were completely different from the current market conditions.

As a member of Parliament and as a man, I have never capitulated to the Senate. I think that the authority of the House of Commons is the most important one in the entire country. The will of the country is expressed in the House of Commons. I think that the voice of the people is the voice of God. It is vox populi, vox dei. Here, we talk about the voice of God. So, it is the only House in which jurisdiction is always respected.

I would like to thank the Bloc member who pointed out that members on the committee worked together to come up with a bill that can be supported universally. I would like to thank him for his work. He is a very good colleague.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question for my hon. colleague. I remember that a few years ago I asked him this same question when he was on the government side.

We have trains going through my riding, but only the odd crossing has bars and lights. The others do not. We keep hearing that in order to get full bars and have trains running silently through the community, it is up to the municipality to pay for that additional cost of anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000.

Does he not think it would be a good idea for the federal government, along with the railways, to assist the municipality in paying for this so that not only could we have enhanced security but all those members of my community could have a good night's sleep?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the memory that he had about us being in government. Those were good days. I gather that is what he was dying to say, but he has not said it, because we had a really good relationship at the time.

I recall that at the time I said to him, yes, when we are dealing with oranges we will deal with oranges and when we are dealing with apples we will slice apples. Today we are in the business of slicing apples because we are talking about a commercial relationship between shippers/producers and railways.

On the other issue, we are talking about programs that had to do with the enhancement of local communities. For that, we had a different program. I am glad that the member was at least being attentive enough to be able to highlight through me to the minister and the government that there is another need that is still to be addressed.

Good governments are not in the habit of washing their hands and deferring to someone else. What they typically do is thank the member for raising that issue. If the member wants it dealt with properly, all I can ask the member to do is encourage all of his colleagues and all of those who would associate themselves with his party to do the right thing in the next election and vote for all of those who are associated with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. They will see that good things will happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. The member should know that at 6:30 p.m. I will have to interrupt his speech to call a vote. However, the member still has approximately 8 minutes.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, which has been considered and is at third reading. I must point out, this was formerly Bill C-58, before Parliament was prorogued and the bill was at second reading. Committee work has continued during this session and we are now at the third reading stage.

The main purpose of this bill is to clarify the Canada Transportation Act and strengthen the existing provisions that protect shippers against any abuse of the commercial power of the railways. It relates mainly to western Canada's grain producers and shippers.

In order to make it clear for those who are currently watching us debate this bill, I think it is important to list the main aspects of it.

First, one of the purposes of the bill is to remove the requirement for the Canadian Transportation Agency to be satisfied that a shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm before it grants a remedy, as it is an unwanted barrier to regulatory remedies.

Second, the bill extends final offer arbitration to groups of shippers on matters relating to rates or conditions for the movement of goods, provided the matter submitted for arbitration is common to all and the shippers make a joint offer that applies to all of them.

Third, the bill allows for the suspension of any final offer arbitration process, if both parties consent to pursue mediation.

Fourth, the bill permits the Agency, upon complaint by a shipper, to investigate charges and conditions for incidental services and those related to the movement of traffic contained in a tariff that are of general application, and to establish new charges or terms and conditions if it finds those in the tariff to be unreasonable.

Fifth, the bill increases the notice period for augmentations in rates for the movement of traffic from 20 to 30 days to ensure that shippers receive adequate notice of rate increases.

Sixth, the bill requires railways to publish a list of rail sidings available for grain producer car loadings and to give 60 days notice before removing such sidings from operation.

And finally, the bill ensures—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. leader of the government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some discussion among the parties and I am hoping that the House will see fit to give its unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of this House, both Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission must immediately commence working together to ensure that the AECL NRU which produces medical isotopes be restarted as quickly as possible, in a safe manner, in order to address the critical shortage of medical isotopes occasioned by the extended shutdown of this research reactor at Chalk River.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. government House leader knows full well that there are ongoing discussions between the Prime Minister and the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I am wondering why the hon. minister would ask for unanimous consent before the talks are completed. As far as I know, these talks have not been completed.

In the spirit of cooperation, I ask that the hon. government House leader come back to the House once these talks are completed and we have been advised of their completion.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I do not want to get into a debate on this. The hon. minister does have the right to seek unanimous consent at any time. He is rising, so I will allow him a very short time to respond.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response, these discussions have been completed. I put the motion, and I believe that the member reflected the position of his party, that it does not wish to allow this motion to pass.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will allow the hon. member for Hull--Aylmer a very brief opportunity and then we will go back to the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of not wanting the motion to pass. It is a question of wanting to make sure that I hear from my side of the discussions that an agreement has been reached. If the hon. minister wants to come back in a few minutes to give me time to confirm, I have no problem with that.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will consider that matter concluded.

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan has two or three minutes before 6:30 p.m.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the final item to be amended by this bill. It is important to continue. The seventh aim is to ensure that the abandonment and transfer provisions apply to lines that are transferred to local lines under provincial jurisdiction and subsequently revert to a federal railway, including the obligation to honour contracts with public passenger service providers.

Those are the amendments proposed by the bill. Indeed, the main point of this bill has to do with the disagreements between the western grain transporters and the railway companies. Although this is happening outside Quebec, the Bloc Québécois is interested in playing a constructive role and always defending the interests of those who are not treated fairly.

Bill C-8 is an attempt to strike a better balance between the power of the railway companies and the people who produce and ship products, including grain producers, who do not own the rails and who have to get their hopper cars to destinations all over Canada. They feel oppressed by the railway companies. Thus, the purpose of this bill is to strike a balance.

The proposed amendments respond to the concerns of shippers—particularly western Canadian grain producers—about railway transportation prices and services, while also providing the railways with regulatory stability. It is time to improve the balance for grain producers, among others, who use their own railway cars. The Conservative government and the Liberals have often had the tendency of giving free reign to the market, with the result that some producers may have been exploited.

Various amendments also affect arbitration. The objectives of the Canada Transportation Act, prior to these amendments, required that the Canadian Transportation Agency take into account the matter of substantial commercial harm. Bill C-8 proposes to remove the reference to substantial commercial harm, because there was always substantial harm when the Canadian Transportation Agency had to hear the arguments of the railway companies.

In the end, those who do not own the rails lose every time. The railway companies always succeed in proving substantial commercial harm where there is none. That will now be subject to arbitration, which will be a means of settling disputes between shippers and the railways—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, as we must proceed with the orders of the day.

The House resumed from December 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation), be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am resuming a speech started on December 10, 2007. As a result of the interruption, I still have 10 minutes for the rest of my presentation.

This bill is currently in third reading. Its primary objective is to clarify the Canadian Transportation Act and strengthen the provisions that currently protect shippers against possible abuses of market power by the railway companies. It is aimed primarily at western Canada's farmers and grain transportation.

Bill C-8 tries, therefore, to strike a better balance of power between the railway companies and the people that produce and ship products, including grain producers, who do not own the rails but have to send their hopper cars all across Canada. These people feel oppressed by the railway companies.

The purpose of the bill is to strike a balance. The proposed changes respond to the concerns expressed by shippers, especially grain producers in western Canada, about railway prices and services, while ensuring that the railway companies continue to have a stable regulatory environment.

In addition to what I said last December, I would like to tell the House about a meeting I had with a francophone Albertan. In what is quite a rarity, we were treated to a fine presentation in French by the Alberta Canola Producers Commission—a commission that does not even have a French name. We were sympathetic to what it had to say because it represents 52,000 canola producers throughout western Canada.

What they want mostly from the bill—and this reflects the Bloc’s analysis as well—is the repeal of the requirement that the Canadian Transportation Agency must be satisfied that a shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm if relief is not granted. The provisions to be repealed prevent shippers from getting the relief currently provided by the act, such as the price of competing lines, which has not proved very effective.

The second point is to increase the amount of notice required for tariff changes to 30 days. Shippers will therefore have another 10 days to plan for increases, which is a more reasonable amount of time.

The third point would allow the Canadian Transportation Agency, by order, to establish new charges and associated terms and conditions on a railway company that wants to impose unreasonable charges or associated terms on shippers. Currently, shippers cannot challenge penalties or unreasonable charges for related services and associated terms and conditions when these costs are set out in a tariff. Demurrage charges are an example of penalties, while the weighing of loaded railway cars is an example of related service. Increasingly higher fuel surcharges that are arbitrarily imposed are also a concern.

The fourth point would establish criteria for the agency to determine the reasonableness of the conditions which, among other things, must be commercially fair to both the shipper and the railway company.

The fifth point seeks to set conditions for the return of railway lines to federally regulated railway companies.

The sixth point deals with the publication on the Internet of a list of available sidings where cars can be loaded.

The seventh point would add provisions to the arbitration clause, to allow parties to refer disputes to a mediator. The grain transportation sector must have a more balanced and equitable dispute settlement system.

The eighth point would authorize the shippers to join together to seek arbitration when they are not satisfied with the proposed tariff changes of a railway company. Broadening the scope of these provisions to allow shippers to file a joint complaint will help them spread arbitration costs. This is one issue that was raised, namely, that a shipper could not hold his own against railway companies when the time came to produce evidence before the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The ninth point, which is just as important, would institute an independent review of railway services.

A review is provided for and has to start within 30 days of the legislation taking effect. This review is vital to the canola industry, because it will be an opportunity to have service issues currently facing shippers subjected to an independent assessment and should produce recommendations that strike a balance between the responsibilities of shippers and those of carriers when service problems arise.

In a nutshell, we have also heard evidence from railway companies, which are totally in favour of a review that will promote a factual analysis of occasional and related costs incurred by grain carriers. These issues are not being addressed simply in terms of intentions or ideas. That is another important aspect of this bill.

I also wanted to point out that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill because it seeks to give powers under the Canada Transportation Act.

It is a good thing that we act on this because, in the past, we have seen railway lines abandoned. There is a need to regulate that to some extent now. Line owners operate them as they please, often hiking prices without notice.

One can understand from all these facts that the Bloc Québécois is very sensitive to the plight of grain producers from the Prairies and western Canada. We are also—there is no doubt about that—sensitive to the plight of Quebec producers. This is why we stand firmly in support of supply management in Quebec.

If the Conservative government defended the interests of Quebec producers with respect to supply management as strongly as it is currently defending those of grain carriers, that would make a great difference and would reassure our producers in Quebec.

I would like to remind the House of one thing: the Bloc Québécois makes no distinction between western producers and Quebec producers. Whenever we feel that the public in general is being taken advantage of by the private sector, we do not hesitate to step in and fully and constructively play our role as the opposition with the government.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will certainly be supporting this bill at third reading.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity, on behalf of the NDP caucus, to enter into the debate on Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act as it pertains to railways. We should note that it was known as Bill C-58 in the previous Parliament.

On behalf of my colleague from Windsor West, I would like to announce today that we are in support of Bill C-8. We will be supporting it at this stage of debate because we feel that it addresses many of the valid concerns that railway shippers have over the current conditions of the Canada Transportation Act which allow for the potential abuse of market powers by the railways.

We should point out that it is the view of the NDP at least that at the present time the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway have a virtual duopoly on shipping prices. It is a new word to me. It is not a monopoly but a duopoly. Their financial stranglehold, as it were, is choking Canadian shippers who rely on the rail system to transfer their products from the farm or the mine to the market. Currently, for those producers, transportation costs are their second or third largest cost for these bulk shippers. Under this duopolistic regime, these shippers have no alternative way to transport their products.

Our point is, even though there are more than 30 federally regulated railways in Canada, something I did not know until today, many rail shippers are in fact captive shippers. That is, only a single railway company offers direct service to their area. For these shippers, the rail transportation environment is not naturally competitive and in the absence of adequate legislative measures, a railway company could take advantage of its position as a monopolist in the region. That is why we are welcoming these legislative measures that will afford some protection to these captive shippers.

A monopolist railway would have the incentive to offer lower levels of service at higher prices, we believe, than it would under more competitive market conditions. We welcome this attention to the rail transportation system, if I might, because it brings to light perhaps a larger issue facing Canadians in that Canada as a nation made a strategic mistake 20 or perhaps 30 years ago when it chose to start dismantling our rail transportation system and putting the emphasis of freight on trucks.

If there is anything I have heard you, personally, Mr. Speaker, speak about in the House of Commons, it is the fact that for all kinds of good reasons, for the environment, for the cost factor, to save on fuel, we should all be trying to get the freight off the trucks and put it back on the rails to the largest extent possible so that most of its transportation, most of the distance that is shipped is shipped by rail. That will take a shift in mindset for Canadians. It will take an analysis of our whole transportation infrastructure in this country.

I welcome the opportunity to debate Bill C-8 today on the rail transportation system as it pertains to the Canada Transportation Act, but I also welcome and invite other members of Parliament to join in what could be a very exciting period and opportunity as we revisit the whole transportation infrastructure as an integrated network of transportation that will meet the needs of the 21st century.

In that light, in that context, I draw the attention of members of the House to a report that was very quietly released just a couple of days ago without much fanfare. Hardly anybody noticed, it would seem, and certainly the media did not notice. It is called the “Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative”, put out on behalf of or commissioned by the current Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway.

In terms of transportation, this is the most important piece of work that I have come across in my 11 years as a member of Parliament because it finally comes to grips with the notion that we made a policy mistake a number of years ago when we got away from railroads and started tearing up the tracks to smaller communities.

God knows that with the experience in western Canada, we have not been nation building. We have been tearing up the tracks. We have been abandoning communities in terms of access to rail transportation.

I should recognize and again credit the authors of this brief 40 page report, one of whom, Mr. Arthur Defehr, is from Winnipeg and the owner of Palliser Furniture, which I believe is in your riding, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jeff Burghardt and Mr. Richard Turner. This blue chip panel travelled the world and looked at efficient transportation networks, with an emphasis on Asia and on the revolution that occurred in transportation, shipping and freight, with the shipping containers and the new urgent need for Canada to get on board with handling these containers in a more effective, integrated approach.

The Asia-Pacific gateway is obviously looking at the ports and the terminals, but this report reminds us of the need and the potential for inland ports, for distribution terminals far away from the congestion of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Perhaps, and I put this to the House as a member of Parliament from Winnipeg, a place like Winnipeg would be the ideal location for a great inland port.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Or Timmins.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Or Timmins, Ontario, as it were, connected by rail, of course.

What we are saying is we have to think outside the box. Because of congestion, a terminal such as Vancouver is not going to be able to handle the millions and millions of containers that we anticipate flowing here from Asia and containers flowing out of here back across the Pacific Ocean full of Canadian commodities for export.

This is going to take a rethinking of monumental proportion. This is going to take some vision. The only vision we have seen in the transportation network in the last 30 years is how to tear up tracks, not how to build them.

The reason I raise this today is to serve notice to the House that there is a movement afoot in the city of Winnipeg to tear up the tracks in the inner city of Winnipeg and build a great inland port on the outskirts of Winnipeg that in fact will be a state of the art shipping container distribution terminal.

I have seen some humdingers. I have been to Shanghai. I have been to Indonesia and seen that state of the art container distribution terminal. I have been to Vietnam, and Fuzhou, China. Those terminals do not look anything like we have seen in this country. Those container terminals are like something we cannot even imagine. But this 40 page report shows us the way. It gives us a road map. It whets our appetite to investigate the enormous potential if we want to get with it and get into the 21st century in terms of an integrated shipping system.

As a member of Parliament representing the inner city of Winnipeg, I welcome this opportunity. If we do tear up the tracks that have divided historically the north end and the south end of Winnipeg with all the predictable social and economic consequences which flowed from that, and put those tracks outside the city where they belong, the opportunities would be enormous.

From an inner city point of view, the inner city of Winnipeg desperately needs new housing stock, new green space, new recreation facilities. This would be 250 acres, a subdivision in the heart of the city. If people would just dare to dream how wonderful it could be to meet these urgent needs and also to avail ourselves of this wonderful economic development opportunity of being the terminus, taking advantage of our geographic advantage as the very centre of North America, we could be the distribution hub for the continent.

Let me remind members that the full title of the Asia-Pacific gateway is the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. It contemplates the input of the shipping containers from Asia through Vancouver and Prince Rupert, from Europe and Russia through Churchill, from South America and Africa through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, all of it coming toward the true geographic centre of North America, which is Winnipeg, to be received, off-loaded and redistributed on a north-south corridor.

The Red River corridor goes north to south from Churchill through Winnipeg straight down to Texas, into Mexico, into South America. This is the vision of a great distribution network in which we could play a role and it starts right here. This is how these things begin, in the House of Commons with a little red report of 40 pages that was released without any fanfare. It is loaded with such potential that I can hardly convey it to you, Mr. Speaker.

Winnipeg has been a tale of two cities for many years. It is divided socially, economically and culturally by this great industrial scar right through the heart of our city. I am saying that we tear up the tracks, that we heal that scar, that we put in housing, green space, recreation. Let us get the tracks out of the city and rebuild a great distribution network, something that you as a railway man, Mr. Speaker, would be proud of.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am from Winnipeg North which is the other side of the tracks that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is talking about. He makes a very interesting proposal to this chamber and that is to try to deal with what is often considered an unsightly barrier in our city of Winnipeg, not unlike some other cities when there are rail yards smack dab in the middle of the city. It leads not only to questionable environmental and esthetically unpleasing sights but it also divides the city into the north and the south and leads to all the stigma that is attached to it.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been very vocal on this issue. He has had the courage to dream about a project that does not seem to be on anyone's radar screen or on the minds of our city, provincial or federal governments at present. However, it often takes a seed that is planted in a place like this for something to come to fruition.

From where does my colleague from Winnipeg see the support for this project coming? Could he tell us a bit about this recent report on the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor that he has talked about? Was this a report commissioned by the federal government? Is there some obligation on the part of the federal government to ensure that its dollars are spent wisely and that it sees through to the end the proposals recommended in the report?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for her interest and concern in this issue. I was looking at a play that was written recently by a friend of mine. Bruce McManus wrote Selkirk Avenue, a quite well-known work. Two babushka-wearing Polish grandmas are talking on Selkirk Avenue in the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg North. One asks, “What are you doing today?” The other points at the Arlington Street Bridge and says, “I go to Canada. I go over the bridge to Eaton's today. I am going to Canada”. That is how dramatic the divide is that has developed in my city of Winnipeg, because in 1882 it was decided to run the tracks right down the centre of Winnipeg and cause that great social and cultural divide.

From an urban planning point of view, my colleague is exactly right. There is a host of good reasons to tear up the tracks. There have been spills, derailments and explosions many times over the years. There has been contamination and environmental degradation. It has been an ongoing challenge to build and maintain bridges, overpasses and underpasses to go over and around these huge yards. And they are huge, we are talking hundreds and hundreds of acres of rail yards.

Finally, we desperately need the land for new housing, more green space, more recreation space. We want to use that land in the inner city of Winnipeg properly and not have it as an industrial blight. I have no objection to industry or development, but there are appropriate places for that kind of development, and the heart and soul, the core of our city is not the place.

The report that my colleague made reference to, commissioned by the Minister of International Trade, opens the door. It was finished in May 2007. I am wondering why it was only released a couple of days ago. I personally have approached the minister twice asking him for copies of it because we are all waiting for it. It is what opens the door for us and contemplates clearly a series of inland ports to accommodate this massive flow that we contemplate of shipping containers from all around the world converging, I hope, at the hub of North America, the very heart and soul of the continent, which is Winnipeg, Manitoba.

These container terminals are an awesome thing to see when they are well designed. If someone is trying to find a container with furniture from his factory, it might be 200 rows down and 100 rows over and up high. A computerized gantry will go and find it, pick it out and deliver it to him, so that no train and no ship is waiting more than 24 hours to offload or to reload.

That is the kind of vision we have to have if we are serious about attracting attention and being this distribution network. The railways will pick up freight and drop off freight if they do not get bottlenecked in a downtown core. If they can get in and out in 24 hours and pick up revenue, then they will come. Build it and they will come.

It is just a dream. It is just a vision. But it is exciting people because we are talking about the revitalization of the inner city on a scale--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The Chair hesitates to bring any debate about Winnipeg to an end, but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation), on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I would say at the outset that our party will be supporting this bill. Why? Because this bill, which has been discussed, amended, reworked and adjusted in committee, will provide a way to resolve a dispute that has been going on for a number of years between shippers and the railway companies—or at least, so we hope.

In recent years a whole series of tariffs has developed to counteract the Canada Transportation Act, which allowed for an arbitration system for disputes about the costs of railway transportation. That was permitted by the Act. Over the years, however, the railway companies have added what they called related charges to the shipping bill, charges that included parking, transshipment, fuel price increases and customs clearance. In other words, there is a whole list of charges that shippers had no say about; they had to pay.

Obviously, with respect to this dispute, Transport Canada had asked both the shipping industry and the railway industry to come to an agreement. For several years, talks were held, but no agreement between the shippers and the railway companies was possible.

It is important to say this. The railway lobby has been much in evidence throughout this lengthy process. They have lobbied based on the claim that this would destabilize the entire market. It is time for this situation to end, given that shippers are having to deal with only one transporter, as is the case for a number of companies located in remote regions, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, where the only really decent and safe way to ship goods is still the railways.

The Bloc Québécois has always come to the defence of railways. With globalization moving increasingly toward combating greenhouse gases, this mode of transportation is a good way of contributing to not polluting the way road transportation would do, for example. So the more preference we give to railways, the better it will be for the environment.

That is why, in our view, it is important for this dispute to be resolved. But will this settle the entire matter? Let us look at clause 3 of this bill, which will amend subsection 120.1(1) of the Act to read as follows:

If, on complaint in writing to the Agency by a shipper who is subject to any charges and associated terms and conditions for the movement of traffic or for the provision of incidental services that are found in a tariff that applies to more than one shipper other than a tariff referred to in subsection 165(3), the Agency finds that the charges or associated terms and conditions are unreasonable, the Agency may, by order, establish new charges or associated terms and conditions.

This is exactly what I said before. It would be possible to apply the agency’s decisions to any related tariff that did not directly impose transportation charges. The issue here is therefore the railway industry’s bad habit of billing for all the other charges so that they were not applied to transportation charges, which were subject to arbitration by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Second, this bill will allow several shippers to file a joint appeal of charges. That is the objective. This bill will affect our forestry and manufacturing industries primarily in their role as shippers. These sectors are experiencing very difficult times. The Bloc Québécois is the only real party in this House to defend the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Conservative government did not come to their defence. Rather it presented an assistance plan contingent on the adoption of a budget, without taking into account the gloom that persists in Quebec regions. This government pays no attention to the interests of citizens or of the real public, but focuses on being elected.

The Conservative members from Quebec prefer to rise and defend the Conservative Party rather than the interests of their citizens. That is the choice of the Conservative members from Quebec, but not of the Bloc Québécois members. We will never hesitate to stand up in this House to defend the interests of citizens who are losing their jobs. It is not right to invest in the military, nuclear and oil sectors and to not help those losing their jobs, especially in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. That is why, once again, we will rise today to defend the interests of the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

This is not going to solve their problems. Bill C-8 will not solve all the problems today. However, these industries have been afflicted by this irritant for many years. For too long, Transport Canada allowed businesses to do what they wanted. It is time to put an end to all tariff systems other than the one tied to transportation costs. That is what we are trying to do today by permitting the arbitration by the Canadian Transportation Agency of disputes concerning all these other charges. It is important.

No bill has ever had such universal support from the shipping industry. Quebec businesses were invited to appear before the committee, and they were represented by national associations, because there truly was unanimous agreement. The request was not to touch the bill as tabled, apart from a few amendments made in committee following debate.

So this bill represents a request from the entire shipping industry in Quebec and Canada. Obviously, part of this bill directly affects western Canada and railway transportation.

The Bloc Québécois will agree that disputes should be settled on a national scale. We are pleased to support this bill.

Once again, it is often the small details that steadily move things along. Once we have passed the bill at third reading, as we are in the process of doing, and it receives royal assent—soon, we hope—this little dispute over the other charges can be settled.

I repeat that this bill also addresses another issue. Several shippers will be able to submit a matter jointly to save money. Obviously, as a result, in issuing the order in accordance with the bill, the agency must take into account the following factors: the objective of the charges or associated terms and conditions; the industry practice in setting the charges or associated terms and conditions; in the case of a complaint relating to the provision of any incidental service, the existence of an effective, adequate and competitive alternative to the provision of that service; and any other factor that the agency considers relevant.

The agency has full latitude to take whatever measures it may deem necessary in order to settle the dispute.

For the railway companies, the bill aims to strike a balance. The proposed paragraph 120.1(4) provides that:

Any charges or associated terms and conditions established by the Agency shall be commercially fair and reasonable to the shippers who are subject to them as well as to the railway company that issued the tariff containing them.

Once the agency hands down its decision, the railway company shall vary its tariff accordingly. This is an obligation of result. It is very important that this be done as soon as the agency reaches its decision.

Why this dispute resolution? It is important that the railway companies also understand that the forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec and Ontario are on the verge of economic disaster. In the finance minister's economic statement, the picture of the forestry and manufacturing industries showed that they had been in a recession in Quebec and Ontario for two quarters.

Naturally, economists agree on this. When the situation facing the forestry and manufacturing industry is blurred by adding natural resources, which then includes oil company revenues, the problem is concealed.

That is what the Conservative government ultimately did. It did so in such a terrible way, by trying to suggest that the problem facing the forestry and manufacturing industry in Canada and Quebec was ultimately the same everywhere.

In distributing its billion dollars, the government did so per capita, that is, of course, per resident. With a minimum of $10 million per resident from the outset, Alberta has more money than Quebec to resolve the forestry and manufacturing crisis.

Once again, we denounce this Conservative approach, this manner of always acting in the interests of a few, rather than in the interests of the voters and citizens of Quebec.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the remarks of the member from Quebec, who addressed the economic situation of Ontario from a particular angle. This is important to us as we are facing an economic crisis. I agree with him that the government should be doing even more. He discussed how members from both sides of this House could work together to resolve the problem. While this problem is really a western Canadian one, it does impact the economy of our country as a whole.

I also appreciated that the member spoke, not as a Quebecker, but as a Canadian who cares about Quebec and Ontario as well. I am originally from Ontario. I am very aware of the challenges it is facing today. It is important that pressure be brought to bear on the government and the members of this House regarding the economic situation of Ontario.

It is the engine of Canada from the point of view of manufacturing. It is a very important generator of lumber, lumber industries and secondary products, perhaps not as large as Quebec and British Columbia but these sectors are very important for Ontario.

I share with him the concern he has expressed on our behalf, that the government needs to be much more implicated in the economic crisis of the day being faced by industries in the manufacturing sector, in the lumber sector and in other sectors as well, but I will only name those.

Has he tabulated for us some questions about specific themes that he thinks the government should present to the House, to Parliament and to all Canadians or does he want me to do it for him? If he does, I will be pleased to do it immediately after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation), be read the third time and passed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-8, which people will remember was previously Bill C-58 and which is an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act. We are dealing in this case specifically with railway transportation.

I have already regaled the House with the rich history of my family in that I come from a long line of railway magnates. My great-great-grandfather was John P. McNeil. The “P” did not stand for anything. It was just that every man in the village of Iona was named John so they had to distinguish him from his eight brothers whose first names were all John as well. There were John Roderick, John Francis, John Albert, John Alec and John P. They ran out of names because the Scottish only name people after dead people and there just were not that many dead people in the family.

The great John P. McNeil was a porter on the Sydney Flyer. My grandfather told me that the family did not eat at night until John P. came in. It did not matter how late. The kids would wait out in the hallway for John P. to come in. He would sit down and when he had finished eating, he would say, “McNeil has dined”. That meant the children could eat.

That is actually a tradition that goes back to the 1200s and even before that when the McNeils were on the island of Barra. It was a raiding base for the Vikings. The McNeil, who was the clan chieftain, claimed the right to eat before all the lords of the earth. That is an actual historical fact, not that any of my relatives ever lived in the castle. I think they pounded seaweed on the shore for a living and then were sort of unceremoniously removed from their land and sent to Cape Breton, where they had to find work. Some of them went to the coal mines, but John P. worked on the Sydney Flyer.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are waiting for me to get to the punchline, but I think it all adds to the story.

I do not know if John P. had many great skills, but one of his skills was that he could always tell that a bootlegger was coming into Sydney. When they were coming in on the train, he would say, “A man who has a bottle of whisky in his suitcase always puts that suitcase down with just a little more care than if it was just his long johns”.

Of course there was not enough work for all the McNeils, so they had to move to Ontario and work in the mines. The ones who did not want to work in the mines worked on the railway, the great Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway. Part of my long, illustrious history is that my uncles, Andy and John, were porters on the T and NO Railway.

My mother tells the story about their travel along that railway from Timmins to North Bay in the summer. They would load up on the car in Timmins with a ticket that would last them as far as Schumacher, which was about two miles down the road. They would have their sleeping bags and coats. Obviously they were going on a long trip. They were always terrified that someone was going to notice that their ticket was for only two miles, not for 250. My uncles knew everybody on the train and used to travel up and down the train line for free to go stay with the aunts.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are wondering what this is all leading to. It speaks to my passion and yours. I am very glad that you are in the chair because of your deep love of history and railway. I know that you will give me a little leeway to sort of draw out what exactly the point of this discourse is.

I would like to move forward now to the 1980s and my own interest in the railway. We are talking about the government and its vision for infrastructure. It is putting in all kinds of effort on the gateways and ports but if people ever travel across this country they have to understand that it is not just the gateways, the ports or the megaprojects that make infrastructure work in this country. It is actually being able to connect them to the various places that makes it work, which of course goes back to my family's history on the railway.

The railway plays an important role in connecting. We have seen over the last number of years how much of the railways have been left. In some parts of the country they are being torn up and there are other areas where we have not built the necessary infrastructure.

As I said, I would like to speak about the 1980s, when a famous Scottish band came to Canada. This is a true story, although I know it sounds like a joke. A Scottish band came to Canada. I think it was called Aztec Camera. The band members landed in Halifax at that great port and then flew to Montreal. They played in Montreal and then drove to Ottawa. They left Ottawa and drove along the great highway. When they got to Toronto they thought, “This is what we always thought North America was”. Then they were told, “Your next gig is in Winnipeg. There is the bus. Now drive to Winnipeg”.

About 16 hours up the highway on the way to Winnipeg, a highway consisting of two lanes of traffic, moose every 10 feet, trees and no lights, the road manager looked at the driver, who was Canadian, and asked him if he could not have picked the Trans-Canada Highway to travel across the country. The driver said they were on the Trans-Canada Highway.

Anyone who has driven across this country knows that long, terrible drive through northern Ontario. Northern Ontario is made up of some of the prettiest country in the world, but Highway 11, which I live on, is in a terrible state. It is the truck transportation route for this entire country. If goods have to be moved west to east, they have to be moved along that little strip of moose pasture that runs between the rocks. People in northern Ontario ask why so many trucks need to be on these two lanes of traffic when the rail line is sitting right there and half the time is empty. That is the issue in northern Ontario.

We need to connect the infrastructure of this country so we do not just have great port plans and great transportation links with our major trading partner, the United States. We need a forward looking plan to ensure that goods coming off container ships from the Far East can be transported across this country in an efficient, economical and environmentally friendly way. The train, of course, takes on an important light.

Our role in Parliament is to look at how to improve the transportation networks of this country. Bill C-8 addresses a number of concerns that have been raised by shippers dependent on railway transportation. Over the years shippers have raised many legitimate concerns about how pricing is done on railways and about access to goods.

They also have raised concerns about the duopoly that exists right now with Canadian Pacific and CN and their ability to basically call the shots for anything that is going to be shipped in certain areas of the country. This financial stranglehold has a major effect on competitiveness and trade.

Many people who ship goods, whether they are agricultural products or products being shipped out of a mine's large bulk operations, are very dependent on the prices they receive from CN or CP for the cost of bulk transportation. Under a duopolistic regime, these shippers have very few alternatives to get their products out.

We know that there are 30 federally regulated railways in Canada, but many rail shippers are still captive shippers who are still dealing with these two big players. We need to look at how we ensure fairness in a system that does not have major competition and a system where it is not practical to bring in competition on these lines.

One of the changes we are looking at is a change to ensure a little fairness in pricing and how pricing is done so shippers get a fair deal, whether they are shipping grain or copper concentrates to ports.

The amendments to the Canada Transportation Act in Bill C-8 would help address some of the shipper concerns about rail service and rates that have been raised time and time again while at the same time providing regulatory stability to the railways to encourage needed investments to keep our exporters and importers competitive in international markets. This is key. We really need to ensure that the railway system maintains a sense of strong commitment to invest.

As Canadians, of course, we want to invest in our railways because they do play such a vital role and they always have, the Brian Mulroney regime notwithstanding.

A number of the amendments brought forward in Bill C-8 were actually developed in concert with shippers who brought their concerns to Parliament.

We are looking at the regulatory impact of the bill. One amendment would remove the requirement for a shipper to prove substantial commercial harm before applying to the agency for certain competitive remedies. That is a fair amendment. It is unlikely to be abused because we are talking about long term customers of the railway.

We also need to allow shippers to jointly apply. Right now they can apply only individually for final offers of arbitration on a common matter. If there are disputes, they could be grouped together and thus would not be drawn out. A ruling could be received fairly quickly.

We need to give the agency the authority to establish charges or the associated terms and conditions that would apply to shippers for the movement of traffic or incidental services.

This also will allow for the suspension of any final offer arbitration process if both parties consent to pursue mediation.

Again, these are reasonable requests that are being brought forward to actually help address these longstanding concerns.

It would also permit the CTA upon the complaint of a shipper to investigate charges and conditions for incidental services and those related to the movement of traffic contained in a tariff that are of general application and establish new charges or terms and conditions if it finds those in the tariff to be unreasonable.

Once again, I think these are all fairly straightforward and reasonable.

This would increase the notice period for augmentation in rates for the movement of traffic from 20 to 30 days to ensure that the shippers receive adequate notice of rate increases. Once again, when we are dealing with large bulk transport we need to have some sense of security and some sense of stability in terms of pricing if we are dealing with products.

It would require the railways to publish a list of rail sidings available for the grain producer carloading and to give 60 days' notice before removing such sidings from operation. Once again, if we are going to take out some of that infrastructure that people are dependent on, we have to give the shippers some advance notice so they can begin to make other arrangements.

We also need to ensure that the abandonment and transfer provisions apply to lines that are transferred to provincial short lines and subsequently revert to a federal railway, including the obligation to honour contracts with public passenger service providers.

This is a fairly straightforward and fairly technical bill in which the government is trying to bring in these amendments. As I said, it is to give our shippers some sense of fairness in a market that does not allow very large scale competition. We all know that markets with more competition are generally ones that will favour larger investment and larger use, but certainly with railway, because of the incredible cost of infrastructure and also the history, we have the two big giants. We have always had the two big giants, augmented by many smaller lines and by provincial lines.

In my own region, the Ontario Northland is a provincial line that runs from Hearst. It used to be by rail but now it is by bus. From the Kapuskasing-Cochrane region and actually from Moose Factory the train line runs provincially down south to North Bay, and from North Bay south it becomes one of the CN lines. We are still moving provincial goods along that line. It is still a provincial railway.

It is of paramount importance in our region, because right now if we want to move out any of the goods from the mines, in particular the sulphuric acid cars that are coming out of the Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda and the Kidd Creek smelter in Timmins, it is superior by far to move it on the train lines.

These are massive bulk operations, so the shippers need to have some security. As well, we are moving out copper concentrates and zinc concentrates from the Horne smelter in Noranda and also from the Kidd smelter in Timmins. We need some stability in regard to knowing the pricing. As for what is being forwarded in this legislation, even though it is coming in on a provincial line, as I can see from my own region and our dependence on railway traffic, these changes are practical.

Certainly in western Canada the rail lines play an incredible role in the movement of goods and people. As we know, when we are driving across the country and we get to one of those rail sidings when the grain cars are coming along, we can pretty much read from one end of the newspaper to the other before the train has passed.

I am always thrilled to see those train cars come along. I see them coming to the port in Thunder Bay where they end the journey so the freight can then travel by boat. When we see how much can be transferred on those lines, it is truly impressive.

Certainly with the whole move we have seen to the container shipping system, which has actually revolutionized transportation and commercial dealings around the world, we in Canada need to make sure that our railways are in the game and are there with prices that shippers can actually trust so they choose the railway as opposed to simply putting their product onto our overstretched highways.

Whether it is provincial or federal, the investment in highways just has not kept up. In so much of our country, as I have said, we are dealing with two lanes of traffic, except on the busy 401 stretch. Having that massive amount of truck traffic has not been a bonus for our economy. It is costly to the taxpayer because of the impact on roads. We do have a railway system, but we need to ensure that system.

Before I close I will speak a little bit about the whole vision of a national infrastructure plan. As I said, the government is focused on the terminal ports and the gateways for trade, but in order to make trade work in this country we need a vision that says infrastructure and transportation go hand-in-hand. Whether it is the port or whether it is the highway, the two lanes of thin traffic that has to cut through the Canadian Shield carrying the goods, that has to be part of the equation as well.

Infrastructure also goes all the way down to a vision for our municipalities. They are increasingly having to carry the burden of maintaining infrastructure that used to be provincial or federal.

In my little community of Iroquois Falls over 30 kilometres of public highways has just been downloaded and called local roads. There is no base in the taxation to cover off the cost of those roads so they eventually start to deteriorate. It makes it very difficult to attract business to regions when the fundamental infrastructure, whether it is roads, bridges or sewage, begins to deteriorate because the ratepayers, average citizens, are having to pay for it on their water bill or municipal housing bill because there is no provincial or federal commitment to infrastructure.

We have to make infrastructure a priority in the House. The infrastructure deficit being felt across our municipalities right now is affecting regions of the country to maintain a competitive ability to attract business.

I had wanted to speak about infrastructure because railway is part of infrastructure and I will end on that and say that we are very interested in Bill C-8. We think it is a practical bill and the kind of bill that has been brought forward because there have been consultations with many of the shipping and trade associations, including the Canadian Wheat Board. I know that might upset some of my Conservative colleagues but the Canadian Wheat Board certainly felt that there were issues dealing with grain transportation and fairness of price.

We spoke with the Forest Products Association of Canada. We are hauling logs through northern Ontario. I know that in northern Canada rail plays a big part in hauling our wood, our finished products and our logs.

The Canadian Canola Growers Association is in support of this along with the Mining Association of Canada. If are going to do large scale mineral development in this country, at the end of the day we have to ship the products out and rail, by far, is the vehicle of choice to move concentrates or finished products out of mining operations to the ports, particularly the ports on the Pacific right now because the Chinese boom has certainly fuelled a major boom in base metals. We know that is a fact in my region of Sudbury as well as Rouyn-Noranda and Timmins. The railway plays an incredible role in the movement of base metals to serve the expansion in the Far East.

The Western Grain Elevator Association has shown its support for the bill along with Pulse Canada and the Inland Terminal Association of Canada.

At the end of the day, we are talking about some practical amendments to the Transportation Act to ensure fairness of price and that the overall dominance of the market by the two big giants does not come at the expense of the people who need to be able to ship products, who need certainty in price so that they can make long term planning decisions and investments in the economy that will help it continue to grow in the 21st century.

I look forward to seeing the hon. Speaker tonight at the Robbie Burns dinner. I know he apparently has some Scottish background. As one who also has a Scottish background, I wish him all the best, two days after Robbie Burns day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I thank the hon. member for his good wishes in that respect.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)