This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2013.
Denis Lebel Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act to require a railway company, on a shipper’s request, to make the shipper an offer to enter into a contract respecting the manner in which the railway company must fulfil its service obligations to the shipper. It also creates an arbitration process to establish the terms of such a contract if the shipper and the railway company are unable to agree on them. The enactment also amends provisions related to air transportation to streamline internal processes and certain administrative provisions of that Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-52s:
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to still be awake at this hour, at 12:35 a.m., and to ask my NDP colleague a question.
In her speech, she spoke briefly about the rural reality. In my region, the riding that I represent, forestry, mining, aluminum production and agriculture are very important.
Could she explain to the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who may be watching at this late hour how the NDP's amendments could have improved rail transportation in my riding and across Canada?
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for her very relevant question.
As we have already heard, many shippers come from the regions. For example, around 50% of local jobs are tied to the forestry industry and benefit from rail freight service.
I have an example of an amendment here that says, “include details on service agreement components”. These service agreements did not exist before, but now they do. If someone wants to refer to the agreement to see if there was a violation, they need to have access to the details. Otherwise, that would be tough.
If they do not have the information needed to verify that and take their case to court, if they cannot refer to these details, it is a bit tough.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I would like to hear her thoughts on what the government is doing.
Our party thinks we need to improve this bill and strengthen it. We proposed amendments that reflect the demands made by the industries that rely on rail service, but the government stopped short of improving and developing a strong, fair bill.
Would my colleague say that this is something we often see from the government? What does that say about how the government represents the concerns of Canadians and Canadian industries?
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Churchill for raising the point about respecting democracy in the House and in committee. MPs should consult people, take into account all the stakeholders who provided us with information and ensure that we are making fair and representative decisions in every area.
Shippers were not respected here since the bill does not make any mention of the six recommendations that they made in committee and that were then presented as amendments by the NDP.
What is more, the bill is still flawed. If the Conservatives wanted to be democratic and wanted to act in good faith, they would not have pushed through the bill so quickly. Earlier, the hon. member for Drummond was saying that the Conservatives were blinded by a short-term ideology. It is true that their ideology is shortsighted. It is so flawed that at some point in the future the whole bill will need to be reworked and we will have to get back out there and consult with people again.
The industry has lobbied the Conservatives. People from railway companies have put pressure on the government dozens of times. That is why the bill is so flawed.
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, Canada's agriculture and food industry creates jobs and promotes economic growth.
That is why our government remains committed to working hard to help this vibrant industry continue to grow. We are investing in innovation to allow our farmers to remain competitive, and we are opening up trade in order to help farmers get the best price for their wheat and barley crops.
Our government wants to reduce red tape so that farmers can spend their time working the fields, not filling out forms. It wants to help farmers increase international sales through the most aggressive trade program in our country's history.
Of course, if farmers are going to serve these overseas markets, they need efficient and effective transport systems to get their product to port, and that is what Bill C-52 is all about.
Last year, Canada's grain producers exported some $17 billion in world-class grain products, representing up to 85% of their total sales on the farm. These dollars not only drive growth on our farms; they also drive growth for our economy and jobs for Canadians, from combine operators to truckers to port terminals.
Our farmers and our economy depend on efficient, effective and reliable rail service to move these crops off the farm to our valued customers in Canada and around the world. In fact, last year Canadian farmers paid over $1 billion to move regulated grain by rail. On the prairies, grain travels an average of 1,400 kilometres to reach a port destination.
Thanks to the fair rail freight service act, the government is contributing to strengthening this vital link between the farm and the consumer's table. The fair rail freight service act also supports our government's program to promote economic growth and long-term prosperity across our great country.
Our government is committed to ensuring that all shippers, including grain shippers, can negotiate agreements that bring greater clarity and predictability on service. With this proposed legislation, we deliver on that commitment.
This bill is good news for Canadian farmers, and I am pleased to report that it has been welcomed by the farm leadership across all of the major exporting sectors in agriculture.
For instance, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said:
Passage of Bill C-52 will provide a legislative tool needed to make railways more accountable to its customers. It is a good first step in improving rail service and costs to industry.
The Grain Growers of Canada said:
We fully support the federal government's aggressive trade agenda and global commerce strategy. Timely and efficient rail service is a critical part of Canadian farmers' market access so this will help us be more globally competitive.
Also, the general manager of the Canadian Canola Growers Association said:
The railway is a critical link between our farms and our export customers. To fully capitalize on the new trade opportunities being pursued by Canada, shippers need this legislation to ensure Canadian agri-food products reach our customers in a reliable and timely manner.
Clearly, farmers believe this bill would help them grow profitable businesses by building a strong and effective supply chain. Bill C-52 would do that by giving shippers, including farmers, the right to a service agreement with railways.
The core of the bill is a new process to establish those agreements when commercial negotiations are not successful.
This provision will be a powerful tool for our agricultural sector, since it will strongly encourage shippers and rail companies alike to negotiate a commercial agreement. The fair rail freight service act will help farmers grow their business.
The bill would bring clarity and predictability to the commercial relationship between the shippers and the railways, and it recognizes the need for railways to manage an efficient rail shipping network for the benefit of grain shippers and the entire supply chain.
To put Bill C-52 in perspective, it is part of our government's broader commitment to work with industry to build a modern and dynamic grain industry in Canada.
Of course, marketing freedom for wheat and barley farmers is a key part of that strategy. The sky did not fall under marketing freedom, as some doomsayers had predicted. Quite the opposite in fact, farmers new-found freedom is breathing new life into the grain industry across the prairies.
Farmers are saying that wheat is a cash crop now, and that they can sell their wheat and barley when and where they want, locally or south of the border, at harvest time or later, whenever the market is right for them.
They can also maximize the profit they make from their crops by shipping their wheat as soon as it is harvested and freeing up storage space for other crops such as canola or peas.
The modernization of the Canada Grains Act is part of our effort to provide Canadian farmers with a 21st century grain industry.
These changes, which received royal assent in December, will reduce farmers' regulatory burden and cost, improve the Canadian Grain Commission's producer payment protection program, and eliminate mandatory services that are no longer required, saving producers up to $21 million in extra costs.
To ensure that we stay the course in this exciting new direction for our grain industry, the Minister of Agriculture has renewed the mandate of the crop logistics working group. This forum of experts from across the industry will work to improve the performance of the supply chain for all crops through stakeholder collaboration with a focus on innovation, capacity and measures of performance.
As well, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada continues to work with Transport Canada on an in-depth analysis of the grain transportation supply chain to make a strong system even stronger. Farmers, grain marketers and the railways are partners in a world-class industry that brings us the food on our tables.
Canadian railway companies and farmers have helped build our great nation. They will also help prepare our country for a bright future by delivering high quality grain to the world's steadily growing population.
This bill before us takes an important step towards a stronger and more efficient rail network to help farmers build their businesses and keep our economy on track. I am pleased that all members in this House are supporting this bill, because it is the right thing to do and it is good for our Canadian farmers.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to those who are involved in grain farming. One of the things I had the opportunity to speak to when referencing Bill C-52 was how unfortunately the government, as exemplified in this bill but also generally in their approach across the country including passenger rail, leaves Canadians shortchanged.
I will use the example of the cuts to Via Rail that services Churchill, a port, as the member will know, that has historically been very involved with exporting grain. However, as the Wheat Board was gutted, it has missed out as well.
I am wondering why this member and his government are willing, time after time, to shortchange those hard-working farmers in farming communities when it comes to delivering fair, equitable access to rail services for passengers but also when it comes to making sure that industries are able to get a fair deal on rail transport.
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the grain shipments through the port of Churchill have not changed dramatically. They have not decreased dramatically either since the mandatory Wheat Board was brought to an end.
I will say, too, that these changes to the rail transportation system do not just involve agricultural products. For example, I have a quote here from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada:
So this legislation is critical--not only for our industry’s competitiveness, but for Canada’s overall productivity and prosperity.
I also have a quote from the Forest Products Association of Canada that supports this legislation.
Although my speech focused on agriculture and grain products in particular, it is clear that this legislation that we are putting forward today addresses concerns in many of the sectors across Canada that rely on rail service for the success of their businesses.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am looking at some of the notes that we have. I understand that the railway companies seem to be opposed to this legislation. Meanwhile, the shippers are in favour of it. Here we are again with legislation that is a bit controversial. All that is going to happen with this legislation, and perhaps the member could clarify this, is that we are going to have more litigation and more delays.
How is the bill going to rectify this so that all parties are going to be in agreement? Is the bill going to make both the shippers and the railways happy with providing services to Canadians because ultimately that is who we are here to serve?
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the situation up to the tabling of the bill was that there was a lot of conflict between those sectors that needed to use the rail service and those providing the rail service. This legislation is meant to provide tools to both the rail service and to the service users in order to rectify any problems they may have. Particularly it was those who use the rail service to ship their products who felt they were disadvantaged, in that they did not have options at their disposal to fix problems that occurred when they tried to ship their products.
This legislation has come about after considerable consultation with both the rail service providers and those who use the rail service, in order to provide each side with tools to build bridges across their differences.
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The member will only have about five to six minutes.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had this evening to specifically commend and thank opposition members for being present and continuing to push life back into Parliament and the parliamentary process. The government has grown, with a certain level of addiction, to the use of closure motions, shutting down and cutting off debate.
What is most remarkable is that before any effort has been made to negotiate the timing and order of legislation through Parliament, which has been the custom of parliaments, regardless of their construction over many years, another closure motion has been moved tonight on another bill on which the opposition agrees with the government. Yet here we are with a government that not only wants to cut off debate formally, but also thinks that heckling is a way to suppress comments on its legislative agenda, or lack thereof.
I would ask the government House leader to contain himself for a moment. I know it is late, I know he may be a bit jagged, but the fact is this is of his own making, that members are all gathered and sitting here at midnight.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
He agrees this correct.
The Conservatives decided that this is the best way to pass legislation. Not only do they want to cut off debate, but they want to extend sittings until midnight because they think this is a productive way to run a government. Canadians believe otherwise.
The government is so scandal plagued and interested in getting out of town that it has to push the clock and shut down debate. There is yet to be a commitment from the Conservatives to sit out the calendar of this parliamentary session. Based on the experience of the most recent question periods, it is no wonder the Conservative Party wants to skip town as quick as possible.
Let us take a look at this legislation. My friends had every opportunity tonight to add their comments to the debate. I am not sure why they waited until the last three minutes of the evening to heckle me and my efforts to add something.
The government has purported two things in the legislation. One is that the bill is perfect. It must think it is perfect because it accepted no amendments. It did not change a thing because it felt that all the testimony, hearings, expert witnesses and shippers who came forward with recommendations and changes were all wrong. The only people who were right in the conversation was the Conservative Party of Canada.
Lo and behold, in bill after bill, in legislation after legislation, when we hear from witnesses, gather the evidence and put it into amendments, there is only one thing that remains constant, and it is that the Conservative Party is always right on all matters. They applaud with a sense of arrogance and entitlement. I remember another party that felt that certain sense of arrogance and entitlement, that got a little drunk on its power and majority status and in slow measure the entitlement to those entitlements led it down a path that was entirely self-destructive.
I worry for my friends across the way. I lament the Reformers who first came to the House and said things like, “We'll never appoint anyone to the Senate, we'll respect the parliamentary process and we disagree when the Liberals invoke closure on bills because we do not think it is right”. Lo and behold, those same Conservatives cannot be found these days. The inconvenience of democratic institutions and debate have somehow got in the way of the Conservatives' laser-like focus on their own agenda to the chagrin and lament of many Canadians.
Throughout the evening, the New Democrats have stood in their places and said that while they will not sacrifice the good for the perfect, this is an opportunity for the Conservatives to continue to learn that they are not the experts in all things, that they should once in a while put a little water in the wine and have a little humility to realize that when we go through the process of studying legislation, hearing from the actual experts who are going to be impacted and drive our economy, maybe they should listen once in a while and accept some of those recommendations and amendments. Once in a while a little humility would be a good thing. It looked good on some of my friends across the way to say that when governments achieved that sacred majority status, they were not given divine powers and they did not write legislation that was perfect in every comma and period.
Some of my friends apparently disagree, but I would suggest that in order for our democracy to function and work well, the quality of the conversation must be based upon the ability of those in power to actually listen once in a while. They should listen to Canadians, respect our values and our views and our country would be made so much better for it.
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It being 12:55 a.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
