Bill C-52 (Historical)

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)

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.

Bill C-52—Time Allocation Motion

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had listened carefully to what I said, he would know that I never said that our government had blocked anything. They are the only ones blocking things here because they want to take Quebec out of Canada and I totally disagree with that. I want a strong Quebec in a united Canada. This is not what the member wants. His party wants to prevent Canada from gaining ground in the province, while I want to ensure that all parts of Quebec and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region can reap the benefits of a growing economy that is capable of creating jobs everywhere.

No one ever said the project was blocked. We said we had done things properly, by the book, by involving the shippers and the rail companies. We set up a committee, a panel of experts who crisscrossed the country. Sometimes things take time, but I never said that it was blocked. He is making things up.

Now we have reached the stage where all the shippers in the country are asking us to do this. When business people, many of them from the area around Victoriaville as well as all the other regions of Quebec and across Canada, ask us to take measures that will stimulate the economy, well, that is what we do. This is why we think it is time for the bill to be passed.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that the minister is unblocked, finally.

That said, I think this is the fourth time in four days that I have risen to criticize this process, something that now seems to be standard practice for this government. They bring in a gag order to end debate.

What the Minister is not saying is that in 2006, the Prime Minister prorogued the House because he was about to be clobbered by the opposition parties. Such actions tend to derail bills. There were elections after that in 2008 and 2011.

Today, all of a sudden, on this beautiful May 29, we are told there is great urgency—in fact, we hear this every day. This is the fourth bill of its kind, and they are not trivial bills either.

There was Bill C-48, which dealt with all kinds of tax amendments, Bill C-49, meant to change the name and mandate of a museum, and Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. These are not inconsequential bills.

Now we have Bill C-52 before us. I believe the cat was let out of the bag yesterday when a colleague of the minister rose to say that they were ultimately not interested in what people from the various ridings had to tell them. What interested them was what they, the Conservatives, had to say on those matters.

In their view, once we agree on a bill, we should be quiet, stay politely seated and not say another word because, in any case, they are not interested in what the people of Gatineau have to say, through their member, on the merits of the issue.

Only three hours were allotted for debate at third reading. That is appalling. It is a hijacking, not of a train, but of debate. It is shameful. For reasons unbeknownst to us, this is now part of this government's normal procedure.

I do not want to know whether the bill is good, since we are going to vote for it. I want to know why we are being compelled to do it this way. To date, the minister does not appear to want to give us an answer that is sensible and acceptable, at least for the people of Gatineau.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recall a little history.

I had the honour of experiencing a by-election in 2007 and the general elections in 2008 and 2011. I am very familiar with the schedule of the last few election years here at the federal level, having experienced several of them. Indeed, elections may have had an impact on the progress of certain business.

Nevertheless, since the NDP members agree on the bill, they will still agree even if we debate it for several more hours. That is what the hon. member just said. We believe it is time to move on.

However, at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, they talked about the ideological struggle to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board, the degree of difficulty experienced by heavy-duty trucks between -40 ^oC and 40 ^oC, our government's inaction on railway security measures, cuts at VIA Rail Canada, opposition to the introduction of rail service, and so on.

I have four pages of similar topics that they discussed and that were not necessarily related to the bill being discussed in committee. When time is allotted to us, we should use it to address the proper subjects and to advance arguments that relate to them at the time.

At the committee meetings regarding Bill C-52, we discussed a range of subjects. I can name others: the potential risks associated with the transport of bitumen by pipeline, the national transit strategy, the closing of rail lines between Gaspé and Chandler, and so on. I have four pages of subjects.

If the relevance of the topic at the time we discuss it is so important to them, they should have set an example in committee. Today it is time to pass this bill for the Canadian economy. The government is only acting in the interest of the economy and the people who want to create jobs.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Strangely, as he looked over his documents, the minister appears to have forgotten the many amendments that were proposed and rejected. I do not want to get into that debate, however, because we are now discussing a time allocation motion. Day after day, minister after minister and bill after bill, we are witnessing the same thing.

I really feel as though the government is operating backwards. It is taking an exception and turning it into a rule. Since we are talking backwards, I will ask my question in a backwards way.

Can the minister speak on behalf of his government and tell the House what the acceptable procedure would be so that a bill on any subject at all could follow the normal process?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill will be voted on sooner or later.

I think the ideal would be for all parties to vote together in favour of this bill. I outlined the benefits of this bill a few moments ago in English, and now I will repeat them in my mother tongue.

The bill will give shippers the right to have a service agreement with the rail companies. If such an agreement cannot be reached in commercial negotiations, the shipper can ask for an arbitration process to reach an agreement. The bill also provides that in cases of non-compliance, the shipper can call upon the Canadian Transportation Agency to impose a financial penalty of up to $100,000 per violation on the rail company. The proceeds of such penalties will go into government revenue and help stimulate the economy. We do not want this procedure to be used excessively.

If the shipper has suffered excessive financial losses because of the poor service provided, the shipper can still bring a suit for damages. A civil suit is still possible.

This bill will force everyone in the supply chain to improve their efficiency, which will help ensure that goods move more quickly.

Those are the elements we are really concentrating on. We want to improve the service in order to create and maintain jobs.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the minister does not have the necessary influence in his cabinet to move this important legislation up sooner than it has been presented in the House, that he has to resort to a tool such as time allocation? Is he not showing the weakness of his influence in his own cabinet? This legislation has been waiting for seven years, and he cannot convince his own team to move it up on the legislative agenda.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a little absurd given all the delays to the schedule mentioned earlier.

Today, I am proud of our team's work. I am proud of what has been achieved since the last election, and since our work began on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I am proud of everything that we have managed to achieve together.

What matters today is not what I think, but what Canadian shippers think. I could read many more pages to give members a sense of just how proud these folks are of what has been done to move this bill forward.

I will leave it up to Canadians to decide who has influence here. It is my firm intention to win my seat again at the next election. We shall see what fate befalls this member.

We are capable of working very hard to move things forward. The member is the one who spoke about influence. We shall see how things turn out, since I am not the one who made this point.

That being said, we will continue to make sure that the economy prospers in every region of the country, including in Quebec—after all, I am a proud fellow from the Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean region. I want to work towards that. I do not believe that anything is achieved by attacking other members on their alleged ability or inability to get things done.

I think we worked hard. In fact, this bill is now at third reading. To those who feel that things have moved too quickly, I would say that things can never move fast enough when it comes to job creation and Canada's economy.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I would like to tell Canadians listening to me now that this government's attitude is a source of great frustration for me.

In just four days, there have been four gag orders. This is the 40th gag order. This is unprecedented and will make the Guinness Book of Records. It has never happened before.

On top of that, the Conservatives are proud of what they are doing. They are proud to silence members who were democratically elected by their fellow citizens. They are proud to shut us up and to tout the effects that their decisions will have on Canadians' lives.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Every time the opposition proposes amendments, the Conservatives refuse to take them into consideration. Why is that?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said many times in committee, we talked about this bill with a number of committee members from both sides of the House. We had many discussions and I would remind the House that, at the request of the official opposition, we talked about the major environmental concerns surrounding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles even though we were talking about the railway. We also talked about making passenger rail service more efficient when we were talking about transporting freight, and investing in public transit in Toronto when we were talking about rail transportation and developing a national public transit strategy.

I have a question for the member opposite. When we are dealing with something as important for our country's economy as allowing shippers to have agreements with Canadian railway companies—which they have been asking for for years—why do they not talk about that topic in particular? We could have made a lot of progress and the vote could have been held a long time ago.

That said, here we are today. We do not live on an island. The economy of our American partners seems to be rebounding. Nonetheless, between 70% and 75% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. and much of that is shipped by train. It is important to provide these companies the means to achieve their objectives and remain profitable.

Of course, we can meet in committee to talk for weeks and slow down the debate. However, at the end of the day, when we want to pass bills to help support the country's economy, we want to be efficient about it.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister asked why we are not debating the bill. What we are left is debating this time allocation motion. Again, it is the 40th one.

We want to debate the bill in committee and bring forward amendments. The Conservatives do not want to do that. They accuse us of delaying the bill. The Conservatives have a majority in the committee. They decide the witnesses. They decide how long it is going to take. They control the agenda. They are the ones who have delayed for seven years.

Then, when we bring many reasoned amendments forward to the committee, the Conservatives ignore them because they do not want to hear from the opposition. They do not want to hear from Canadians. Of course they bring up a list of people who are supporting the bill. All the Conservatives have done is throw them a bone. At this point, after this long, they will take what they can get. What they could have had is far more, if the government had actually listened to the NDP, had taken our amendments into consideration and added them to the bill.

That would have certainly made for a better bill that we could be passing. It would have a greater economic impact that would help more Canadians than what the government is doing.

I want to ask the minister a question. Why did they not do that?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote some representatives of organizations on this bill.

Jim Facette, president and CEO, Canadian Propane Association said:

The new legislation respects the commercial nature of the relationship between the railway carrier and the propane shipper, but also addresses the recommendations of the Rail Freight Service Review Panel. It contains all of the measures that the propane industry requested – the right to a Service-Level Agreement, an arbitration process should commercial negotiations fail, and consequences for non-compliance. The propane industry is pleased to support the Fair Rail Freight Service Act. It is our hope that the Act, coupled with recent improvements we have seen from the railways, will enhance competition and promote positive relationships between the railways and the shippers.

Greg Cherewyk, executive director of Pulse Canada, said:

Every step in this process is just that, a single step towards the goal of a more predictable and reliable supply chain that makes Canadian businesses more competitive in the international marketplace.

This is what business men and women want. They want to create jobs. They want to have this discussion and this bill done. That is what we will deliver for them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.