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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-52.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will not be selected by the Chair, because they could have been presented in committee.

Therefore, there being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

(Motion agreed to)

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

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

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for his tremendous leadership on this particular issue. I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who have recently concluded a comprehensive study of Bill C-52 and referred it back to this House.

The committee held hearings for the past two and a half months, hearing from dozens of witnesses: from the shippers representing the agriculture, mining, forestry and chemical industries, to the railways—CN, CP, the Railway Association of Canada and the short lines—as well as other important supply chain partners such as the Canadian port authorities. I am very pleased that the committee has examined this legislation so thoroughly and carefully considered all of the various issues.

Our government remains focused on creating jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity, and that is what Bill C-52 is all about.

Transportation plays a major role in supporting our government's economic agenda. It drives and attracts international trade, which makes it essential to ensuring Canada's economic competitiveness in the world. As this House knows, after years of neglect by the previous Liberal government, in 2008 our Conservative government launched the rail freight service review to get an accurate picture of how well the rail freight transportation system was working.

The review panel recommended commercial solutions to address service issues, with legislation to be used as a backstop if necessary. In response, our government committed in March 2011 to table a bill on rail freight service, and Bill C-52 delivers on that promise.

The fair rail freight service act would strongly deliver for shippers by giving them more leverage to negotiate service level agreements with the railways. This would expand the clarity, predictability and reliability they need to succeed in global markets.

This bill would amend the Canada Transportation Act to give shippers the right to request a service level agreement from a rail company. In the event that rail companies and shippers were unable to reach an agreement on their own, the bill would create an arbitration process to establish the terms of service that a shipper is entitled to receive from the railway.

Bill C-52 would grant the arbitrator the power to define, in a forward-looking manner, the railway's service obligations for a specific shipper. The arbitrator's decision would be backed by very strong enforcement tools to ensure compliance by the railways. In addition to the existing enforcement tools that already exist in the Canada Transportation Act, Bill C-52 proposes to give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to impose administrative monetary penalties on railways to hold them accountable for their service obligations.

During second reading, some of my opposition colleagues across the way raised some concerns about the bill that I would like to address.

First, there were questions regarding the ability of shippers to trigger the arbitration process. Bill C-52 is very clear that the shipper would trigger the arbitration process, not the railway, and the threshold to access arbitration would be quite low. To begin the process, a shipper would only need to demonstrate to the Canadian Transportation Agency that an effort had been made to reach a service level agreement commercially and that a 15-day notice had been served on the railway prior to the arbitration request. Then the shipper would present to the agency the issues he or she would like resolved and ask that these be referred to arbitration. In short, the shipper would get to frame the issues that were submitted for arbitration.

Second, some opposition members raised concerns that the level of the administrative monetary penalty would be too low. The level of the penalty would be significant: up to $100,000 per violation per arbitrated service level agreement. This amount is four times the level of other administrative monetary penalties in the act. If a railway had multiple violations, it could be fined many multiples of $100,000. This would be a very strong enforcement tool.

I would also like to speak on issues raised at committee hearings. As I mentioned earlier, during the hearings on Bill C-52, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities heard testimony from everyone wanting to share their views on Bill C-52: shippers, railways, ports and many associations that lobby for rail freight shipping in Canada. Overall, it is clear that shippers support Bill C-52. They overwhelmingly said that this legislation would give them more leverage in their negotiations with the railways.

There were some concerns raised by my opposition colleagues at committee, which I would also like to address. Some questioned whether force majeure clauses and performance metrics are captured in the scope of what an arbitrator could impose in a service level agreement. Transport Canada officials testified before the committee and made it very clear that both force majeure and performance metrics are included in the bill.

The shippers suggested some amendments that the committee ultimately judged, after careful consideration, as unacceptable. There were two reasons for this. First, many of the amendments were contrary to the approach to arbitration in Bill C-52, which would give the arbitrator broad discretion to impose the right service contract for a particular situation, in recognition of the fact that each situation is different and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is important for the House to understand that legislation is a very blunt instrument and rail freight service issues are often extremely complex. Therefore it is essential to ensure the arbitrator would have enough flexibility to impose a service contract that made sense, given the unique circumstances of each case. For example, shippers asked for changes to the level of service provision that would prescribe detailed service obligations for railways. This would limit the arbitrator's ability to consider the circumstances of each shipper and establish service agreements on a case-by-case basis. Under Bill C-52, the arbitrator would still be able to include every service element a shipper could ask for.

Second, some of the shipper amendments were not possible because of inherent legal risks associated with the proposals, which in some cases would be unprecedented concepts in Canadian law. The committee examined this very carefully. The shippers sought amendments to give the arbitrator the ability to impose pre-established damages or penalties that the railway would pay in the event of a hypothetical service breach in the future. This concept is not consistent with the way damages are handled in contractual law and it is not consistent with the role of regulatory agencies, which is to enforce compliance after an actual breach, not before a potential breach. It is also full of legal risks and would limit the ability of shippers to seek actual damages in court after a service breach.

Also, shippers asked that the arbitrator not take into account the railway's obligation to other shippers and users of the network. It is very clear that the way a railway serves one shipper will affect the service to another. That is the nature of the railway business. It would be completely irresponsible for the arbitrator to be denied the ability to consider the railway's network and its service obligations to other shippers. Such a proposal could have devastating consequences for our entire rail freight system, harming all shippers and threatening our economy. This is why it is important for Bill C-52 to require the arbitrator to consider the rail network and the railway's obligation to other shippers.

The railways strongly maintain that the bill is not required, given recent improvements to rail service. They warned about unintended consequences of regulation and the potential negative effects of government intervention on the efficiency of the supply chain. They are opposed to the entire premise of this legislation.

That said, the railways also requested amendments at committee stage, which were carefully considered. Ultimately, their amendments were also determined to be unnecessary. For example, the railways proposed to limit access to arbitration to only captive shippers, those that have no alternative means of transporting their goods. This amendment would unduly restrict access to service arbitration for shippers, reduce shippers' ability to establish service terms in a timely manner to address their business needs and conflict with existing shipper protection clauses in the act that are available for all shippers.

The railways also proposed an amendment to completely eliminate the administrative monetary penalties provision in Bill C-52. Again, this proposed amendment was rejected by the committee because it is important to ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency would have a strong enforcement tool to force the railways to comply with the arbitrated service level agreements if necessary.

The testimony heard at committee clearly demonstrated the extent to which shippers and railways have very different perspectives on these issues. This underscores the need for Parliament to assess their proposals with a view to ensuring that the fair rail freight service act would maintain its original focus, which would be to ensure that shippers would have the leverage they need to secure service level agreements from the railways, but do it in a way that would not undermine the efficiency and performance of the rail transportation system as a whole. Bill C-52 would do exactly that. It would support shippers' needs for commercially negotiated service agreements and would provide a legislative backstop if those negotiations were to fail. I believe the bill would strike the right balance for our entire Canadian economy.

I also would like to speak to those benefits to the economy. By working together, Canada's railways, farmers and many others who harvest and ship our natural resources have helped to build our great country. Beyond their own businesses, they drive economic growth and create jobs right across Canada. However, those in agriculture and resource production depend on efficient, effective and reliable rail service to move their products to customers in Canada and around the world. For example, last year Canadian farms shipped more than $3 billion in agricultural products by rail. By ensuring more reliable shipping from gate to plate, as they say, Bill C-52 would help strengthen the livelihood of those who produce food in this country.

Before this legislation was tabled, the shippers asked the government to include three essential elements in the bill for it to be successful. They were, one, a right to a service level agreement with the railways; two, a process to establish a service level agreement when commercial negotiations fail; and three, consequences for non-performance on the part of the railways. I am proud to say that Bill C-52 would deliver all three of these elements.

The range of support for Bill C-52 is broad. Consider these comments:

The Coalition of Rail Shippers said, “Bill C-52 meets the fundamental requests of railway customers for commercial agreements”.

Greg Stewart of Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd. told the committee on March 7, 2013, that the proposed legislation was “...a significant improvement and will reduce the risk” for shippers.

Jim Facette, CEO of the Canadian Propane Association, told the committee:

We believe this piece of legislation...provides a very good balance between railways and shippers. We're not coming today with any changes at all. Finding a balance is very, very difficult.... For us, it contains all the mechanisms and measures we requested some years ago: a right to a level of service agreement, an arbitration process, and administrative monetary penalties.

Mr. Facette also said that Bill C-52:

is viewed by the propane industry as a balanced approach to managing relations between railways and shippers, and the CPA urges Parliament to pass the legislation in a timely manner.

Also at committee, representatives from the ports expressed strong support for this bill. Mr. Peter Xotta, vice-president of planning and operations at Port Metro Vancouver, said:

...Bill C-52 is extremely important to Port Metro Vancouver.... Clearly, the establishment of service agreements through normal commercial processes should be encouraged, with arbitration as a last resort.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority noted that it:

...supports what we believe is the principal object of this piece of legislation, which is to ensure that there are agreements in place that provide clarity, transparency, and certainty both to shippers and to rail lines regarding the obligations of both parties in their roles in the supply chain.

The fair rail freight service act would help build a more prosperous economy. It would create a strong incentive for both shippers and railways to work together to negotiate service agreements commercially, and it would create a fast and efficient arbitration process if these negotiations were to fail to achieve the clarity and predictability that shippers need.

In conclusion, let me say to my colleagues in this House that we need to pass Bill C-52 as soon as possible to ensure that our rail system and Canada's economy are on the right track.

The proposed legislation would deliver significantly for shippers and would fulfill our government's promise to create a legislative backstop for fair rail freight service issues. However, well beyond the shippers, I would like to stress that the real winner would be the entire Canadian economy. By strengthening our agricultural and resource producers, the bill would build prosperity for many of the people we represent.

I call upon all members of the House to support Bill C-52, expedite its passage through the remaining parliamentary stages and refer it to the other place without delay.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. While it is clear that the bill would move the yardsticks somewhat for the rail shippers, it is also clear that the rail shippers themselves are not satisfied with the final result.

In particular, the rail shippers themselves feel that the economic might of the rail companies, one of which made $2.7 billion last year, would not actually be deterred in any way by an administrative monetary penalty of $100,000, which in fact is less than 1/1000th of a per cent of the earnings of one of these companies.

Also, they are concerned that there is no mechanism in the bill for them to be able to avoid suing these rail companies should there be a breach, whereas in labour arbitrations and in labour collective agreements, there is always a way for the smaller player, the individual, to take on the bigger player, the employer. That is absent from the bill, and we believe it to be a very large failing.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on that failing.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the administrative monetary penalty in this bill is actually quite significant, because it is not a one-time $100,000 penalty. The administrative penalty could be applied many times over the course of a service level agreement if the railway did not fulfill its obligations.

It is also important to note that this particular act, and I spoke of this, would not take away the ability for a shipper to go through the normal court process if it feels that a service level agreement has not been fulfilled and that has incurred financial costs. The shipper would still have the ability to go through the courts to seek a finding to force the railway companies to pay those final bills.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. We work together on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and we had the pleasure of studying this issue at a number of meetings.

The Conservatives have a habit of coming to committee with preconceived notions, and I find that disappointing. They do not really listen to witnesses. They do not ask questions to determine if the witnesses' testimony is relevant or not because they follow their ideology and their minds are made up. Pardon my language, but they just do not seem to give a damn.

The Coalition of Rail Shippers proposed six minor amendments that, in my opinion, would really help them. The coalition believes that even though the bill helps them and is a step in the right direction, it gives far more support to CN and CP.

I am wondering if my colleague is able to list three of those amendments. I sometimes get the impression that the Conservatives did not even necessarily listen to them, let alone really study them. Could he list three of the amendments and tell me why he voted against them?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments about our having preconceived notions is completely false. As a member of the committee, she would know that we ask many tough questions of both the shippers and the railways in asking them to back up their requests for amendments.

We talked very closely about many of the considerations they brought forward, and we addressed them specifically in committee with the witnesses who came before us.

One of the specific examples was the desire of the shippers to have the network not be looked at as part of the arbitration process. They did not want the arbitrator to look at the whole network as part of the process. If we do not look at the whole network and we tell the shippers that the rail freight company only has to look at their particular issue and does not have to worry about the big picture of shifting freight across Canada for multiple shippers but just their particular issue, we would have a situation in which a shipper would be tying up the resources of the railway for an undetermined and unlimited amount of time and affecting other shippers because they would not be able to get their goods to market.

Would it be fair that one shipper could basically hold many other shippers across Canada hostage? It is wrong, and it could be a complete collapse of the network if we allowed that to happen. That is one example in which we listened very closely and closely questioned the witnesses who appeared. We closely questioned the shippers.

We did go through a deliberate process. We looked very closely at the request for amendments, and we determined that those amendment requests were actually contrary to what they were trying to accomplish, and were actually even dangerous for themselves in many items. That was also pointed out very clearly by Transport Canada officials. It was one of those situations in which they needed to be aware of what they were asking for, because they might not be getting what they thought they were getting.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives obviously have a hard time understanding that rail transportation is a public service and one that is essential to the Canadian economy.

How can this government hope to ensure—with this incomplete bill that provides only some solutions—that our natural resources will be developed and exported in a timely manner and at prices that will help the economy grow?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear somebody from the NDP talking about resource development being necessary in this country, because so often NDP members stand in the House and say that we should not develop anything and should shut down all resource development. It is refreshing at least to hear that they have a desire to have resource development in our country. We hope they will get on board with some of our resource development initiatives.

It is also important to remember that the railways are an essential service. That is why the government did a review. We looked at the report and the review very closely and came up with a solution that serves the railways so that they can continue to serve all shippers across the country.

This legislation always has been considered as a backstop. We would love to see no arbitration cases ever come out of the legislation. We have now given an incentive and a little more strength to the shippers to be able to go to the railways and negotiate commercial solutions and commercial service level agreements. That is ultimately the goal of the legislation.

I believe very strongly it will deliver on that goal and I look forward to seeing the bill passed by this House and moved to the other House very quickly.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side we want to see resource development that takes our environment into account and creates jobs here in Canada for Canadians instead of flushing them down a pipeline to the United States to the tune of 40,000 lost jobs.

On this issue, 80% of the service commitments for agricultural rail customers are currently not being met. As well, 80% of the shippers are not satisfied with the services they are receiving. The shippers are so desperate for anything at this point that they welcome even the watered down and weak protections offered by the bill, which would be stronger if the government had listened to our recommendations in committee.

A few minutes ago the member mentioned that they had recourse to the courts. Of course this is important and valuable, but is that the government's solution—that companies should have to go to the courts? Why not write a bill that would not force shippers to have to go to the courts, spend money and waste the time of the court in trying to deal with legitimate issues?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they do have recourse to the courts, and that is something that is a final backstop. The administrative monetary penalties in the act are very strong, and the railways will be looking at them very closely. No railway that has to report to its shareholders wants to be paying fines in the millions of dollars over the course of the year for a failure to deliver on an agreement that it made. There is great protection in here for the shippers, and it allows the railways to continue to operate so that we can deliver the goods around the world for Canadians.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for many years now, whether it be grain farmers, forestry companies or mining companies, what they have wanted to do is to ship their products from coast to coast to coast so that they could get loaded into a container and be exported. Eighty per cent of the shippers have been saying that the service that they are getting from rail companies is not satisfactory.

Why is that? It is because in Canada there is really a monopoly of service. CN and CP control all the tracks. They do not compete with each other, and there are no other choices. Yes, perhaps shippers could use trucks, but imagine large amounts of coal or large numbers of logs being shipped by truck. It is just not feasible.

Many grain, lentil or soybean farmers and many in the forestry industry are saying they need to get their products to the coast on time. They need to have advance warning if a train will not be coming on time. They also need to be assured that if the service is not satisfactory, there would be some kind of refund or compensation. If not, there would be a complete imbalance of power in that the rail companies could say whatever they want, charge whatever they want, deliver whatever kind of service they want and not worry about losing customers. The market is completely skewed. We all firmly believe that competition matters and that shippers should get the right price, but in this case there is no competition at all. There is a complete imbalance.

What is happening is that sometimes with no or very short advance warning, the train does not show up on time, or if it does show up, it does not deliver the products on time. As a result, the grain rots. Sometimes the company hires a large group of people to get the grain, or whatever product they are trying to ship, ready to be shipped, and the trains do not arrive. What do they do? Some of the companies, rather than booking one container, will book several, one before and one after, because if the products do not show up on time, they do not get their product exported properly. As a result, millions of dollars are lost because of poor rail freight service.

Successive governments have said they understood the problem and would do something about it. They talked a lot about it, yet nothing has been done.

The Conservatives promised that action would be taken. They first had a stakeholder panel and did a study. That study consulted everyone, and it took many years. As the report came forward, the rail companies said they did not need legislation; they would provide good service, and we should not worry about it. The Conservative government at the time agreed, but suggested a mediation process, the idea being to see how it went and then, if that did not work out, it would introduce legislation. Most of the shippers agreed to give it a try, although they did not think it would work because of the complete imbalance of power.

The Conservatives then made a promise in the last election that action would be taken. Now, two and a half years later, we finally see a bill in front of us.

Last year I got very impatient, so I established a private member's bill. I took the stakeholders' report and all of the recommendations in it and put them into a private member's bill. The shippers looked at the private member's bill and thought it was a model for what should be done and said that if the government were to take action, that should be the kind of legislation that should be made into law.

Unfortunately, we have this bill in front of us. This bill is a start. However, it does not include a model of what a service agreement should be, which means that companies that have no service agreements have to start with a blank slate. Instead of having a framework, with a model, they have no guidelines and have to start from square one with no template to back up their right to service agreements. That is very unfortunate. Negotiations need flexibility, but they should not have to start with a blank piece of paper. Optional elements should include performance measures, communication protocols and consequences for non-performance. None of that is in this bill, which is unfortunate.

This bill would only cover those that have no service agreements. Any companies that have service agreements with CN and CP would not be covered, unfortunately. In terms of conflict resolution, the shippers want a process like arbitration that covers not only negotiations for new contracts but also violations of existing contracts. Companies could have existing contracts, but if punishments are not spelled out, how would those contracts be honoured? Conflict resolution has to be accessible and affordable for all shippers. Unfortunately, this bill made it very complex. For some of the smaller companies in the forest industry and farmers, it is going to be very difficult to access because of the process and the red tape involved in this bill.

One of the critical points shippers have been talking about is that there has to be compensation for non-performance. If their products are not delivered on time, there have to be consequences. Unfortunately, there are none. Shippers need to be compensated for contract violations, not just when an arbitration agreement is reached. Any penalties have to go straight to the shippers, not to the federal government.

What does this bill do? This bill says that if CN or CP violate a contract, and compensation is awarded to the shipper and not to CN or CP, then they should pay a fine. I think the fine is something like $100,000. The amount of $100,000 is too small, and the penalty does not go to the customers. It goes to the government. That does not make sense. If I am a customer, go into an arbitration process and prove to Transport Canada that the company was not providing good service to me, the customer, one would think that the reward would go to the customer. In this case, no, it goes to the government. In some ways, that is a bit of a tax grab.

Bill C-52 covers only new agreements and not existing ones, as I said earlier. This bill would unfairly exclude shippers from any protection and conflict resolution measures. Instead, they would be stuck with continued contract violations, with retribution.

I heard my Conservative colleague say that they could always go to court. Of course they could always go to court. Why do we need a government, then? They could go to court now, of course. The problem is that the court process is long, involved, and expensive. Companies would end up spending most of the money on lawyers rather than on producing better products for their customers.

What does all of this mean? It means that a lot of Canadian customers, whether they are logging companies or grain farmers, are saying that it is hurting their exports. It is hurting Canada's productivity. It is costing our economy millions of dollars. Because they have no say over how the pricing works, they were hoping that this bill would not just talk about the service but would talk about the pricing.

We could have the best service, but if the price is too high and farmers cannot afford to ship their grain, what good is it? Unfortunately, that key component is missing from the bill in front of us. It deals only with service, service contracts and service agreements but not with pricing. That big chunk still has to be tackled through the Canada Transportation Act.

We need to know what fair pricing is. Right now, we do not know, and the government has not tracked it. We also need to know what kind of performance standards should be acceptable. There needs to be a model so that people could learn from best practices. That, too, is missing.

Yes, the shippers were happy that there was finally some kind of legislation, weak though it is. They want it passed. However, the coalition of all rail shippers came together and said that they wanted a series of amendments. They did a lot of good work. They came to the transport committee and they proposed six areas to work on.

They want to tackle the problem of what should be in the service level agreements. They want to make sure that they are legally protected. They want to allow shippers to include arbitration conflict resolution in service level agreements for non-performance. They want protection from additional service charges. That is important, because we can have an agreement, but if service charges are laid on all of a sudden, it is very difficult for shippers to plan ahead.

They want to narrow the arbitration to what the shippers' complaints are about and not allow the rail companies to broaden the scope of the arbitration. It is hard to believe that this bill, which is supposed to support the shippers, would allow shippers to put in their complaint after which CN and CP could say that they too have things to put on the table, which they could do. The shippers are slightly worried about that. I do not blame them. It is almost like protection against retaliation. If they dare challenge the CN and CP monopoly and dare to say that the service is not up to par and they take it to arbitration, CN and CP could retaliate and cost them a lot of money.

Remember, CN had a $3-billion profit last year, so it is not doing too badly. CP will also begin to have a profit margin.

The shippers' last recommendation was to lighten the burden of proof on shippers to demonstrate that they are captive during the arbitration.

Those are the six recommendations they had. They provided detailed support and documentation. They looked at the bill very carefully. They hired lawyers and different companies, whether they were logging and forestry industries, Canada Post, or the coalition itself, which all came in and said that this would make the bill much stronger.

Unfortunately, without much debate, without much deliberation, the Conservative majority on the transport committee said no and voted down all of the recommendations. That is really unfortunate. In some ways it is a betrayal of the good faith of these companies. They have been waiting for years for action. They have been waiting for legislation. They have been very patient. They waited for over a year for the negotiator, Mr. Dinning, to be appointed. They waited a year, because the Conservatives were not doing anything. Right after the election, the Conservatives had a blueprint showing how to go forward, but they did nothing. A year later, they appointed Mr. Dinning. The report took a long time, and this legislation has taken a long time.

Flawed as the legislation is, we as New Democrats support the bill, because it is better than nothing, but there is a lot of room for improvement.

Ultimately, Canada needs two pieces of legislation. The first piece of legislation would regulate and would clearly indicate to CN and CP what the performance standards should be, what the arbitration process should be, what kind of service contract should be given to the shippers, and what the results, the consequences, the penalty would be if the company failed to satisfy customers.

We also need a second piece of legislation that would provide a level playing field and deal with pricing. How much should it really be? How much should it cost? What would be the upper and the lower range? We need to let the market dictate pricing, but because the market is completely skewed right now, there is no competition. The government needs to step in and provide the support Canadian companies are desperately looking for.

All of the products Canada exports require a good transportation system, whether one is a small soybean farmer or one is shipping lentils or logs outside Canada. More and more oil is being shipped by rail. Rail service is good for the environment. It is an efficient way of moving things. We would prefer to see more train service rather than more trucks. As a result, the NDP believes that the Canada Transportation Act must be amended so that there is a level playing field for all shippers.

We support the bill, but we wish the Conservatives would listen to their constituents and these companies a lot more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide comment on the shippers' expectations since 2008, when they expected the government to take some action on the issue. It was a couple of years later that the panel ultimately pointed out the degree to which some legislation needed to be brought in. Initially it was expected that something was going to be put in place that would allow shippers to be on a more level playing field. Today shippers are disappointed that the government has not gone far enough.

I wonder if my colleague could provide some specific comment with regard to those expectations.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the shippers have been voicing their discontent since 2007. A talk-it-out-and-wait tactic was employed, starting with the promise of an expert panel review. The freight rail service review started in 2008 and the independent expert panel's final report was tabled in early 2011. There were a lot of pent-up expectations. In the fall of 2011, the Conservatives started a mediation process. It did not yield any results. CN and CP were unwilling to make any meaningful concessions. The mediation process was led by retired Conservative politician, University of Calgary Chancellor Jim Dinning. It failed. Mr. Dinning released a report in June 2012. Then the Minister of Transport promised legislation in the fall.

We gave the government a model piece of legislation using the expert panel's recommendations. Perhaps the CN and CP lobbying effort was too powerful and as a result they were successful. There were dozens of documented visits to government offices. A media campaign undertaken by CN showed its determination to keep the status quo.

It is quite unfortunate that we have such a watered-down bill as a result. There is massive disappointment in the industry. However, they see it as a first step. Hopefully, there will be better legislation in the future when the NDP form the government in 2015.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition critic for her support of the bill. As she mentioned it is an important bill and we have had a lot of consultation with respect to it.

I would also note that it is supported by Pulse Canada, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Fertilizer Institute, the canola growers, the western Canadian grain growers. There is a very broad level of support for this bill.

I am happy that the NDP members are supporting it. I wonder if the critic will work with her colleagues to help them understand just how important the bill is and if we can expect them to work with us to get the bill passed as soon as possible.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after we have been pushing the minister for five years, since I became the transport critic, I have personally been writing letters, bills and working with the Coalition of Rail Shippers. I have met with all of them and they do support it. On February 20 they provided a comprehensive list of recommendations, not just for the NDP but for every member of Parliament in every party. It lists the problem, why it is a problem and then a fix. It was very clear. They took the bill, dissected it and made very clear recommendations. None of what they wanted went into it. They do want some action. However, they certainly want to be listened to.

One aspect of the consultation process is to hear and listen. It makes no sense to consult and then not listen to any of the recommendations. These shippers came to the transport committee and we consulted with them, but none of their recommendations were accepted, which is unfortunate.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her excellent work on this bill and on all of the shippers' concerns.

I would note that very recently, in fact, there have been difficulties with shipments out of this country to other countries, which is indicative, I think, of the problems that we have with the bill. Bill C-52 corrects some of the problems, but it does not correct all of the problems. The shippers are not universally happy with the results.

The NDP agrees that we are a trading nation. However, if, as a trading nation, Canada has an inefficient and outdated service model for delivering goods to its ports, we cannot compete and we will lose in the overall trading field in the rest of the world.

I wonder if the member would like to comment further on our position in the world with regard to trade when it comes to things like Bill C-52 and our attempts to make it better.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to have a successful export policy, and for Canada to have a good reputation around the world as being a country that knows how to export, we have to deliver products on time. We cannot say that we will send a number of containers of logs or tonnes of grain, but then have the containers not show up on time. Therefore, it is critically important for our export market to have a good transportation system.

Unfortunately, a fundamental weakness with Bill C-52 is with the outline of the arbitration process, which could not only be too expensive for some shippers, but the option of arbitration is only available when contract negotiations fail and not in the case of violations to existing service level agreements.

For example, if CN promised a certain performance standard through the service agreement and violated that service agreement, that should automatically trigger arbitration. However, in this case, the bill does not say that. The bill says that one can only go into the arbitration process when the contract negotiation fails, which could take a long time, could be very costly and it is not exactly what the shippers want.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, CN was privatized in 1995. Would it not have made more sense, at that time, to establish a policy to protect Canada's economic interests instead of just sacrificing a public asset to neo-liberalism?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect question.

Yes, that would have been the time to set all the legislation in place. It would also have been the time to make sure that there was VIA Rail legislation, which we still do not have. As a result, passenger rail service is declining at a time when other countries around the world are increasing their passenger rail services.

Remember, more than 70% of all goods in Canada are shipped by rail. If we do not have good rail service, we do not have good export capabilities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the true reason we have this bill before us today. It is not because the government wants to provide good, sound legislation. Yes, there is some reason to be encouraged by the legislation we are debating today, but let there be no doubt that the government has fallen short. The bottom line is that there is some legislation likely to be passed at some point in the near future that would improve upon the system, but it not something that has been driven by the government.

Virtually since 2007, maybe even a year or two prior, possibly during the organizing of shippers, stakeholders who have an interest and felt that there needed to be something done in terms of legislation, ultimately came together. They started not only to put pressure on government, but also to ensure that opposition parties were in that loop, so that shippers and all Canadians would benefit by good, sound legislation.

When we think of those stakeholders, individuals or organizations, we are talking about industries such as agriculture, forestry, minerals, chemicals, fertilizers, oil and gas, and of course, our manufactured goods. These are all critical industries from coast to coast to coast that need to be recognized in terms of their valuable economic impact for all Canadians. It has taken years now for the government to take action. It is safe to say that the government could have acted on this issue much more quickly. That is something that I would ultimately argue. I would point out a couple of thoughts in terms of the legislation, but let there be no doubt that the only reason why we have it today is because of the efforts of those industries and their appeal to government and opposition parties that we need to get this legislation not only introduced, but ultimately passed.

I would then argue that we had a wonderful opportunity to deal with the issue in such a fashion that it could have made even that much more of a positive impact. In fact, when the government first introduced the legislation, there was quite a sense of yes, finally it is there. Then there is an expectation, especially when it deals with the service level agreement, which was absolutely critical in terms of seeing any type of legislation brought to the floor of the House. That was a critical and absolute necessity in order to move forward.

The government has now had ample time to come up with the single, largest, most important component, the service agreement. Even though it is in the legislation and that is why initially there was a great deal of support for it, a lot of that support has dwindled. It is not as enthusiastic as it could have been or should have been. That is because we start to see that the government really did nowhere near what it could have done in introducing this legislation.

I know the deputy leader of the Liberal Party on numerous occasions, whether in question period or different addresses to the House, has talked about the importance of our railways and the services they provide, as no doubt all members of Parliament will.

I know the member for Wascana has felt very passionate about this issue and has done a fabulous job in representing the position of the Liberal Party of Canada on this. We have emphasized how critically important it is that we get this legislation. While the government sat and waited, the member for Wascana continued to raise the profile of this issue, whether it was inside or outside the House because we recognized what the industry stakeholders had said.

If members want take a look at those industries, some of which I listed a few minutes ago, they could easily understand why it is such a critically important issue. We are talking about the transportation of goods not only from east to west but also from north to south and around the world through our ports. It is critically important to each and every person who calls Canada their home that we do the right thing.

One could question why it took the government as long as it did to bring this legislation forward. Suffice to say, we do see it as a step forward, and therefore the Liberal Party will in fact support Bill C-52.

However, if the government had listened to what took place in committee, let there be no doubt, we would have better legislation. At the report stage, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party tried to bring in three amendments that would have dramatically improved the legislation.

The government has been afforded the opportunity to support good amendments that have been brought forward but, for whatever reason, it has chosen not to. I suspect there might be a philosophical twist to it that comes out of the Reform Party days, where the Conservative Party originated, which does not necessarily speak to the interests of all Canadians, but rather to a specific group of individuals in Canada. One could question why the government did not recognize the importance of those amendments and allow them to pass.

I would like to make reference to one specific amendment. This was made an hour or so ago, and was yet another attempt, not the first attempt, by the deputy leader of the Liberal Party to improve the legislation. It was to amend clause 11. We wanted to add the following to paragraph (2):

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents the arbitrator from including in his or her decision terms providing for compensation payments to be made by the railway company to the shipper in the event of losses incurred by the shipper as a result of any failure by the railway company to fulfill its service obligations as provided under section 169.31.

This is not the only time the deputy leader of the Liberal Party has attempted to get that included in the legislation. An attempt was also made in the committee stage.

One has to question the government about why it would not. Is it not concerned about the shipper? All this amendment would have done was allowed the discretion of the arbitrator to say that given what had taken place, some of that money should be allowed to directly flow to the shipper. After all, in most cases if not all, the arbitration process will be triggered by the shipper. The individual that is most handicapped, the individual that is not on the level playing field, is the shipper.

It is a legitimate question to pose for the government. If it recognized the efforts that the shipper had put in, not only the preparation in the advocacy role of the legislation and the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of collective hours that would be put into this whole process, why then was the government not prepared to listen to what was said? Why does the government, this Reform-Conservative government, not see the value of at least allowing this amendment to move forward?

At the end of my comments I will be provided the opportunity to answer questions. I would welcome any government member to stand in his or her place to explain to the shippers why they should not be allowed any sort of compensation directly to them from an arbitrator of some sort that would allow them to be compensated. I would have thought this would be a positive thing.

Members do not have to just listen to the Liberal Party. I suspect that if members listened to some of the individuals who presented to the panel or at the committee stage when the bill was in committee, they would have heard the same sort of response, the response that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the amendment that had been suggested by the member for Wascana.

The Liberal Party will support Bill C-52, but the government has made a mistake by not going far enough. We are not too late to improve the system, if the government really and truly wants to. We have seen this in the past.

The member for Wascana, on behalf of the Liberal Party, introduced a few amendments, three of which we attempted to bring in at report stage on this bill. It is not too late. The bill still has to, technically, go through the Senate. We have seen this before when the member for Mount Royal, the critic from the Liberal Party, made amendments in the House and they were soundly rejected. However, then the Senate, in its wisdom, was able to incorporate virtually the identical amendments that strengthened the legislation.

I am an optimist. I hope the government will not only look at the amendment that we attempted to move today, but will consider some of those other amendments that would ensure a level playing field for the different stakeholders to which this legislation hopes to appeal. I hope the government is listening on that point because it is still not too late.

The railway freight review process really began in 2008. There was a commitment in 2008; then a panel would have been appointed in 2009, and then we had the report in 2010.

One of the most important aspects of the report, which I took note of, was a statement that shippers were getting the railway services they had ordered approximately 50% of the time. Imagine shippers knowing that once they deliver their product to where it needs to be picked up by the rail line to get it to its destination, 50% of the time something goes wrong so they cannot make a commitment. That is very telling.

The rail line companies have had plenty of opportunity over time, in a good faith manner, to resolve the many different outstanding issues. However, if I am a producer of commodity X and can get my product to the station, but 50% of the time there will not be a car even though it was pre-booked, what do I do, as a shipper? For shippers, that is a truly amazing situation. This is one of the reasons this legislation is important. It has raised issues of that nature.

We recognize the right to have a service level agreement. These service level agreements are absolutely critical for the government to have incorporated into the legislation. If we talk to the stakeholders, what we will find is that an unlevel playing field allows them very limited flexibility in competition. The competition is even becoming that much scarcer. There is the whole issue of rail line abandonment and improvement of our rail lines. I could probably spend a great deal of time talking about that.

In some regions in Canada, particularly in our Prairies, it is amazing how the concentration of rail lines has taken place. There was a time when we could travel all over the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and a good part of Alberta, and we would see all sorts of rail lines that would feed into the main line. They would go to places such as locations of commodities in our agricultural community. We would have many of these wooden elevators seen in many pictures and postcards of that rural lifestyle that was there. We have seen a much higher concentration of rail service taking place in selected areas, which many would argue would make it a whole lot more cost efficient, but none of those cost benefits seem to go down to the producer or to the shippers. However, that is an argument for which I would need an extra 20 minutes or so.

The government has really lost an opportunity to do the right thing, a better job. That is what the deputy leader of the Liberal Party attempted to do.

We can make this legislation better, and if we did that, not only would shippers benefit but, I would argue, all people who call Canada their home from coast to coast to coast would directly benefit if the government were prepared to do the right thing and accept amendments to this legislation. At the end of the day, it would be great to have a piece of legislation that would do so much more for our communities than it might be doing.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, every time the member speaks, he brings in the Reform Party of Canada as if it was a disease of some sort. Somehow the millions of Canadians in western Canada who voted for the Reform Party in 1993 and 1997, the Alliance Party in 2000 and 2004 and then the Conservative Party in 2006, 2008 and 2011 were not smart and their votes are meaningless. This is something that permeates the Liberal mindset. Western Canadians just are not smart enough, according to the Liberal Party of Canada. We hear that from its leader.

When we talked about liberating western Canadian grain farmers, the western Canadian grain farmer was not smart enough and the Liberal Party knew better than they did. It continues on in every single thing it does. It is an attitude that western Canadians and anybody who thinks differently from the Liberal Party must be wrong. It is why the Liberals went from here to there and now to a small corner in the House of Commons: because they are arrogant, they do not care about the people of this country and they always think they are right. It kills them that the NDP is the official opposition because they do not deserve to be there and Liberals are smarter than everybody else.

They do not know about trade. In the years they were in government in this country, did they ever sign a trade deal? No. Did they ever fix the rail service? No. They talk a good game, but when they have the opportunity, they do nothing. They do absolutely nothing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's perspective very interesting. I could take a look at what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did for western Canada and compare that to what the current Prime Minister has done. Has the member ever heard of the Canadian Wheat Board? Did he ever represent what wheat farmers were saying about what the Conservative government did with the Wheat Board? We had a law that said the prairie grain farmers would have a plebiscite. What did the Reform-Conservative Prime Minister say? He completely forgot about the law. He said we did not have to have a referendum, even though he knew a majority of the prairie farmers wanted to retain the Wheat Board. He was too scared to allow that referendum to occur, because if he had allowed it, he knew he would have lost, and he did not want to lose. He wanted to put his own philosophical Reform agenda ahead of what the prairie grain farmers really wanted.

That is the reality of it. The member can try to spin it any way he wants, but the Liberal Party today better represents the Prairies than the current Prime Minister and the Conservative caucus. That is the reality. It is demonstrated in their attitudes to what they did with the Canadian Wheat Board. The Liberal Party does not have to make—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the House would give consent to allow him to continue to speak about how well Mr. Trudeau treated western Canada and the achievements of that government in helping bring down western Canadians, who had worked so hard to build such a great country. If we give him unanimous consent to continue to talk—

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is obviously not a point of order.

The member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am glad the member is prepared to give unanimous support for me to talk about one of Canada's greatest prime ministers, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I would be more than happy to talk endlessly about—

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Liberal colleague for his speech. I want to know whether he realizes that by selling CN at a low price in 1995, the Liberals of Canada made matters worse for shippers and set the stage for a monopoly. They missed the opportunity to create a competitive environment by ensuring that the rail transportation system remained public. Does the member realize that by selling CN at a low price, the Liberals sold Canada's soul?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if the NDP's policy is to nationalize CN rail.

I know that when the Conservatives privatized Manitoba telephone systems, there were many NDP MLAs who stated that they were going to re-nationalize the Manitoba telephone system, which they of course failed to do. They have been in government now for 12 or 13 years and they have never done that.

I would be interested to know if their policy now is to nationalize one of Canada's railways and, I suspect, its railway lines? If the answer to that is yes, I would not suggest that Canadians hold their breath on that particular point.

What we need to recognize is that we had the different stakeholders, including the shippers themselves in 2007, who came not only to the government but to opposition parties. They said "here is the issue, and we need to be able to have this issue dealt with". They wanted to see legislation put into place.

I believe that all parties responded to the pressure back in 2007. If the member looks, he will see that the Liberal Party was not in government, because the NDP worked with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberals.

The shippers themselves started to lobby here in Ottawa in 2007 for the legislation. The only difference is that we believe that the legislation could be stronger and better.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to his complaining about the one decision that the NDP has made correctly in its more than 50 years of existing, when its members actually voted with us to get rid of the most corrupt government in Canadian history.

I could not help but get up and protest that, because they worked really hard to make sure we got a government out that was corrupt. We got the Liberals out of office and put the most accountable government in Canadian history in office, a Conservative government, so I have to defend the NDP for that.

Ultimately, we are talking about a bill here that has been consulted on widely. We have support from the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and the Canadian Canola Growers Association. All these people are supportive of this bill.

We know the NDP supports it. The critic spoke very eloquently about that. We know the Liberals support it. Therefore, I wonder if he has consulted the vast Liberal western caucus—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte on his feet on a point of order?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the debater here today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps you would hold your seat until we finish this round.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a tear almost fell from my eye when I saw that we have the Conservative-Reformers now wanting to once again embrace the New Democrats and relive the moment of glory when the New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to destroy things—they applaud—such as the Kelowna accord, the Kyoto accord and the great health care accord that delivers the billions of dollars that provinces needed. Yes, I suspect they will have to relive those memories into the future.

The member needs to do a little bit better on his addition in terms of the numbers of MPs from western Canada. There are a lot more than one, and I can assure the member that we have got great potential for growth.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, you only have about a minute left.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned those who expressed the point of view that they are not in tune with the people, in contradiction to an election result. The member for the Conservative Party just said that Liberals do not care about western Canadians and, quite frankly, held contempt for them, which is totally inaccurate and unfair.

However, Peter Penashue, when he lost the election in Labrador, stood on his feet and said that Labradorians lost because they did not make a very good decision and that they should have elected him. He said that Labradorians were, quite frankly, not very bright because they did not vote for the Conservatives.

Would that be a good indication of arrogance on the part of the Conservative Party, its mandarins and its candidates? Would that be a reflection of the ignorance of the people of Atlantic Canada?

I ask if a perspective could be offered, given the comments from the Conservative Party—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

It was not so long ago that I was a teacher and I must say that the level of debate I have seen this morning would not have served as a good example for my classes in which my students were learning to debate substantive issues. I rise with mixed feelings.

I want to say from the outset that I will of course be voting in favour of this bill, even though I cannot do so with deep conviction. This is mainly because of the meetings I had with shipping organizations. The conclusion I came to out of all these meetings is the old adage that you are probably familiar with, Mr. Speaker, given your wisdom: that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Under the current circumstances, with the way the Conservatives are governing, people are so afraid of ending up with nothing that they would rather accept what little they are offered knowing that at least it is a step in the right direction even though so much more could have been done.

[An hon. member]

Two steps.

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

Yes, two steps, and we might even be on our way toward a solution. It is in that frame of mind that we will be voting in favour of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration). It is more a matter of railway transportation in this case. Arbitration is probably the most interesting thing about this amendment to the legislation. I will come back to that a little later.

For those who may not have heard much about this bill, let me briefly talk about what the problem is. In Canada—a vast country if ever there was one—it is advantageous to transport bulk commodities over long distances by train. It makes sense. It was meant to be. It is impossible for some shippers to even think about a mode of transportation other than rail transport.

If we had to use trucks to transport the goods shipped by a single train with several cars, first of all, it would be difficult to even get a fleet of trucks that could transport these goods. Second, this would clearly have a major impact on the environment, and third, the trucking company would become completely unproductive from an economic perspective. Rail transportation is therefore the most popular and preferred method of transportation for economic and environmental reasons.

However, as we all know, freight rail services in Canada are managed by the virtual monopoly of two companies: CN and CP. However, as I will explain later, although there appears to be competition between the two companies, that competition tends to disappear in many situations. It is difficult for shippers to negotiate contracts that meet their expectations and benefit from competition in a monopoly situation.

It is easy to say that at least Canada has two railway companies, CN and CP; however, the healthy competition that should lower prices is strangely absent. Instead, the territory, and therefore the market, is shared between these two companies. We have two companies holding a virtual monopoly rather than real competition.

In regions that have access to both CN and CP, unfortunately, one of the companies often demands prices that are too high, which once again leaves shippers with only one choice.

For several years, shippers have faced problems not only with fees, but also with delays, service interruptions and lack of available cars. There are also problems with outdated and broken cars that let part of the harvest spill out onto the tracks.

I put myself in the shoes of someone who produces grains, chemicals, natural resources or whatever watching money spill out onto the tracks as the train heads towards the port. Every time that happens, the individual's profit margin and overall profitability take a hit.

This immediately results in higher costs for shippers and a drop in profitability. Furthermore, in an economy in which the just-in-time strategy is very often the norm and is an obvious competitive advantage, shippers are caught in a David and Goliath struggle that is difficult to resolve without the government's help.

I will leave it up to my colleagues to figure out who is David and who is Goliath. I think it will be easy enough, except that in Canada, David never manages to prevail over Goliath.

Quality rail service is critical for shippers. These products are being exported, and I think it goes without saying that our exports suffer greatly in the fiercely competitive international markets as a result of numerous flaws in Canada's rail transportation system.

Businesses pay the price every time, because they lose a contract, or they have less room to manoeuvre or they make less profit. David was at least able to make the government aware of the problems he had with Goliath, but it took a lot of effort. I would say this is a marathon rather than a sprint. Efforts to raise awareness began in 2007, but it took until 2013, today, for the government to bring in a meagre bill.

I should also mention the work done previously by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, who introduced Bill C-441, which members will certainly remember and which had loftier ambitions for dealing with this matter.

Nevertheless, there is a glimmer of hope. In 2015, we will replace this government that is plagued by scandals and poor management, and we will be able to do more about this.

I have to admit that I support this bill because of the shippers, as I mentioned earlier. This puts me in mind, appropriately enough, of the little engine that could, except that in this case, we are talking about a big engine that moves slowly indeed. It really needs a nudge.

What is in Bill C-52, an outstanding bill in the eyes of the Conservatives?

Obviously, the main point is that shippers will be able to use an arbitration process to settle their disputes with a railway company that, as we know, has a virtual monopoly.

To be eligible for arbitration, the shipper must demonstrate that attempts have been made to arrive at an agreement with the railway company, which is not easy to begin with. In its decision, the arbitrator establishes the level of services the railway company must provide and its obligations to the shipper. That would be part of the contract, I suppose. Contracts are confidential, which is why I said “I suppose” in the previous sentence.

In addition, Bill C-52 will only apply to new contracts between shippers and railway companies.

Furthermore, the maximum penalty is $100,000. I guess $100,000 for a company that made a profit of $2.7 million is not very scary. What is worse is that, if imposed, the fine will not go to the shipper to make up for the inconvenience, but into government coffers. Is this a new tax or a new fee? I have no idea. I will let the public decide whether this is appropriate or not.

Since I am quickly running out of time, I will move on to the conclusion right away.

I will support this bill, although it is a reflection of a tired government that is more concerned about image than substance. These days, even its image is taking a hit.

All shippers who work daily to provide Canadians and international clients with the best of their acquired expertise can count on the NDP, not only to allow this legislation to move forward in its early stages, but also to follow up and assess the effectiveness of the measures put in place by Bill C-52.

The solution is simple: in 2015, elect an NDP government that will once again make it possible for all Canadians to proudly believe that we can build a more just society where everyone's efforts will bear fruit.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who sits with me on the transportation committee and who would have noticed that even before the committee started its deliberations, it was clear that the Conservatives were not interested in any amendments to the bill, despite the well thought out and comprehensive amendments brought forward to us by the rail shippers themselves. They found serious flaws with the bill and serious ways of solving those flaws. We in the NDP, of course, supported many of those amendments as a way of making the David and Goliath relationship a little fairer. It would not be completely fair, but it would be a little fairer.

I wonder if the member could comment in particular on the right to an arbitration process that would include an ability for the shipper to be awarded damages or to receive some recompense from the carrier, before going to court, through the agreements that would be reached through arbitration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, which actually has several parts. I will try to briefly address each of his sub-questions.

First, with regard to the amendments, I fully agree with my colleague's comments. This is not the only parliamentary committee to consider this approach as highly partisan.

Is there a party anywhere on earth that can get every single thing right in the first draft? Apparently, yes: Canada's Conservatives. According to them, every bill tabled by the government needs no amendments and no changes because it is perfect at first writing.

As an example, I will discuss a proposed amendment that clearly shows what could have been done to improve things by going through a second, third and fourth step. The amendment proposed including detailed information on service agreements to help everyone understand the specific obligations. This would not be too difficult to do, yet even this was denied. I will stop there for now, but I may have the opportunity to come back with more examples. Even so, I think this is enough to make the point.

As for the shippers' ability to successfully manage a David and Goliath relationship during arbitration with such giants as railways, it is obvious that in the end, should David prevail, the monies should go to him rather than fattening up the Treasury Board's coffers.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the deputy critic for transport, infrastructure and communities, for his well-crafted speech. He has shown us yet again how eloquent he is and how he has a great command of the language of Molière.

He said that the Conservatives did not want to improve bills in committee. That is absolutely appalling. I would like the member to talk about the imbalance. He made reference to David and Goliath in talking about the relationship between carriers and shippers.

Could the member tell us a little bit more about the imbalance between freight train and passenger train companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question.

I have been making a concerted effort these days to try to develop even half the talent I have in the language of Molière in the language of Shakespeare, but that will have to be for another day.

My colleague is particularly interested in public transit. Considering the time I have today, I will focus on that.

To begin I would like to remind everyone following the debate that Canada is the only G7 and OECD country that does not have a national public transit strategy. This sets us apart once again, but not in a good way. The Conservatives are to blame for this, but so are the Liberals, who also could have done something. It does not exist today because successive governments have failed to create a transit policy. In 2015, the NDP will have some solutions for Canadians.

As for the possibility of having passenger trains and freight trains travelling on the same rail lines at the same time, there are many examples in countries around the world where people agree on transportation schedules.

That is definitely not the case here, where priority is given to the transportation of goods. With an ever-growing population and urban areas that are exploding, we need to revisit this issue. It will most certainly be the subject of a future debate and another bill.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here in the House to correct one of the failings of neo-liberalism that dates back to 1995, namely the ridiculous, ill-conceived privatization of Canadian National. A public service was dumped. It was privatized, without any consideration for the needs of those who used the rail lines.

We will be supporting this bill because it contains certain elements that are extremely beneficial. It corrects certain shortcomings. It does not correct them all, but it does correct some. Shippers will have the right to enter into service agreements with rail companies. The bill also creates an arbitration process, conducted by the Canadian Transportation Agency, for failed negotiations, and it imposes penalties for violating the results of arbitration. That is a start.

We would have liked to see financial remedies included in the bill. Also, we would have liked this bill to cover previously negotiated agreements, but that was not included. However, this is a first step. People came to us asking for more. We will not forget about them. That is important. Obviously, significant corrections will have to be made in 2015.

The government is making a lot of corrections with this law, but it is not fixing all the problems. Neo-liberalism continues to drive this government, meaning that the government gives the rights of companies priority over Canadians' right to a good public service. Regrettably, that way of thinking did not end with this law. The Liberal Party of Canada unfortunately adopted this neo-liberal ideology in 1995. CN was not the only crown corporation that was privatized at the time and that is now causing us problems, but that is how it is.

Allow me to provide a brief history of the problem. Before 1995, CN was a crown corporation that provided a public service. When people complained, they complained to the government, which took corrective measures. CN's priority was to give Canada a tool to promote economic growth. It was not to make as much of a profit as possible. That is a key difference. We had more services. We had a better service and it allowed us to increase our country's collective wealth. However, true to form, the Liberal government at the time privatized CN. The Liberal Party had debts to pay and friends to reward. It privatized crown corporations without any guarantees that would protect the interests of users, which were not taken into account. No protective provisions or regulations were put in place. The Liberals did not pay any attention to any of that.

This work was not done in 1995. Now, we have to do it. I find it somewhat odd that the representatives of the Liberal Party are blaming the government for failing to fix the situation when they are the ones who created the problem in 1995 and who never bothered trying to fix it the entire time that they were in office until 2006, yet in Canada, 70% of surface goods are shipped by rail. That is a huge amount. Basically, the railway is a structure that allows us to function economically.

Up to 80% of the service commitments for agriculture rail customers are not currently being met. This basically means that rural shippers are being taken to the cleaners. It seems that the priority is to help the company maximize its profits, not to support our agricultural industry. In this regard, the Liberals and the Conservatives are both on the same page. The Liberals privatized CN, a company that is essential to grain exports, while the Conservatives did away with the Canadian Wheat Board, simply because it was too Canadian for them.

Thank goodness it was the Conservatives. If the Liberals had done it, they would have sold CN to an American company. Some things never change. Once a Liberal, always a Liberal. It is obvious that people need lobotomies to join the party, and that goes double for people who want to become Liberal MPs.

The mining sector uses trains to export our resources. It accounts for half of all jobs in the first nations. This sector is the second-largest employer, after the public sector. Rail service is fundamentally important to all regions and all rural areas. This infrastructure is essential to them, but the government has forgotten them.

Since 1995, farmers and other businesses have been suffering as a result of the poor quality of freight rail service, yet they have not managed to get Ottawa's attention. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been able to deliver the goods. The goods have never been delivered.

Punctuality is important to rail transportation. If a shipper needs 50 train cars to transport iron ore, nickel, potash, wood, grain or wheat, the company cannot show up with 40 cars. That would be 10 cars too few. If a freight train from Thunder Bay or Montreal is supposed to roll into the port of Vancouver at 10 o'clock in the morning because the boat is leaving at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, but it shows up 16 hours late, the boat will not wait. That is a problem and it is hurting our economy.

Some people claim to be in favour of jobs and economic growth, but when they are faced with a key issue that is hurting the Canadian economy, they say that they will try to fix things, but that is all. There is a problem. They say private companies have rights, and we cannot interfere in their business.

We saw this recently with Air Canada. The government said that Air Canada was a private company that had the right to lay off 2,300 Canadians. It was not the government's concern, and it did not want to intervene. That is the problem. This is hurting our economy, and the government could not care less. This same government then turns around and says that it is championing economic growth. It is not delivering the goods, and that is an understatement.

There are currently 1.4 million unemployed workers. We hope this policy will help bring down the unemployment rate somewhat. In order to see the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed workers drop, Canadians will have to wait for a real Canadian government. Until then, this bill is a step in the right direction.

We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the public services provided by private companies are offered in a responsible manner. That is non-negotiable. Although private companies say that they will replace the Crown, the Crown's main priority is not to make a profit and give the CEO a bonus, but rather to deliver the goods. In order for Canada's economy to grow, it is crucial that the goods be delivered quickly.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I hope the translation came through wrong because if it was right what I got from it is that the hon. member said that anyone who believed in the Liberal Party, voted for it or took out a membership with it had to have had an intellectual lobotomy. We have seen this from both parties.

The member from Winnipeg, whose riding I do not remember, has said that anyone who voted for the Reform Party in the past was just not smart enough, that western Canadians did not know what they were talking about, and that the millions of people who voted for the Reform Party had to be wrong and were not sane Canadians.

The official opposition is now saying that anyone who is a member of the Liberal Party must have had an intellectual lobotomy. What is it about the opposition parties that they so disrespect the choices Canadians make? What is it about—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious, not about the subject with respect to what my colleague is saying but to the relevance to the bill that we are discussing today.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands raises an important issue--that is, relevance. I would just take the opportunity to remind all hon. members that what they say in their speeches ought to be relevant to the matter before the House. Obviously, there is some latitude in context there and when questions are asked sometimes it relates to the context rather than the bill itself. However, as a general rule I would remind all hon. colleagues to stick to the matter before the House.

If the hon. parliamentary secretary could quickly put his question.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will apologize to those Canadians who might have a different opinion than he does.

Now that we have heard that both the NDP and the Liberals are supporting the bill, I would ask the member to reflect on this. We have had a broad level of consultation on it, have seen how many people across the country are supporting it and how important it is to industry, export and trade, which the opposition members do not support, including jobs and economic growth. In light of the fact they are supporting the bill, will they help us in passing it quickly?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me a chance to clarify this interesting position.

A member of the Liberal Party of Canada who blames the government for public transit problems has obviously forgotten that his party is the one that created those problems. Maybe their lobotomies caused some memory loss.

As for the government member's comments, he must understand that we support the bill because it will finally allow users, those who pay for this service, to obtain an essential service.

In 2013, it makes absolutely no sense that trains do not arrive on time, that there are not enough cars and that rail lines are in such a sorry state. If the Conservatives cannot understand that, what are they doing in power?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about CN.

My NDP colleague spent a few minutes strongly criticizing the privatization of CN. Is he in favour of re-nationalizing CN?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is hypocritical neo-liberal talk.

They privatize without any regulations or obligation and then when it is time to correct the situation, they have no recourse. Nationalization is not the problem. Regulation is the problem. You cannot sell a crown corporation like a fool without protecting the consumers.

That is what should have happened in 1995, but they failed to do that. They still do not understand that it was important to do that. They have their neo-liberal blinders on and think that everything must be sold. They are just like the Conservatives, but at least the Conservatives are candid enough to tell us to our faces. The Liberals are not.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise and add to this debate on the third reading of Bill C-52.

Today is an important day in history, as it turns out, because this date in 1887 was the first day a train actually arrived in Vancouver. That train had a picture of Queen Victoria on the front of it, which I am sure the members opposite will be very glad of.

Our rail system has some problems, and those problems have been caused by years of neglect by governments with respect to the monopolistic position the rail companies are in vis-à-vis the rail shippers, the people who actually use the rail system. I will not go into the problems we have with the rail passenger system, which has suffered untold neglect by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

In 1995, the Liberal government decided to sell CN, which was at the time one of Canada's biggest rail shipping companies. I am not going to answer a question from the members to my left about whether we are going to re-nationalize CN. That is not the point. The point is that when a public entity is given to the private sector, one must look at the consequences of that decision. If one of the consequences is to have created a virtual monopoly, then one needs to have put in regulatory controls to balance the playing field. That the Liberals did not do. I have heard from the member for Winnipeg North that the member for Wascana is a champion for the shippers, but from 1995 to 2006, his government was in power, and the Liberals did nothing to protect the rail shippers from their decision to privatize one of Canada's two large rail-freight operations. The shippers finally complained loudly and long enough that this Conservative government said that it would do something about it. That was in 2007.

Here we are in 2013, and I hear the parliamentary secretary and others saying to hurry up and pass this bill. We have been talking about this for seven years. Let us hurry up and have a bill to talk about. Finally we do, and it is flawed. That is one of the reasons I am here to talk about this bill today. It is not that we are not supporting it. We do sometimes have to hold our noses and support flawed legislation, because it is at least one step forward. However, we could have gone six or seven steps forward, and the Conservative government chose not to.

In 2008, as a result of a lot of pressure from the shippers, who said that they were being held hostage by the rail companies, there was a rail service review. That service review came up with a report in early 2011, before the current government was elected. In its platform, the Conservatives pledged to do something about it, but interestingly, even though the rail service review was in, it was not in the Speech from the Throne. There was no indication that this bill would be part of the legislative agenda of the current government. In fact, the Conservatives did not actually propose legislation. When the rail service review report was put in place, the Conservatives then tried mediation. They tried to talk it out between the parties and see if they could work it out. The problem is that talking does not work if one of the parties is so enormous that it absolutely controls the other.

Then the member for Trinity—Spadina put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-441, that would deal with all the steps of the problem. It would deal with the service level agreements, the price and a whole bunch of the issues the rail shippers had determined were their problems in dealing with this David and Goliath situation. All of a sudden, the Conservatives said, “Whoops, we forgot. We had better put a bill forward”, and Bill C-52 magically appeared.

The trouble is that Bill C-52 does not actually deal with some of the shippers' problems. It deals with one in particular, and really, that is all that has happened in this bill. It would deal with one of the shippers' problems, which is that they do not have the right to a service level agreement in their negotiations with the rail companies.That means that they do not have the right to negotiate, to firmly fix in their contracts with the rail companies, that, yes, a train will arrive on Saturday when their grain is ready to be shipped; yes, there will be 12 boxcars; yes, those boxcars will make it to Vancouver by two weeks from Saturday. Those are the kinds of things the shippers said they just cannot get.

Finally, we have a piece of legislation that would actually deal with that, in a roundabout way, by saying that if the shippers cannot work it out with the rail companies, then they would have the right to an arbitrated process. Therefore, the shippers would now have a right to an arbitrated process that would give them that service level review.

I am being reminded, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

Therefore, one piece of the puzzle would be solved. As a result, this party will be supporting the bill at third reading but wishes that it had gone further.

The shippers would now have the right, as a result of the bill, to an arbitrated service level agreement. However, that arbitration would come at a cost. The shippers themselves would have to pay for half the cost of that arbitration process.

The railroads have deep pockets. Paying for an arbitration process, for them, would be like a small flea on the back of an elephant. It would mean nothing to them. However, to the shippers, it may mean something. There would be no assistance from the government in the cost of this arbitration process. That is one problem.

The railways have a monopoly on price, as well, and price is not part of what could be arbitrated. The price is something that would be subject to negotiations only between the shippers themselves and the railroad. The railroads would not have to do anything about the price in this arbitration process. All they would have the right to talk about and all that could be arbitrated would be the service level agreements.

Railways have a habit of charging extra fees. Airlines have extra fees now. Passengers are charged for bags. Apparently some airlines charge passengers to use the overhead bins. There is one airline in Europe that is going to charge passengers to use the bathroom.

The railways do the same thing.The railways have the ability, as a part of the service level agreement, to set up fees, which the shippers will pay if their product is not ready on the day they suggest or if there is any other problem the railways might consider the fault of the shippers. The shippers do not have any reciprocal rights.

That is something else that is missing from the bill. The shippers cannot charge the railways a fee if they are late. In fact, the government has said that if the railways break these agreements, the shippers' only recourse is to go to the courts for recompense from the railway companies.

Again, we are dealing with a David and Goliath in the courts. We now have the situation where small wheat farmers in central Alberta, who are barely making ends meet with their wheat farms because of the demise of the Wheat Board, are actually going to have to sue the rail companies, at their own expense, because the rail companies failed to meet their arbitrated service level agreements. That is yet another penalty for these poor shippers.

The shippers have told the government, and we in the NDP agree, that a mechanism by which the shippers could arbitrate a penalty regimen back to the shippers would be appreciated so that if the railways break the service level agreement, the shippers would know what they were going to get and would not have to go to court. That is done all the time in labour arbitrations and labour negotiations.

The government claims that it is not going to do it here. It is saying that the shippers should speak to the courts.

In closing, I would like to say that we in the NDP will, in fact, be supporting the bill. However, there is a lot more the bill could have done, but every single one of the amendments we proposed was rejected by the government at committee without, really, a whole lot of thought.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to the last number of interventions. What I think is not understood well by the opposition is the incredible value the railways provide in Canada. In fact, it is a North American industry. From any perspective, the freight railways in North America are the finest in the world. They support trade, certainly international trade and ports, and businesses.

In fact, the previous speaker spoke about wheat. There were record grain shipments just a couple of years ago, and those numbers continue to climb, as a matter of fact. Goods leaving Canada through our ports and coming into Canada through our ports are shipped by the railways. This is an incredible strength for Canada.

I think what the government has sought to do is to balance the rights of the shippers and the railways and to provide a mechanism whereby we can come to agreements that actually work for shippers and that support industries and support communities.

It is a good bill. The member should support it.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have said that we will support it. We are disappointed that it does not go far enough.

While the rail companies do provide a service in Canada, the shippers have said that the service has not been a fair marketplace. While we are correcting part of that unfair marketplace, we are not dealing with the whole problem. For example, soybeans from Argentina enjoy a competitive advantage in markets such as Japan and China, because they are delivered faster and more punctually than soybeans from Canada, despite the fact that the total distance covered is significantly shorter for products from Canada. Part of that problem is the ability of the rail companies to meet a service level agreement. That is part of what the bill does.

However, we on this side of the House, who actually believe in fairer and freer trade, believe that we should be in a position to compete with countries like Argentina and not allow them to overrun us.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York South—Weston for his presentation. I see that the official opposition is prepared to support the bill, recognizing that there are so many lost opportunities.

Recently the railway industry in our country picked four pillars as its priorities going forward. One of those is sustainability, particularly with respect to reduced greenhouse gases and the fact that shipping goods by rail is much better for climate action than shipping by transport trailer and truck. I wonder if the hon. member has any thoughts on what opportunities we have missed in this piece of legislation to also recognize the greenhouse gas benefits of shipping goods by rail.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the government's reactions to comments about the pricing portion of the bill was to suggest that shippers have another alternative. Many of them, but not all of them, have trucks as an alternative. Well, trucks consume considerably more fossil fuel and have a larger environmental footprint. As a result, we should be encouraging the use of rail rather than discouraging it through inaction on the part of the government.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. In the House of Commons he often speaks to transport-related issues.

We all know that freight and passenger transport is vital to Canada. In fact, that is what Canada was built on and what continues to contribute to Canada's economic prosperity.

The hon. member talked about how other countries have managed to balance the interests of the shippers, those who use the railway for moving freight and people. I would like him to elaborate on that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Canada is a laggard when it comes to the creation of rail systems across our great land. We are one of the last countries to adopt good rail transportation strategies. We have no public transportation strategy by the government. We have no support from the federal government for public transportation in a concerted and disciplined way. As a result, we, as Canadians, are suffering from a lack of good public transit infrastructure and a lack of electric public transit, which in fact deals with greenhouse gas problems and helps the environment. We in Canada should be doing way more than we already are.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

The NDP thinks this is a very important issue, and it is no secret that we will be supporting the bill, essentially because it is a step in the right direction. I will explain. However, much more could have been done. Unfortunately, the government missed the opportunity to do more. Before getting into the bill specifically, I would like to talk about why railway transportation is so important in Canada.

It comes as no great surprise that railway transportation is important in Canada when you consider that 70% of surface transportation of goods is done by rail. Railway transportation is an effective way of fighting greenhouse gases. My colleague mentioned that as well. We must encourage train use as much as possible.

I am glad to be able to travel by VIA Rail this afternoon to get to my riding. We must promote train use. Here we are talking about shipping merchandise. I am not merchandise, so I will get back to talking specifically about the bill.

The bill is a step in the right direction, since it tries to solve the problem of the existing monopolies. When we talk about rail service, we are fully aware that the two major companies, CN and CP, have a virtual monopoly.

The virtual monopoly is a problem. It is one outcome of the actions that the Liberal government took in 1995, which included the privatization of CN. In addition to privatizing CN, the government did not implement the appropriate regulations. That is why we are surprised to see the reaction of the Liberals when they complain about the Conservative government's failure to act. It is true and we agree that the Conservative government waited a very long time before introducing a bill. Actually it was 2007 or so. That is when studies were carried out. A report was also released in 2011. That means that we have waited for more than five or six years for this bill, which provides a partial solution to one of the existing problems.

The Liberal government at the time identified a problem. In 1995, when the Liberal government privatized CN, it had the option to look at what could be done to avoid a monopoly over rail transportation.

What regulations can we put in place to ensure that services are better designed and distributed? The lack of regulations is a problem. Take VIA Rail for example. In some cases, this company needs to rent the railway tracks from CN or CP.

That also has to do with the virtual monopoly. As a result, shippers using rail services must pay more. In addition, they are experiencing some problems with the services provided. We hear a lot about the impact on consumers, among others. Higher costs and delays are among the problems linked to the virtual monopoly.

Bill C-52 addresses some of those problems. It creates an arbitration process. That arbitration process will allow for better discussion and a better way of solving problems with certain distributors. As my colleague mentioned, penalties will be imposed in some cases. The problem is that the money from those penalties will go into government coffers, not to the shippers. The NDP is trying to protect shippers in that respect.

Studies were done and reports were released. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not take advantage of all of that information.

I would like to thank our transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina. She introduced a private member's bill outlining a better system that would give greater protection to shippers.

In response to that bill, the Conservatives introduced a bill that is quite flawed. I have already pointed out a few of those flaws. For example, the government could have done more when it came to arbitration. Unfortunately, it did not.

I am thinking of light rail transit on the new Champlain Bridge. It is the right way to go considering that we are moving towards an economy of the future. However, seeing how the government is managing this file, it makes us wonder whether it will act openly and transparently, particularly regarding construction of the Champlain Bridge. This corridor between Montreal and the south shore, as well as between Canada and the United States, is very important.

The government's actions worry us. It makes decisions behind closed doors and ignores what is said during consultations. We see that here. Even though the government brags about having consulted a number of people and says it stands behind shippers, at the end of the day, it introduced a bill that does not reflect all the suggestions that were made. None of the amendments, NDP or Liberal, were accepted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Here again, the government is not open to suggestions.

It is unfortunate because we said that we support the bill. However, today, we are pointing out certain flaws. The government seems to be digging in its heels once again. Of course, this is a majority government that can do as it pleases. When it comes to protecting shippers, we are told that it is part of our economy. However, that is no longer the case when it comes to protecting consumers. It is difficult to understand why the Conservative government is not listening to what the opposition has to say and, in particular, to what the shippers and the witnesses told the committee.

A lot of work remains to be done. We are used to having a government that does not listen very well. We are supporting this bill because it is a first step and we are headed in the right direction. However, the government has not taken advantage of this opportunity.

As for the Liberals, they knew when they decided to privatize CN in 1995 that a virtual monopoly would be created. Why did they not introduce this type of bill? Why did they not do more and include what they are asking for today? When the Liberals were in power between 1995 and 2006, why did they do nothing about this? Why did they wait so long, and why are they getting all worked up today and saying that they are the defenders of the system and they want to protect shippers?

We have been saying from the very beginning that there was much to be done at the time. We lament the fact that it took the Conservatives so long to act and that the Liberals' failed to make progress on this file when they were in government.

I mentioned some amendments in the report that should have been included. A 2008 study, which was released in 2011, was a starting point. The NDP is not simply voicing its opposition to the bill, but is also making suggestions. We suggested including details about the service agreements. At this point, there really are none because there is a monopoly. We want a better system that better protects shippers.

There is a problem with the dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements in the event of breach of contract. With this bill, shippers must pay the fees for the arbitration process that will be put in place. Why not make the big corporations, CN and CP, pay these fees and solve these problems since they are the reason for bringing in these agreements?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times, we spent a good number of years speaking to people before we brought the bill forward, consulting with Canadians and with people within the industry. We have now a very broad cross-section of people in industry who support the bill, and they want us to get on with it.

The member was quite right that the Liberals, when they had their opportunity, did nothing with this. As I said earlier, we are very grateful that the NDP joined with us to get rid of the Liberal Party and bring in an accountable government back in 2006.

I want to focus on one part of the his speech and what we have heard constantly from some of the members opposite with respect to the NDP future policy of nationalizing CN Rail.

In the context of this debate, has the NDP costed out how much it would be to nationalize Canadian National Railway, what the cost would be to the shareholders of that company and how that would improve freight rail service in Canada? Would it increase taxes to cover the cost of that nationalization? Would it make other cuts to cover the cost of that? Has the NDP costed that out, or is that all just part of the—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I want to thank the member for that question, but I will do so anyway, because I am polite.

First of all, let me say that we are not in favour of nationalizing CN. What we said, and I will repeat it again, is that the problem was created in 1995, when the Liberals were in power and they decided to privatize CN without putting any regulations in place to protect shippers. My colleague should agree with us on that.

I think he will agree that the Liberals are to blame for their inaction, but then he also needs to look in the mirror and ask himself why the Conservatives did nothing about this when they came to power. Why did they wait so long? When they finally decided to do something, they introduced a bill that does not go far enough and does not do enough to protect the rights of shippers. That is the problem we have with this bill.

Instead of making up ridiculous stories, the Conservatives should really focus on what is going on here and on the bill, which unfortunately still has flaws. It is a step in the right direction, but it needs improvement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at times the New Democrats lose their focus and want to take shots, whenever they can, at the previous Liberal government.

It is important for us to note that the shippers, the industries—agriculture, forestry, minerals, chemicals, fertilizer, the oil and gas industry, our very important manufacturing industry and others—collectively, back in 2006-2007, then came to the opposition and the government of the day saying that they needed this type of legislation brought in. That is where the issue originated.

We could be very critical and agree that the government took quite a while to respond, but we do have legislation before us today. We in the Liberal Party will be supporting the legislation through third reading, but we want to see amendments to the legislation.

The deputy leader of the Liberal Party proposed three amendments at the third reading stage. Had the amendments of the member for Wascana been allowed, would the NDP have supported them, which would have been of great benefit for us?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

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

First of all, we do not mean to bash anyone, but I am simply explaining why we now have this problem. With regard to the privatization in 1995, one cannot help but wonder why no one looked at the possibility of not privatizing the tracks. That issue could have been debated and we could have avoided our current situation, with a virtual monopoly, poor service, and so on.

As for amendments, we proposed some at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. They essentially supported what the shippers coalition was calling for. We proposed some things, but unfortunately, the Conservative government did not accept any of our very well thought-out amendments.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey North.

I want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for all of her hard work and passion in this field. I will start with a short resumé of what happened and why we are here today.

Essentially, the bill gives rail freight customers and shippers the right to enter into service agreements with railway companies. It also establishes an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, to resolve disputes in the event negotiations fail and sets penalties for violations of arbitration decisions.

I would like to give everyone some background. In 1995 the Liberals, who were in power at the time, decided to sell CN. The problem was that they neglected to put in place an effective regulatory framework for rail transportation. As a result, railway companies held a virtual monopoly. The Liberals were in power until 2006 but did nothing to address this problem. There was nothing in place. The problems likely to arise in these situations usually affect prices. Indeed, since railways had a virtual monopoly, users sometimes had to pay very dearly.

In committee, witnesses told us that sometimes the trains arrived without enough cars. In other cases, trains failed to come in on time. Finally, in 2006, when the Conservatives rose to power, they came under a lot of pressure. Seven years later, the bill is before us. We will support the bill, but I would still like to add something.

I had the chance to speak to Bill C-52 at the last reading stage. Since then, this bill has been studied in the transport committee, of which I am a member. This bill is a first step in the right direction and I support that, so I will vote in favour of this bill. However, it is important to note that several witnesses who came before the transport committee to speak about this bill wanted amendments. With the suggested amendments, this bill would become a robust tool and industry standard for Canada.

The committee received a list of six amendments that were the bare minimum of what the Coalition of Rail Shippers and other witnesses would like to see in this bill. The Coalition of Rail Shippers is the main rail freight customer stakeholder organization in Canada. These witnesses are experts in their field and key actors in their industry. It is important that the House acknowledge the amendments suggested by this organization. It is also important for us to consider the expert testimony that the transport committee received.

The following six key amendments were suggested by the shipping community: first, include details on service agreement components; second, delete the term “operational” as it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements; third, include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract; fourth, limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in service agreements; fifth, limit arbitration for failed service agreement negotiations to matters raised by the shipper; and, sixth, limit railway companies' ability to raise network issues in arbitration, i.e., finding convenient excuses for not agreeing to shippers' demands in contract negotiations and arbitration.

These amendments are sensible, practical and, might I add, modest. Unfortunately, all six amendments were defeated at committee by my colleagues opposite. My NDP colleagues and I moved nine amendments at committee. The committee is there to provide space and time for parliamentarians to consider bills of law in depth. How can we uphold the value and ethics of this democratic place when already during witness testimony it is clear that the Conservatives are unwilling to make any changes to the bill? Why are the Conservatives blocking parliamentary work at the committee stage?

Here, I would like to point out that the Conservatives asked only one question about the nine amendments that my three colleagues and I proposed. I am somewhat annoyed by that approach. Committee work is meant to foster discussion.

I remember when I was elected two years ago, members from all sides told me that there were too many attacks in the House. I was also told that at times there are more monologues than discussions. However, I was also told that it is different in committee, and that it is in committee that the real group work happens because everyone wants to move this country forward. That is what I was expecting.

I found myself serving on a committee where the Conservatives did not ask any questions. We proposed amendments to move things forward, but they did not want to discuss them. We talked about our amendments and we explained them. We explained why we wanted to amend the bill and which expert testimony we based our amendments on. They had absolutely no interest, however, because their minds were made up before they even heard the witnesses.

As I said earlier, I will support the bill because it is a first step in the right direction. Without the rejected amendments, the bill remains a partial success for the shippers. I look forward to participating in strengthening the bill in the future by working with the Canadian shipping community and fighting the issue of price gouging and uncompetitive rail freight rates.

The NDP has participated in efforts to provide the shipping community with better legislation and regulations for quite some time, and we will continue to be involved in this process to benefit shippers by addressing the shortcomings of Bill C-52.

Earlier I mentioned that several witnesses at committee honoured the amendments brought forward by the Coalition of Rail Shippers. These included Pulse Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and the Grain Growers of Canada. All those groups wanted those six amendments to be adopted.

In February I raised some concerns that I had with the bill, including pricing discrepancies between CN and CP; the lack of market competition, innovation and regulation, because CN and CP operate as a duopoly; and the poor quality of rail freight transportation services.

The parliamentary secretary just asked my colleague a question about the fact that we have one of the nicest systems in the world, but I have some statistics.

According to the Rail Freight Service Review, 80% of shippers are unhappy.

I am not so sure that it is the nicest system in the world. I hope not, according the statistics.

At the last reading, I stated that the rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers are not satisfied with the services that they receive. This poor quality of services is affecting Canadian exporters, damaging our reputation in the global market and costing us jobs. We cannot afford to be left out of competitive business deals because the CN and CP cannot guarantee satisfactory service.

I will finish by saying that we must make rail freight services work again for shippers across Canada. We can accomplish this with strong legislation, a strong Bill C-52. I will support it even if I still believe that some amendments should have been adopted by the government.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear how the NDP now is in such favour of working together at committee because I was here when our government was a minority and the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc would turn down every single amendment that government members brought forward. They would turn down witnesses. They would turn down reports. They would force committee studies, but now, all of a sudden, the Canadian people have spoken and they have given this government a majority mandate to get the job done across this country. All of a sudden we have heard time and time again that opposition members do not agree with the Canadian people. We know that.

I keep hearing this and I am wondering if the hon. member at committee asked about the nationalization of CN Rail, because the opposition members constantly talk about it in their speeches. I am wondering if the member asked questions about how much that would cost, whether the people who use the rail service are in favour of nationalizing CN Rail, how much it would cost Canadian taxpayers, how much it would cost shareholders of CN Rail to nationalize it and how nationalizing CN Rail would actually help freight services.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague opposite was listening to my speech, because I was not talking about nationalization. However, I did mention that the Liberals sold CN in 1996.

Since the member asked me how things are working in my committee, I am happy to tell him that we have problems.

Since I was elected, 99.3% of the amendments we have proposed over the past two years have not been accepted by the Conservatives. That is not what I call teamwork. I will not talk about how things were before I arrived, because I was not here. I am talking about what I have seen so far.

We had another problem in committee, and I actually moved a motion on that. The committee chair decided that the meetings will be one hour and forty-five minutes long instead of two hours. In my view, that affects my participation in the committee, because I am often the one who has less time to speak. Given the sequence of speakers, I get less floor time.

The Conservatives do not ask us questions and do not want to talk with us. That is another problem facing the committee right now.

I did not ask specific questions about nationalizing CN. Rather, I am interested in what we can do with Bill C-52 to improve Canada's rail system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has found itself in an interesting position. Some speakers stand up and take their shots at the Liberal Party by saying the Liberals privatized CN back in 1995, implying that it was the wrong thing to do, yet very few of those members have the courage to stand in their place and say that as a political entity they will re-nationalize it. The NDP is scared to say exactly where it is today on that issue. Does that party want to nationalize it? If so, there is a significant cost. That party has an obligation to indicate whether or not that is what it wants to do. Do you want to nationalize it, or did the Liberal Party do a good thing back in 1995?

With regard to dealing with our rail lines, rail freight rates have always been a primary concern of the Liberal Party. If we deal with the shippers properly, all Canadians will benefit.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the Chair for an opinion. I would just remind the hon. member not to speak directly to his colleagues but to direct all comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather strange.

I just stated the facts in my speech: the Liberals sold and privatized CN. I am not saying that it was either a good or a bad decision; what I am saying is that the government should have implemented regulations before selling, privatizing and denationalizing CN. The government should have come up with some rules to make it work. Simply privatizing a company and leaving the rest to the market is not okay.

We saw prices that made no sense, and people came to tell us that the service was not good. When 80% of those who use a service say that it is not good, it is no longer a question of nationalization or denationalization. We must not forget that it is an essential service, as the member said. If it is an essential service, there must be regulations to ensure that it is a good service.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill, which is very important to my constituency of Surrey North. I have a number of port facilities and a major rail yard in my constituency.

The railway had an important role in the history and development of our country and in bringing people together from east and west. Even today, the rail lines play a very important part in the economic development of our country. Over 70% of surface goods are transferred by railroads in our country, and that is a very significant part of our economy, which depends on the movement of goods, whether from one part of Canada to the other or as exports.

The problem right now, which the Conservatives have been sitting on for the last five years, is that small business, farmers, miners and other industries in western Canada have been asking the government to help them get their products to ports and various markets and to provide some sort of guidelines or agreement with the railway companies so that they can move their products there.

I want Canadians to know that we have a dual monopoly in the country. CN and CP control railway traffic throughout Canada. The problem has been inefficiencies in getting railway companies to provide on-time service or to guarantee that they are actually going to pick up products to deliver to various ports or markets.

The Conservatives are very keen on signing trade agreements. However, we have seen what the trade deficit is even now. Under the Conservatives, we have the biggest trade deficit in the history of the country. We have a trade deficit of over $50 billion. When they took over, we had a surplus of $18 billion, but now we have a trade deficit of over $50 billion.

The Conservative government has no clue how it is going to improve the well-being of our farmers, miners or forestry towns or how it will create well-paying jobs for Canadians in the western part of Canada. It is bent on signing paper trade agreements, but what it needs to focus on is the needs of our community, the needs of our farmers, our miners and our western producers so that they can get their products out to the ports and the markets on time. The government has failed to invest in the infrastructure needed for this country to progress into a greater trading and export nation so that we can generate these jobs.

Under the Conservative government, we have seen a lack of infrastructure funding for moving our products out to the ports. It is hurting our jobs and communities. It is hurting our ports in that they do not know when the products are going to come. It is hurting our trucking industry. It has a ripple effect if the products do not reach their destinations on time because of the inaction by the government over the last five years at least.

I was listening to the previous member from the Liberal Party, the member for Winnipeg North. Liberals will have crocodile tears as they say they will support this idea and provide Canadians with a proper rail service. I am sorry to say it, but where were they? Prior to 2006, they had a chance to provide help for our forest communities, mining towns, pulse growers and farmers in the prairies, but they will say one thing when they are not in government and do exactly what the Conservatives do when they are in government. That is their record.

The Conservative record is also one of inaction. They have failed to provide support for our businesses and for our farmers to help them get their products to the market on time.

I sit on the international trade committee, where I have heard many times from pulse organizations, farmers, beef producers and all sorts of other industries in western Canada. They have been complaining and have been lobbying government for a number of years to let the government know that they have issues in getting their product to the market. Part of the reason is that rail companies fail to deliver on the commitment to have their products shipped out to the ports or to other parts of North America. Time and time again we have seen this delay, this foot-dragging, from the Conservatives for the last many years.

This is a small step in the right direction. A number of amendments were introduced at the committee stage. As with other bills that have been introduced in this House that go to committee, 99.3% of the amendments that the NDP has introduced have been rejected. One would think maybe 5% or 10% would be approved to improve the bill and help our communities, businesses and farmers by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of our rail system. However, even if the bill is poorly drafted or has spelling mistakes, the Conservatives believe that whatever they have is it. No amendments will be approved at the committee stage. That has been the Conservative record.

What we need to do to provide help for our businesses, our farmers, and our forestry industry is help them get their products out. We introduced a number of amendments; not only that, the industry provided at least six amendments that could help improve the bill and could help the farmers, miners and forestry towns. However, the Conservatives stonewalled those amendments from being incorporated into the bill.

This is one small step. As with other bills I have seen in this House, we as parliamentarians can do a lot more than what is being done by the government. I think we can help our businesses. We can improve our forestry towns. We can help our farmers.

Farmers put in a lot of hours. Some of them put in 14 or 16 hours a day and 80 or 90 hours a week. Farmers work hard to bring their crops to fruition; it is our job to help them get their products to market. Clearly the Conservatives have failed miserably at investing in the infrastructure that would allow our farm products, our industry products and our forestry products to be exported. That is the Conservative record.

As I have said previously, under the current government we have the largest trade deficit ever. That should be a concern to all Canadians. When the Conservatives took over, we had a trade surplus. Now we have a trade deficit of over $50 billion. That is a concern to me and a concern to my community, because jobs are dependent on trade exports.

Conservatives have failed miserably on this agenda of providing infrastructure, not only to move our goods in general but to move goods within cities. We have seen the gridlock. I have seen the gridlock in the Lower Mainland in greater Vancouver. I have seen the gridlock in my own city. I have seen gridlock in ports. Conservatives need to invest locally, in communities, so that we can move our products overseas.

Again, I will be supporting this bill. It is a small step in the right direction. However, the Conservatives can do more to help our farmers, our miners and our forestry industry.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the opposition has given no recognition to is the significant improvement in grain shipments from Canada's west.

When we became the government in 2006, we were effectively overrun with complaints from western Canadian farmers who were having problems unloading their grain at various elevators and having that grain picked up by the railways. However, since 2006 on-time delivery and on-time shipments have improved significantly, to the point where we hear very few complaints. The system is working well. As I indicated, there are record grain shipments out of Canada's west today. There are record grain shipments out of Canada as a whole. This had been a real strain for grains and oilseed producers.

In fact, the softwood lumber industry in British Columbia, where the member is from, is booming. It came back in a significant way. They found ways to innovate, and the railways are playing a big part in B.C. ports.

The member mentioned the railway and Canada's history. The railway was the national dream. It is what brought B.C. into Confederation. Today, it is a huge part of B.C.'s strength, with both shippers and the railways combining for a successful story.

This is a good bill that the member should support.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact one of the port facilities, Fraser Surrey Docks, is my riding.

I do not know who this member has been talking to, but I have talked to wheat farmers, forestry officials, the pulse industry and beef producers. They have been complaining over the last number of years about the ineffective, inefficient rail freight service in this country.

The Conservative government has failed for five years to provide infrastructure for an efficient rail service for our farmers. The government has failed to invest in the infrastructure funding needed to move the goods that our farmers produce.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is a good bill, and the Liberal Party will be supporting it, but it could have been a better bill, and that is what we need to emphasize.

For example, I will make reference to one quick amendment moved by the deputy leader of the Liberal Party:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents the arbitrator from including in his or her decision terms providing for compensation payments to be made by the railway company to the shipper in the event of losses incurred by the shipper as a result of any failure by the rail company to fulfill its service obligations as provided under section 169.31.

The point is that the bill could have been made a whole lot better.

Would the member not agree that this amendment highlights a lost opportunity to make the bill a better piece of legislation to the benefit of everyone?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right about a lost opportunity. Before 2006, the Liberal government had many years to improve this situation and provide efficient and cost-effective service to our farmers, the forestry industry, et cetera. The Liberals failed on that. However, now they have crocodile tears, saying they support this bill and would like to introduce more amendments.

They do one thing while in government, which is actually nothing, like the Conservatives who sat on this important bill for our farmers for five years, yet the Liberals will say exactly what we have been advocating for, efficient and cost-effective service, when they are in the opposition.

I have no sympathy for my friend the member for Winnipeg North

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak to Bill C-52. When many people were going to bed last night, we thought we would be debating a different bill this morning. However, from time to time the government does like to make late-night changes to throw the opposition off and to play games.

I now find myself in a position of supporting a bill that is only a half measure. Once again, a bill has come back to the House from committee wherein the Conservative majority has shown complete disdain for the testimony and recommendations made by key stakeholders. Once again, the Conservatives had a chance to significantly improve a bill at committee, but as in all other committees, it used its majority to shut down sensible and considered amendments, which could have easily improved this essentially flawed legislation.

Canadians are watching and seeing quite clearly how the government lacks any of the accountability it once supposedly so lovingly cherished and promised to Canadians. The recent growing scandal in the Senate only acts to highlight the arrogant sense of Conservative entitlement that the members on this side of the House see every day during our work in committees. This arrogance will come back to bite the government in the rear. Sadly, it also means that Canadians end up paying the price for the government's bad decisions.

The Conservatives had a chance to get Bill C-52 right but instead chose to do only half a job. They could have chosen to help strengthen a very significant part of our economy. Instead, they once again caved in to powerful lobbyists and decided to protect their big rail buddies, leaving Canadian shippers holding the bag and the costs.

Poor rail freight service is hurting Canada's exporters, damaging our productivity and global competitiveness and costing us jobs. We cannot afford to lose international business because big rail cannot get its act together.

Disruptions to rail freight services, as well as poor, unacceptable services, are costing the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Idle manufacturing plants and mines, rotting crops and missed deliveries to outgoing ships due to inefficient and dreadful rail services are a daily reality for Canadian industry.

It is important to note that rail transport is the backbone of the Canadian economy. More than 70% of all surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail. However, 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers are not being met by the rail companies due to such issues as delays and an insufficient number of railcars. The recent rail freight service review, which has been mentioned time and time again today, found that 80% of shippers are not satisfied with the services they receive. That means there is only a 20% satisfaction rate, which is abysmal. In any other industry, without this existing duopoly with CN and CP, businesses would be run into the ground for having such poor service records. Rail freight customers, from farmers to mining companies, are suffering from this virtual monopoly. In most parts of the country, shippers cannot choose between rail service providers because they only have access to either CN or CP, and that is if they still have rail service.

Rail line abandonment has been brought up more than once today. A couple of weeks ago I was driving through Arnprior, which is not far from here, expecting to cross the railway line, but it had been torn up. In the prairie provinces, the short lines that give access to the agricultural industry and farmers to reach the main line terminals and distribution centres are being ripped up. In the last 15 years, we have lost more than 10,000 kilometres of rail in Canada, which has been torn up because CN and CP have chosen to change the distribution methods. There is really no cost to them; they will not suffer, because there is no other game in town.

We have seen some real entrepreneurship in the prairie provinces where farmers, local municipalities and communities have banded together to bring rail service back into their communities. They are forming co-ops to save their short lines and bring their products to market in a more effective way, no thanks to the current government or the one before it.

Shippers are routinely suffering from service disruptions, delays and various forms of non-performance by CN and CP. Deliveries and pickups are done on time or are skipped altogether. Frequently, even the number of ordered railcars is not matched by delivered railcars, and sometimes cars are damaged. A broad range of industries is affected by the situation, from natural resources to manufacturing, including agriculture, forest products, mining, chemical, and the automotive businesses. A large portion of the goods in these industries is destined for export. Lacklustre rail service is thus hurting Canada's exporters' ability to compete in global marketplaces. For example, soybeans from Argentina enjoy a competitive advantage in markets like Japan and China because they are delivered faster and more punctually than soybeans from Canada, despite the fact that the total distance covered is significantly shorter for products coming from Canada.

For years now, shippers have been voicing their discontent, but no concrete action was taken by the Conservatives. Bill C-52 would be a half-hearted attempt to level the playing field for industries that are dependent on reliable, speedy rail freight services. Hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses, decreased competitiveness in the global marketplace and lost jobs apparently do not interest the Conservatives.

Shippers are so desperate that any form of protection is welcome, which is why so many industry groups are supporting the spirit of this bill. However, the watered-down Conservative bill comes as a disappointment for many across those industries. Since 2007, a talk-it-out-and-wait tactic has been employed, starting with the promise of an expert panel review. The rail freight service review started in 2008. The independent panel tabled its final report in early 2011. Half a year later, the Conservatives initiated a mediation process that did not yield any results; it was more wasted time from the other side. Presumably, with the backing of the Conservative government, CN and CP management were unwilling to make any meaningful concessions. The mediation process, led by retired Conservative politician and university chancellor Jim Dinning, failed and his report was released in June 2012.

Parallel to the end of the mediation process, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-441, the rail customer protection act. The private member's bill, coupled with advocacy work from the shipping community, put pressure on the government to follow up on the promise to actually table legislation.

It is also interesting to note that CN undertook a massive lobbying effort last year, first to prevent the bill and then to water it down. Dozens of documented visits to government offices and a media campaign showed its determination to keep the status quo. I would remind the House again that the status quo means that 80% of shippers are unsatisfied with the service that CN and CP are delivering.

Bill C-52 would focus squarely on commercial agreements between rail companies and shippers from a procedural point of view, having the rights to a service level agreement arbitration process in the case of failed negotiations, but not at any other time. Also, it would not address the other elephant in the room: pricing and cost. Certainly it would give an arbitration process, but any penalties garnered from that would not go back to the shippers to compensate them for their losses and their costs; they would go to the government.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona earlier today spoke about how they would have recourse to the courts. Yes, of course they would, but that would bring many costs and time and effort there, with no guarantees, of course. We should be designing bills that would not seek to actually draw people into the legal system. We should be avoiding having people unnecessarily go to court. As for the $100,000 limit on the fines, CN made $3 billion in profits last year, so a $100,000 fine could just be classified as the cost of doing business.

The consensus of the shipping community was to deal with pricing later and tackle service level agreement issues first. While Bill C-52 would fall short on a number of stakeholder demands, it is prudent to support the bill as the shipping community believes it would be a good first step. The task now is to address shortcomings and strengthen the bill to the benefit of the shippers and also to ensure that they get what they need in future rounds of negotiations.

The NDP proposed nine amendments at committee that were summarily rejected by the Conservatives. As my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine mentioned, there was only one Conservative question during all of those amendments, so they really were not interested in hearing about the suggestions we were making.

All those industry groups that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Heritage mentioned over and over again also submitted several recommendations to the committee, which the government also ignored. I would like to hear him answer why the government ignored those questions the next time he gets up to try to grill us on nationalization.

I am looking at the time, Mr. Speaker. I would definitely like to have some questions from my hon. colleagues before we hit question period, so I will wrap up now.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will set out a few dates in the context of this. In 1961 the NDP was founded. In 1962, it lost an election. In 1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011, it lost. One would think that after losing 16 elections, these guys would finally understand that what Canadians want are governments that put their needs first.

One would think that after the devastation in B.C., where New Democrats were supposed to win by massive amounts but lost when their leader turned his back on jobs and economic growth for the people of British Columbia, they would finally get it. Clearly they do not.

Here they are in this House arguing to nationalize CN Rail. At what cost would that be to taxpayers? At what cost would that be to shareholders who might actually be in the gallery petrified that their investments are going down the tube?

The New Democrats talk about the $3-billion that CN Rail made as if it were a curse, or a disease. My God, a company has made money in Canada and is creating jobs and economic growth—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is a curse and a disease is a government that thinks it is okay to lose complete track of $3 billion and not have any shame about that fact.

What is a travesty is a government that thinks that the unelected, unaccountable and entitled Senate should be sitting in decision of the bills made by the duly elected people of Canada who represent Canadians. The Conservatives obfuscate and deny; they block and they talk about how honourable these people are, when they are milking the taxpayers for millions of dollars, when they are submitting improper claims and then saying they were confused by the difficult one-page form. Well, if they cannot fill in a one-page form, they should not be here.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before I go back to questions and comments, I will just remind all hon. members that their questions and answers ought to be related to the matter before the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at the reason the legislation is before us today. It is not because of the Conservative government. It is not because the NDP is having a tiff. The reality is that we have stakeholders, such as our industries—agriculture, forestry, minerals, chemicals, fertilizers, oil and gas—and of course our manufacturers. They provide the jobs that Canadians really and truly want. That group of people led to the pressure for the government to materialize Bill C-52. They worked in co-operation with opposition parties. They want a sense of co-operation coming from the House of Commons and they are not seeing that. The government turned a deaf ear to even a simple, effective amendment from the deputy leader of the Liberal Party.

My question for the member is this: would he not agree that this legislation could be improved if we had amendments that were accepted by the government?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will apologize to you and the House, of course. I like to answer questions that are asked of me. It is a lesson the government would hopefully learn by 2:15 today in question period.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about why we are here debating this bill. I would like to take him back to the root cause of the entire issue, which was when the Liberal government in 1995 privatized CN and did not put any rules and regulations in place to protect shippers from the problems that exist now. We can trace that all the way back to 1995. Then the Liberals were in power for another 11 years after that fact and never got off their butts to fix it.

The member mentioned the deputy leader, the member for Wascana, who was in cabinet during that entire period. Therefore, I would like to ask him if perhaps he ever brought those concerns up with his cabinet colleagues and the prime minister at the time to actually deal with the problems shippers were facing then, as they are now, many years later?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very heartfelt speech, as always.

Why, in his opinion, are the Conservatives defending businesses that abuse their market power? Why are they abandoning the regions? Why are they not standing up for farmers as well as mining and forestry communities in Quebec and Canada?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is inexplicable to me why the government chooses to abandon the regions at a time when we should work to develop regional economies, especially those that survive primarily on seasonal industries. There is more work and economic building to create jobs in those areas so people do not have to think about leaving or worry about having to travel 100 kilometres away so they can get jobs and not be kicked off of EI, and other things.

We on this side would like to see rail development in Canada and infrastructure built in a way that will ensure Canadians' prosperity for years to come.

I apologize to the member for Peterborough for not having a chance to get to his question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government orders has expired. The hon. member will have four minutes remaining for questions and comments when this matter returns to the House.

Bill C-52—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As tempted as I am, Mr. Speaker, to draw some attention to what just took place with my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands and the whip for the Conservatives, I will at least say it was a touching moment. The House was able to share new-found compassion across the political spectrum.

In all seriousness, there is frustration and confusion around this recent closure motion that has been invoked today. The government has left the category of feeling shameful about shutting down debate in the House of Commons and usurping our democratic rights and now does it with a certain glee and excitement, even on bills that the opposition has talked to the government about agreeing with and about agreeing to limit the number of speakers so that we can move through the legislation in a proper way.

Conservatives are pushing an open door now. They are saying that the opposition is in their way, that they cannot get their jobs done and they have to invoke closure again and that it is so tragic. They seem to take some sort of joy out of further shattering the record of any government in Canadian history for shutting down debate in Parliament. There is no prize for this. They do not get an extra set of balloons for having broken the record so badly.

Is it not feasible or imaginable for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities or anybody in this place to realize that actually talking with opposition members and finding common ground on legislation that we can agree to is so much more preferable than coming in with these closure motions, one after another, and invoking some sort of fear tactic about opposition that does not even exist. It just does not seem very parliamentary or decent for the Conservatives to constantly say that their hands are forced and that arms are being twisted in the House when no such thing is going on.

I simply do not understand why they keep doing this.

The Minister of Transport and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that this undemocratic motion is necessary, but they need to justify it.

Where is the proof? Our critic is willing to work with them. That is not a problem. Members of the House of Commons can work together to benefit all Canadians. It can happen.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we announced on December 1, 2012, that it was very important for all shippers in the country for us to pass this bill.

I understand what my colleague is saying about working well together.

When I agree with something, I vote for it. I do not try to suspend discussion or to block discussion. In committee, New Democrats spoke about the evolution of the Canadian Wheat Board, truck traffic, infrastructure replacement, rail safety and budget cuts. I have sheets of paper listing what they spoke about, but they were supporting those things. What it is, is what they do not.

When a bill like this is so important for the shippers of this country, we take the measures necessary.

Taking the measures necessary means passing this bill for the sake of the country's economy. Our government does not stand to gain anything from this bill. We do not want a set of balloons; we want a bill that makes sense for this country's shippers, whether they are in agriculture, business or industry.

We know how important it is for everything to be done right when it comes to our country's rail system. A wide variety of products are being shipped, and all of the country's shippers support our bill.

Today, after months of delay, deferral and stalling, we feel it is time to move forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's response, and we will get a chance to talk about the bill itself, but what I want to focus attention on is not the bill but rather the process. The government has demonstrated it knows no shame in terms of closure inside the House of Commons. That is something that all Canadians should be concerned about.

Every piece of legislation has some sense of urgency to it. What is unique with this government is that it has this driving force to limit debate, to prevent members of Parliament from debating. No matter how simplistic or complicated a bill is, the government is determined to shut down debate on important issues. That is what is so wrong with what the government is doing.

We have seen it with this Conservative-Reform majority government. It is a change in attitude. It is either my way or the highway. It is either we get behind the bill, stop talking about it and allow it to pass or the government will bring in time allocation. Time and time again—and we could repeat it 36-plus times—the government has brought in time allocation.

This is new for the Government of Canada. No other government has used this measure so willingly and shamelessly in the history of our country.

My question is not for the minister responsible for the bill but for the government House leader. Why does the government House leader continue to bring in time allocation? That is shameful behaviour, and the Conservative majority government has to take responsibility for its lack of respect for the House of Commons and all members of the House. Why is the government continuing to bring in time allocation as part of a normal procedure?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some quotes from Canadian organizations that are supporting the bill.

These measures will create the conditions for improved railway performance and accountability. It will help ensure all shippers can gain access to an adequate level of service.

It was Kevin Bender, President of Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, who said that.

Stephen Vandervalk, president of Grain Growers of Canada, said, “We especially thank Agriculture Canada and Transportation Canada and the federal government for listening to farmers and moving this legislation ahead.”

Richard Paton, president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, said:

The level of service offered by Canada's railway can make the difference between companies investing here, or taking their business elsewhere. So this legislation is critical—not only for our industry's competitiveness, but for Canada's overall productivity and prosperity.

David Lindsay said:

Ensuring a fair and balanced relationship between shippers and the railroads will help the forest products industry retain and create jobs for the benefit of the Canadian economy.

That is what we want to do. We want to support the Canadian economy. From the time we came here and up to the last economic action plan, that is all we have wanted to do, and we will continue to do so.

It is time to pass this bill.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Transport is in such a rush to end the debate and even to prevent me, as a parliamentarian, from speaking to this bill, why did the Conservatives wait five years before bringing this initiative forward?

It sounds like double-talk to me. To suddenly be in such a rush sounds like last-minute timing, given that they dragged their feet for five long years. Shippers have been in this situation for a very long time, and the Conservatives have done nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should familiarize himself with the history of this bill. It all began in 2006, right after the former minister of transport, Mr. Cannon, took office.

A process was instituted that has lasted since that time. Studies and research have been done, and study committees created. A panel composed of three rail transport specialists was created. They toured the country to listen to the people and see how the bill should be framed.

It was a long process. Actually, I think I am the fourth or fifth minister of transport since the process began. When I arrived at Transport Canada, we hired Jim Dinning, who is known nationwide for his impressive administrative skills. Mr. Dinning did an excellent job of laying the groundwork for the bill; it is going to enable us to move forward.

I myself went to the port of Saguenay, in the member’s region, to announce a $15-million investment to provide a railway branch line so that shippers will be able to send their goods from all over Abitibi, all the way from the far north, out of that port.

We believe that rail transport is a very important factor in Canada's economic future. That is why we want to continue supporting the economy and these shippers today. This did not happen in a day. The work was done over several years and is now taking shape.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Minister of Transport's efforts on this. Obviously this has been an encompassing process from 2006 to today.

I am a little lost for words. We hear some NDP members saying that this is going too fast and we need to slow down, while other members of the NDP are asking what is taking us so long. From my perspective, as a government we have supported infrastructure. My own province of British Columbia has the Asia-Pacific gateway. Obviously, some needs have been expressed by the industry over the years to have access.

Would the minister repeat the economic reasons for seeing this bill go forward so industry can have that sense of certainty and see our economy grow?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill is an important part of our plan to strengthen our economy. Our government is working to improve rail freight service in Canada to better support economic growth, resource development and our ambitious domestic and international trade agenda.

As I have said, the corridors are very important for us. The Asia-Pacific gateway is a success worldwide. I was in Germany last week for the international transportation forum with ministers of transport from around the world, from Korea to China to Japan. All these ministers know the Asia-Pacific gateway very well. We have made a success of that. Why? Because we have invested in the infrastructure in the country to improve our economy. That is why we want to continue to do so.

The bill would change the rules, but that would help shippers have an agreement with rail companies, and that is very important for shippers. They have been asking for that for years. That is why we have to continue.

The goal of this legislation is to encourage railways and shippers to work together. Shippers will have the right to a service agreement with railways to enhance clarity, predictability and reliability in rail service. The bill would help shippers manage and expand their businesses, while ensuring the railway operates an efficient network for the benefit of all users. A strong, competitive rail freight supply chain is vital to Canada's economy as a whole and the challenging global economy. All sectors of the economy must work together to drive growth, job creation and long-term prosperity.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to discuss the merits of the bill that the minister has suddenly declared to be extremely urgent.

There is something else I would like the minister to explain. We do not have any major problems with his bill. However, I do not understand this sudden urgency. The minister is telling us that it has not moved forward since 2006.

That is the kind of thing people say when the previous government was another party. Since 2006, however, we have had a Conservative government, the minister’s own government. As the minister said, he has done studies to get this bill going, as he should.

It is now 2013 and all of a sudden, today, at the end of the parliamentary session, a 40th time allocation motion is being brought in. Can the minister comment on that? Why is it suddenly so urgent? What is so urgent, to the point of shutting down all debate and once again preventing people from coming to testify and democracy from taking its course?

All the ministers want their bills to get passed quickly, right now, and they are all using time allocation motions.

I would like an explanation, because up to now I have not heard anything from the minister.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #706

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), be read the third time and passed.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak in support of Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act. I will focus my remarks on how this bill will contribute to strengthening the shipper-railway relationship as it facilitates the commercial negotiation of service agreements.

Canada's freight rail network is a vital link to global markets and supply chains, because it facilitates the import and export of millions of dollars worth of commodities and manufactured goods each and every day. Our economy relies on the billions of dollars of revenue generated by Canadian manufactured goods and export commodities, such as grain, pulp and paper, coal and potash. Canadian consumers and businesses also depend on containerized goods, arriving daily from Asia and Europe, moving to cities across the country in an efficient manner.

Bill C-52 will help the thousands of companies that rely on rail to ship these goods and will help the Canadians who are employed by these sectors. Given the importance of rail to Canada's economy and trade, ultimately Bill C-52 will contribute to Canada's economic growth and job creation.

The goal of Bill C-52 is to support the adoption of service agreements between shippers and railways. Service agreements can help strengthen the shipper-railway relationship. They can make it easier for businesses to plan how they will transport their goods to market. In recent years, the railways and their supply chain partners, including shippers, ports and terminals, have signed many such agreements. These agreements have improved rail service, collaboration, communication, and ultimately, supply chain efficiency. In short, service agreements are a tool to bring greater certainty and reliability to rail freight service.

This bill supports best practice in the industry. To achieve this, Bill C-52 has two parts. It would provide shippers with the right to a service agreement, and it would offer service arbitration to establish the terms and conditions of service in the event that negotiations fail. Most importantly, the new provision would create a strong incentive for the parties to negotiate service agreements commercially.

A shipper who wanted a service agreement could approach a railway. In turn, the railway would be obligated to respond to the shipper within 30 days. This would ensure that shippers and railways would first try to reach commercial solutions to tailor their service relationships.

In the event negotiations failed, the shipper would then turn to service arbitration to receive an imposed service agreement. However, before arbitration could begin, the shipper would be required to provide advance notice of 15 days to the railway. This 15-day period would further support commercial negotiation, as it would allow both parties one last chance to reach a compromise before service arbitration started.

In the end, it is expected that the current use of service agreements would be expanded. Going forward, any shipper who needed a service agreement would be able to obtain one either commercially or through service arbitration.

Some may try to say that this proposed legislation would be adding red tape and would burden rail companies. To this I would like to respond, no. We are providing a solution in case of service failure. We expect railways and shippers to continue working together and building on the success of the proactive measures from the rail freight service review.

This proposed legislation is important, because it provides the framework to enhance the standard level of respect for service agreements. This has many benefits. By facilitating better collaboration between shippers and railways through negotiating service agreements, parties could then agree on clear service elements and performance standards. Shippers and railways would clearly know what was expected of each other and would be able to work better together to make their day-to-day interactions more efficient.

Service agreements could also strengthen the relationship between shippers and railways by determining what to do when there is a service failure. Communication protocols could be put in place and recovery plans could lay out how and when service could resume.

Canadian shippers and railways could also use service agreements to lay the foundation for how they could expand their businesses together. Negotiations on a service agreement could be an opportunity for a shipper to discuss traffic growth plans and see how railway service could be adapted to respond to growth. The legislative right to a service agreement, supported by an arbitration process if commercial negotiations fail, would therefore be quite powerful.

Across Canada, shippers, whether large or small, whether shipping intermodal containers or raw commodities, would be entitled to obtain service agreements establishing a road map with the railway to achieve the benefits I just explained.

However, do not take only my word for it. This is what Mr. Rick White, General Manager of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, had to say about Bill C-52. He said:

The Canadian Canola Growers Association is pleased to see the inclusion of a number of important elements in Bill C-52, including the right to negotiate a service level agreement if commercial negotiations fail. With over 85 percent of canola seed, oil and meal exported to more than 50 markets worldwide, effective and efficient rail service is critical to the success of farmers and our entire industry.

That brings me to Canadian trade and our gateway and corridor initiatives. The railways played a primordial role in Canada's settlement and economic expansion, and they continue to play a key role. Rail networks are a core part of Canada's transportation system.

Our Conservative government has worked to strengthen Canada's transportation system in various ways, including with strategic gateways and trade corridor initiatives. Through these initiatives, our Conservative government, along with its partners, has made significant investments to reduce congestion along key corridors and to build capacity to capitalize on growing trade opportunities. Our gateway initiatives also encourage stakeholder engagement and dialogue as a key means of improving how our gateways function. Evidence shows that this gets results. Through working together, stakeholders have been able to address operational issues and enhance the performance of our gateways.

The proposed new legislative measure on service agreements supports such partnerships. It is through such partnerships that we can achieve an efficient and reliable supply chain. This would allow us to meet demand in existing, expanding and new trade markets. In this sense, the legislation would support our government's economic agenda.

In my role as chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I had the opportunity, as the other members did, to hear first-hand from shippers and other stakeholders about the importance of this legislation. I was pleased to hear that there was an astounding amount of support for this bill, and the committee heard this testimony from the groups involved. Whether it was Port Metro Vancouver from British Columbia; the Manitoba Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation, Steve Ashton; or the Halifax Port Authority, Canadians from coast to coast to coast were supportive of this legislation.

That does not take away the fact that in agreements like this, not everyone gets everything he or she wants, but I think everyone would have to admit that we came out with a balanced bill. That is why I am here speaking in support of it.

Let me just take a few minutes to read some of the testimony we heard on this legislation:

Bill C-52 is extremely important to Port Metro Vancouver.... Past performance of the railways has made Bill C-52 necessary. I think the bill has appropriately walked the fine line of mandating action but allowing for the flexibility to tailor agreements to the needs of each shipper.... I would recommend proceeding with the approval of Bill C-52.

I think we need to accept the fact that in some circumstances it won't be possible for a party to actually, in good faith, negotiate an agreement. In that sense, Bill C-52 does suggest a mechanism for resolving that impasse.

The legislation includes the right to ask an arbitrator to establish an agreement. In that sense, Bill C-52 is an improvement and it needs to be passed.

I will not re-read the entire transcript of the meetings we held, but this gives the House an indication of the testimony we heard at our committee.

So far I have discussed the benefits of the bill in terms of the service agreements that are in place and how the bill expands Canadian trade. I have also gone over some of the testimony that was heard at the transport committee during the study of the bill.

I would now like to shift the focus to a sector that is very important to me, agriculture. I represent the rural riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and while shipping by rail is not extremely common in my neck of the woods, I have certainly seen that farmers are very concerned about how their product is transported from the farm to the markets.

Having been a farmer myself, I know that the agriculture business is full of uncertainties. That is why I am very happy that we will be moving forward with Bill C-52 to ensure that Canadian farmers will be protected by these service agreements so that they know they will always have a viable option to ship their product.

As I said, agriculture is one of the main pillars of my riding and certainly one of the main pillars of the Canadian economy. Canada's agriculture, and indeed the entire agri-food industry, plays a vital role in creating jobs and keeping our economy strong. However, our farmers depend on efficient, effective and reliable rail service so that they are able to move crops off the farm to valued customers, not just in Canada but around the world.

That is exactly what Bill C-52 will do for our hardworking farmers. It will ensure their right to a service agreement with railways to enhance clarity, predictability and reliability when shipping their product.

Furthermore, I would like to expand on the nature of the bill and indicate that the bill is not only a benefit to the shipper but that the rail services will also benefit from the changes that will be brought forth in the bill. The bill does not pit shipper against rail service. The goal of this legislation is rather to encourage railways and shippers to work together.

The fair rail freight service act would help shippers to manage and expand their businesses while ensuring the railways can operate an efficient network for the benefit of all users. This will ensure a strong, competitive rail freight supply chain, which is critical to the success of the Canadian economy. In these challenging global economic times, all sectors of the economy must work together to drive growth, create jobs and ensure long-term prosperity.

Before I wrap up my comments, I would like to proactively answer some the questions that opposition members of the House may have with regard to the bill. I will begin with the possible question that may arise about why the bill had not been tabled earlier. The response to this is quite simple: it takes time to get things right.

On this piece of legislation, we took the time necessary to hold in-depth consultations with stakeholders on the matter. We carefully reviewed the submissions that we received so that we could advance with a framework that would benefit all parties involved. It was a long process, but as members can see by some of the quotes I presented earlier, it has worked, and we have a very useful bill before us in the House.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I see members of that committee from all sides of the House here. We did not always agree on everything, but at the end of the day we have a good bill, and I would be remiss if I did not mention the strong work and support by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a bill that many people, including shippers, have asked for, for a number of years. The minister has done it, and we are here today discussing it in the House.

Another question that is brought up around the bill is the notion that new provisions in the bill will negatively affect the efficiency of Canada's rail system. This is not true. The arbitrator must consider the efficiency of the rail network and railways' obligation to provide service to all shippers when making decisions.

Finally, I will respond to the possible question of why there is not a list of elements that must be included in a service agreement under the bill. This is because there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to these agreements. Every situation between shippers and rail services will be different and will require different needs. Therefore, this approach will ensure that the arbitrator has the flexibility needed to make the appropriate decisions.

I think there will be few of these arbitration decisions, but there would be that flexibility for the two parties to sit down, and the arbitration process would occur only when a custom-made deal that works for both parties cannot be worked out.

To conclude, service agreements are an important commercial tool that supports the shipper-railway relationship because they bring clarity and predictability to rail service. As some associations put it after the tabling of the bill in December 2012, this will serve as a platform for continued collaboration with Canadian railways.

This bill would work wonders for shippers and rail services in Canada and would be of enormous benefit to all sectors, including the agriculture industry.

The government's objective is to facilitate the adoption of service agreements between shippers and railways for those shippers who want one, and Bill C-52 would accomplish this.

I urge members to join me in supporting this bill. I hope that my colleagues across the way will show their support for this bill and vote in favour of its passage.

We have heard from many members during the discussion on this bill, and while I mentioned agriculture quite a bit, because there are a lot of agriculture products that travel, the bill would affect everything from forestry to fertilizer to potash. Therefore, this bill is very important.

Saskatchewan is the largest producer of potash in the world, a lot of which is exported, and rail allows it to get moved. As well, the mining industry transports all kinds of products. There is even talk right now of more crude oil moving by rail. I think we all have to admit that pipelines would be the preferred route, but business will always look at every opportunity out there, and rail is one of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, farmers in my area have been waiting nearly two decades for the reform of service agreements. They have been waiting almost two decades for this legislation.

I have a precise question for the chair of the transport committee.

We have heard from the government side that this is very important legislation. My question concerns the timing of the bill in the 41st Parliament. When did the minister approach the House leader to table this legislation? I do not need a precise date, but I would like the month and the year.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the farmers in his area who, like many across this country, have been waiting a couple of decades. I do not know if that number is accurate, but this government was not here two decades ago. However, I would point out that we are here today. We got the job done on it, and we are here to debate it.

If this member is as concerned about his farmers and producers getting their product out to where it needs to go as much as he seems to imply that he is, at the end of the day I am certainly going to be thanking him for his support on this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that we give credit where credit is due, and actually it was the shippers, who come in many different forms, who took the approach of lobbying all three political parties half a dozen years ago. They indicated that we needed to enact legislation that would allow for things like service agreements.

It is fairly widely believed that the field is not level in terms of shipping products throughout North America, particularly in Canada, where the scale has been heavily in favour of the rail. This is one of the reasons we had to have service agreements.

I have known for many years, and particularly the last three or four years, that the member for Wascana has represented the Liberal Party exceptionally well by applying pressure on the government to act on this issue.

The Liberal Party will support Bill C-52 to go forward, but I have a specific question for the member on the amendments that were brought forward. Why was the government not prepared to accept some of those amendments? The amendments would would have made this legislation that much stronger, and the bill could have received that much more support from the different stakeholders.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, for his comments, for his indicated support for this bill and for the fact that he obviously understands this bill.

He talked about the service agreements, et cetera. Yes, there were some amendments that were put forth, but his party and all parties in this House were represented on the committee. There was great discussion and debate about the amendments and, at the end of the day, the committee's wisdom was to present the bill as it is.

The member did mention his colleague from Wascana, who was here for 13 years before we came to power. He is probably wondering the same question I am, which is why they did not get the job done in that 13 years.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side just asked about the introduction of this piece of legislation. It actually started in 2008, with the rail freight service review. It was a two-year process. It was quite extensive and exhaustive, and there was enough guilt on the railway side as well as on the shippers' side when it comes to numbers to make it clear that something had to be done.

This measure was first introduced—in fact, I introduced it—in March in 2012, prior to the election, and then was picked up after the election, in December. This is a piece of legislation that has come a long way and has had lots of consultation.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. When the railway companies looked at this legislation initially, they fought against it, said they did not need it and said they would arrive at their service arrangements themselves. They said that it would drive negotiation away from the table. What I believe will happen is that it will drive both parties to the table, and if they cannot negotiate, it would be an arbitrated settlement. I wonder if my colleague would agree with me.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yellowhead represents a very agricultural riding. I have passed through it, although not often enough. It is a beautiful agricultural part of the country where people use rail to get a lot of their product out.

As to his question, at the start of these negotiations it is fair to say that neither side was happy with the proposal. However, at the end of the day, my colleague is absolutely correct that this bill would encourage even more agreements between shippers and railways. As everybody knows from listening to the debate today and tonight, some agreements have already been voluntarily signed between them, but this measure would create more and bring them all to the table.

Nobody likes change, and that probably includes shippers and railways, but I think this bill will do what it is intended to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead for that clarification about when the legislation was tabled. We know the genesis of this bill was around 2006, when the conversation began with the government. My question prior to this was specific to the 41st Parliament, which the member for Yellowhead also clarified, saying that the bill was tabled in December 2011.

My supplementary question, a follow-up to my first question, is for the chair of the transport committee. Can he give us an overview of the history of this legislation's movement through the House and committee? We know that first reading took place in December 2011. When did second reading take place? When was it considered in committee, and how long was the time from when it was in committee to the time it arrived in the House? Can he give us the timelines, in months and years, of the different readings and the consideration in committee?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give him all the answers that he is looking for because I took over my role as chair of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee last September. Since that time, this bill came forth before us earlier this spring. We have been working on it, and I believe it would be the end of April or first part of May when the vote came through the first time at second reading. He is wanting dates, and if he calls me I can get those for him, but I just do not have them off the top of my head.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and his work on the transport committee. It is a lot of responsibility to be a chair and I certainly would not be the person to do it.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding with opposition members. They keep asking process questions and then argue that there should be results. We hear from some members that this is going too fast and then we hear from other members that this is not happening fast enough. This is a complex problem. We have a case where there is a de facto duopoly, hundreds of small industries, agricultural-based and mining-based workers, and the government has fundamentally addressed it with this legislation.

I would like him to again reinforce the fact that the whole reason for this bill being here is to build certainty and allow Canadian goods to be shipped across this country, to use the ports we have put billions of dollars into, and to see good things happen here in Canada.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. As for his surmise that New Democrats are more worried about process, he would have to ask them about that. It seems it does not matter what the issue is, New Democrats want us to do something about it, bring in some new rules, et cetera, and when we do, they stand and vote against them. I have no idea on that point.

As to the question from my colleague, I know businesses, industry and agriculture in his riding will certainly use this new act. There is no doubt in my mind that it will work for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the very able member for Churchill.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the bill that would give customers of railway companies the right to establish service agreements with those companies and would create an arbitration process in case of failed negotiations. Despite its weaknesses, the bill is very important for the Canadian economy, especially for the agricultural, mining and forestry sectors, which depend heavily on rail transport.

The bill is not perfect. Still, we appreciate that after so many years of fine words and no action, the Conservatives have finally acted and introduced the bill.

On this subject, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina who, by introducing her own bill on protecting customers of railway companies, was able to prod the Conservative government into action. The government presented its bill six months later. Better late than never.

My speech will have three parts. First, I will highlight the importance of strengthening the position of shippers in Canada's rail transport sector. Then I will show that the bill does not go far enough to improve services and protect shippers. Finally, I will propose amendments based on the recommendations presented to the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities by the Coalition of Rail Shippers.

Why is it important to take action to improve rail transportation services? Because rail is among the most-used means of transport in Canada. In Canada, railways transport more than 70% of goods shipped on land. The economic power of railways is considerable.

That leads me to my second point. Despite the importance of this mode of transportation for many shippers, service interruptions, delays and various problems with productivity are common among rail transporters. This situation affects many sectors, including natural resources, agriculture, forest products, mines, chemical industries and the automotive sector.

In terms of agriculture, 80% of service agreements are not complied with by the railway companies. This means delays or trains that simply do not arrive, damaged rail cars or not enough rail cars. In addition to the losses caused by this kind of problem—such as harvests that may rot—the poor quality of rail transport services undermines the ability of Canadian exporters to compete in world markets. This situation costs the Canadian economy many hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Let us now try to determine the source of these problems. One of sources of these problems is, of course, the virtual monopoly. As the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla said earlier in his question, the problem is the monopoly held by the railways in Canada. In most regions of the country, shippers cannot choose their railway carrier because they have access either to CN or to CP. Even in cases where both companies are present, one of the two usually charges prices that are much too high, which does not leave shippers with much of a choice. To some extent, the monopoly situation was made possible by the Liberals when they were in power. They are the ones who privatized CN in 1995. By failing to set out protective measures for shippers, they reinforced the virtual monopoly we have today.

At the time, one option would have been to privatize railway activities while ensuring that the rail transportation system remained public, which also would have been beneficial for VIA Rail. Right now, VIA Rail mostly has to use rented tracks belonging to CN.

When I was deputy critic of transport, I met with the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition and it let me know what it needed to help foster economic growth in the west, on the Prairies. I am sure it is going to be happy to see this very bill come to life. It has been waiting for more than five years. It has been waiting for seven years for this legislation to come to life.

Just to clarify for Canadians, the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition is made up of important Canadian companies, like the Alberta Newsprint Company, Al-Pac Forest Industries Inc., Canadian Forest Products Inc., Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Canadian Wheat Board, Coal Valley Resources Inc., Coalspur Mines Ltd., Dunkley Lumber Ltd., Grand Cache Coal Corporation, Lehigh Cement, Chemtrade, Millar Western Forest Products and Suncor, among many other important Canadian companies. Many of these companies are in the natural resources sector.

The government tends to think that it is the best friend of the resource sector. The sector relies on the government as a regulator to ensure reliability in terms of service. The result, if it is done properly, is that companies prosper and flourish. Without leadership, without the government taking on its role as regulator, the companies simply endure or, even worse, sometimes flounder. This legislation would allow the companies to simply endure. It is not good enough to let them prosper and flourish.

The NDP would prefer to see these companies prosper and contribute to the health of our resources sector and the agricultural sector. In committee, there were amendments proposed by these two sectors. The NDP listened, but the government was in such a rush to fall behind, that it really did not listen to what these companies were asking for. I am going to read what the companies asked for and what the Conservatives did not consider.

One thing they wanted to do was to fix the service agreements. They wanted, one, to include details on service agreement components; two, a deletion of the term “operational” as it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements; three, to include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract; four, to limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in the service agreement; five, to limit arbitration for failed service agreement negotiations to matters raised by the shipper; six, to limit railway companies' ability to raise network issues in arbitration, for example, finding convenient excuses for not agreeing to shippers' demands in contract negotiations and arbitrations.

New Democrats felt that these were very reasoned amendments and the government had a choice: it could listen to the resource sector and Canadian farmers or it could listen to a monopoly with a long history of manipulating government throughout Canadian history. Unfortunately, it looks like it chose, for these amendments at least, the side of the monopoly, as the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla mentioned.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Duopoly.

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

It is a duopoly. Sure, I will give him that.

I would like to read a quote about monopolies, which goes like this:

They had begun to consider the Government...as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

That is a quote by Franklin Roosevelt, a democrat. Contrary to allusions by the government, the “D” in NDP stands for “Democratic”. We are the only party over the past 50 years to stand up for the democratic rights of all Canadians and not just a select few. When we hear the smears from the other side, we know our principles. We do not abandon those principles for the sake of power. We do not remain silent in the face of adversity.

As I mentioned before, for competition to flourish in our country, sound, organic and healthy competition, it requires co-operation. The government should have listened to the good people who work on the farm or the people who work in the resource sector. Instead, time after time, Conservatives choose to listen to the privileged few to enable their abuse of power and give them carte blanche to crush Canadian competitiveness. Canadians deserve better.

In 2015, the NDP will provide the leadership to steer our economy out of the perilous straits, out of scandal and corruption to that prosperous future Canadians long for and desire.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have had an exchange of ideas, talking about the difference between monopolies and duopolies. There are many things in the speech the gentleman has brought up tonight, and they are worthy of noting.

First, when it comes to resource development, a conclusion is quite obvious from the policies that the NDP espouses on a daily basis, particularly if we look recently to the election in B.C., where the New Democratic Party and its economic policies, particularly around resource development, were flatly denied by British Columbians.

When the member says that the NDP represents rural communities and represents the resource sector, I would ask them to take a stark look in the mirror and see if that is true. Definitely in my province of British Columbia that is not the case.

Again, this is a complicated issue. I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with us that government does have a responsibility to listen, particularly in cases where there is a complex, difficult issue, where there is a duopoly, where there are numbers of shippers that are unhappy with the services they receive and they are all competing for the same services.

When you are going from a system that is predicated right now on these companies having to be taken to court to a regulated system—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There are five minutes for questions and comments, and we are well past the first minute.

We will go to the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is the party that supports the people who work in this sector every day. In the resource sector, in the agricultural sector, we are the ones who are there on the ground helping these people out when they have problems with their employer or when they feel that injustice is being done. We are the only ones in the House who truly support these workers in these sectors.

To help them, the government should take on its role as a regulator, which is to provide fairness in an industry and to allow competition to happen so more jobs can be created. In its role as a regulator, it has not done the job. The Conservatives had a choice. They could have chosen healthy Canadian companies and their workers, or a duopoly. They chose the interests of the duopoly over those of great Canadian companies that make our economy work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that his party is not the only one that represents the workers. There are other parties in the House that believe we represent the workers just as well, if not even potentially even better.

With respect to Bill C-52, we also represent the interests of small businesses. It is the shippers in particular who are most impacted by this, and indirectly the workers too. However, we are talking about large and small businesses that have been anxiously awaiting this measure.

In regard to CN, the member brought up the fact that the Liberals privatized it in 1995. A few years later was when this issue came to light. Does the NDP take the position that it would buy back CN or nationalize a railway?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North missed my point. When a government, be it Liberal or Conservative, takes an ideological position—in this case, the Liberal government taking an ideological position of privatization without really thinking of the consequences of that ideological decision—then we end up having to do repair legislation, as we are doing tonight.

The member says that the Liberals also defend the workers, but all I have heard for the past few months is Liberals defending the rights of middle-class workers. What about the workers who are having difficulty, who are not in the middle class? I have not heard anything from his party about that. I find it very rich that the member for Winnipeg North brings this up and pretends to be the defender of working people in Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration). This topic has been a very important one for my constituents and for people across rural communities and, particularly, western Canada.

Before I go further, I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, who for years has been a real advocate when it comes to fairness in the transportation industry. She has worked very hard on reforming this act, in particular, and bringing the NDP position forward.

The NDP position is fundamentally one of seeking fairness and a fair playing field for those who depend on rail service as part of their work, business and industry and, very important, the communities that depend on fair rail service to ensure their employers and industries are dealt with appropriately.

We in the NDP have made it clear that we support the bill at this point, but we believe it must be strengthened as we go forward. We are not pleased with the delays that the government has allowed and also the kind of cowering we have seen from it, which is not a surprise, to major corporate interests in this field.

As we know, the proposed bill will give rail freight customers or shippers the right to service agreements with rail companies. It also puts in place a Canadian Transportation Agency-led arbitration process for failed negotiations and penalties for those who violate the arbitration results.

Key amendments that the shipping company pushed for and that were championed by the NDP were unfortunately defeated in the committee. Without these rejected amendments, we believe the bill remains a partial success for the shippers and it must be strengthened in the future.

It is important that we indicate to stakeholders and to the government that this is not a done deal. As with anything, but particularly when we talk about this area, the bill needs to be further strengthened.

Bill C-52 partially addresses the fact that rail freight customers, known as shippers, have been suffering from insufficient freight services stemming from the abuse of market power by the large rail companies.

The Conservative government has finally tabled legislation, after years of talking and inaction, to address the fact that many shippers cannot even get a service agreement as rail companies have not been willing to negotiate.

As the bill only covers new service agreements, current agreements and contract violation, which are all a major source of revenue loss for shippers, are not affected by Bill C-52.

Certainly in terms of the stakeholders that have been involved, I would like to read into the record some of the stakeholders who have spoken out in support of the NDP broader position, which is that the act must be strengthened.

I recognize that the wish for this act to be strengthened comes in large part from people who work in the mining industry. As someone representing an area that depends on mining and as someone who is proud to say that I come from and live in a mining town, I recognize that in order to ship the ore and the goods that are needed for the mining industry to both do its job and to export its product, fair rail services are essential.

The Mining Association of Canada, as represented by Pierre Gratton, indicated:

Although MAC appreciates the government's initiative through Bill C-52, it is our view that the bill, unless amended, will not deliver on the government's promise...“to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of the entire rail freight supply chain”.

Coming from western Canada, I share with many of my colleagues from there the understanding and the clear recognition of the importance of agriculture in our region, particularly agriculture when it comes to grain production. I want to read the message that was brought forward by the Grain Growers of Canada, as represented by Richard Phillips. He noted:

I think what we're looking at here is the level of service and timeliness of service to meet our sales commitments. That's what we're really talking about. [...] When Pulse Canada was down in Colombia and we'd just signed a deal there, we were looking forward to increased exports to Colombia, and the Colombians said they weren't sure they'd actually buy anything more from us because they couldn't get reliable enough delivery of product on time.

Clearly there is a concern about our ability to export. These are clearly serious concerns brought forward by our clients when it comes to reliability and timeliness of exports of a fundamental product, which is grain. That is unacceptable. It is a clear indication of why it is absolutely essential that we not see this as a "done deal" as such, but that we understand it is something that needs to go forward. We must continue to listen to stakeholders and seek a truly fair system when it comes to the rail service provided in our country.

As someone who is proud to come from western Canada, I want to read into the record the words of the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, as represented by Ian May. He noted:

Since the government committed to the legislation, we've heard that service has improved. I can tell you that it hasn't. I can tell you that as recently as two weeks ago we had mills just about shut down because they couldn't get boxcars in western Canada, and not just one. Whether that's coincidental with a broader understanding of Bill C-52 and perhaps the fact that it is balanced versus a shipper bill that would have levelled the playing field—and that's our language—I don't know.

The Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, a very inclusive coalition and one that has a great deal of clout in western Canada, is clearly stating that the bill does not go far enough, that there are serious problems in the kind of rail service that is provided and that they are getting a raw deal. That concerns me a great deal. In the last few years, and certainly since I have had the honour of being a member of Parliament for northern Manitoba, it is clear to me, day by day, the way in which people in my part of the country are getting a raw deal from the government.

I want to indicate the cutbacks to Via Rail, for example, have directly impacted the people of northern Manitoba and will continue to impact as tourism picks up in the summer. The people who are affected are those who live on the Bayline and in Churchill, who depend on reliable, quality rail service provided by Via Rail.

I also want to indicate the lack of imagination and commitment to another transportation hub, which is the Port of Churchill. It is truly a gateway to Arctic trade and to opportunity, not just for Manitoba but for all of Canada, yet the government has squandered opportunities to truly make investments. The gutting of the Canadian Wheat Board as we knew it played a major role in setting us back. As we know from last year, the shipments through the Port of Churchill are nowhere near where they ought to be.

I also want to indicate the government's failure to invest in an all-weather road network across northern Manitoba, something that could improve the quality of life of many first nations and Metis people in that part of the country, as well as the economic development opportunities.

Again, time after time, we are seeing a government being short-sighted toward the interests of northern, rural and western Canadians, and we see it in this bill that must go further. I agree with my colleagues that western, northern and rural Canadians deserve far better.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from my colleague from Churchill. She started off talking about her colleague from Trinity—Spadina, the great comments she had, and the great work she was doing on this file.

It is interesting to note that one of her propositions is that there would be absolutely nobody looking at the overall network. Whether this network is owned by a government, as it used to be, or it is a private enterprise, the member wants the shipper to be able to go to the rail company and say, “I want you to ship my goods and I do not care what else you have in your network; it has to be completely ignored. I do not care if your network gets overwhelmed or collapsed; nobody should be taking that into account. Only worry about my one shipment or my shipments over the course of this year”.

Does the member not realize that there is a thing called “the folly of the commons”? That is when there is a field that can only handle so many sheep, and if someone wants to put 1,000 more sheep in it, the field that is feeding that network is killed off. There is absolutely no gain in that. In fact, what happens is that the individual destroys not only that shipper's ability to ship, but everybody's ability to ship, and nothing gets to market. Is that really what the member wants to see happen in this situation?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution. I was a bit surprised by the repeated reference to sheep. We are a bit beyond that, although some days I wonder about the government's members and any comparisons to that.

However, this member is my neighbour in my province, and I know he represents an area that very much depends on rail transportation.

My question for him is this. Recognizing the importance of industry and of customers getting a fair deal from their rail transportation companies, is that not critical to expanding the economy? Is it not critical to ensuring that people in his constituency and in our province have a brighter economic future? Therefore, instead of criticizing, would he not join with us in calling for his own government to do better?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on that point of recognizing the valuable contributions that our rail lines make to the province of Manitoba, as I suspect they make to all provinces. If I can gloat for a bit in terms of the province of Manitoba, in particular the city of Winnipeg, whether it is our CN shops, our CP shops, or the potential of CentrePort, there is all of this humongous network that is virtually nationwide. However, Manitoba, because of its geographical location, is actually in a great position to do that much more. The potential is there, and it is real and tangible.

One of the core aspects of being able to ensure we have that future growth of demand depends on the shippers, and it depends on a number of elements that will allow for that growth to proceed. That is why it is so critically important that we have this service agreement, and that is why, in essence, it could have been better. The bill itself, in principle, is good and worthy of supporting, but it would have been better had there been some amendments—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We want to leave some time for the response.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position is clear. This bill can and must go further when we are talking about truly making it a fair deal and looking at how we can strengthen service agreements and the ability of clients and industry to engage in arbitration when things are reaching a breaking point.

It is very clear that time and again the current government is short-sighted when it comes to building true economic opportunity. In western Canada, often the Conservatives use overblown rhetoric about what they are doing on behalf of our provinces, and yet here is a perfect example. Western Canada and the industries in our region depend on rail service. Clearly we have heard from stakeholders that they are getting a raw deal and that the government can do better, yet instead of taking the opportunity to listen to important stakeholders, whether in the grain industry or mining, we have been left with a half-baked bill and an approach that certainly does not represent the best interests of western Canadians.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to talk in support of Bill C-52, which proposes to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to say that of course Canadians from far and wide know that our government is focused on what matters most to Canadians, which is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. It is our government that has been praised and has received accolades from international organizations from around the world, from the OECD to the IMF, and Forbes magazine, which says that Canada is the best place to be doing business.

There is a reason for that. There is a reason why international organizations praise this country. There is a reason that Governor Branstad of Iowa says he is afraid to bring potential investors to Iowa. It is because his state is so close to Canada that he knows he may lose investors because the Canadian economy is doing so much better than the U.S. economy. There is a reason for all of these things.

As I said, our government focuses on what matters most to Canadians. The Liberals on the other hand focus on dividing Canadians. They talk about their Quebec leader and how superior they are to the rest of Canada. Their leader has said that Canadians who do not speak two languages are lazy. They say they are against reforming the Senate. They are for the status quo because they are afraid of losing 24 senators in Quebec.

We have to give the NDP credit on the other hand because at least they are consistently wrong. Let me propose something to the NDP. Rather than being called the “New Democratic Party”, they should be called the “Old Democratic Party” because it is the same old policies from the sixties and seventies: high spending, high taxes and reckless spending on crazy social engineering schemes—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since it is quite a chore to be here until midnight, I would like to hear relevant debate. I am not even sure what bill my hon. colleague is talking about. I hope he knows.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

I recognize that we are just three minutes into the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre. I note that he, and members generally, are allowed tremendous liberty in terms of their comments around the question that is before the House. I am sure that the hon. member for York Centre will be bringing those ideas and arguments around to the question that is before the House.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me. The NDP members feel the Liberals nipping at their heels, so they are a little excited and a little nervous.

We are here to talk about Bill C-52, so let me begin.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I am happy to receive such praise from the opposition, and I look forward to their support of Bill C-52.

I would first like to thank the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for his steadfast and laser-like focus on creating the bill that is before us today to bring fairness to this sector of our economy. Of course, I also want to thank my colleagues on the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, particularly our chairman who has done yeoman's work in making sure the bill got through the committee expeditiously.

As the minister said on December 11, 2012, “This bill will help shippers maintain and grow their businesses while ensuring that railways can manage an efficient shipping network for everyone”.

Bill C-52 supports the interests of the entire economy. Given the importance of rail service to our country, shippers need to have service clearly defined and they need to know that the railways will deliver rail service efficiently and effectively. That is the only way shippers can properly plan and seize market opportunities.

I would like to talk about some of the new provisions that are proposed in Bill C-52. First, the bill would give every shipper the right to a service agreement with the railway and would provide an efficient and effective process for establishing such an agreement when commercial negotiations fail. That is key. Every shipper would be able to request a service agreement with their railway. That is an important point. The railway would now have 30 days to respond. This particular change is an important gain for all shippers, including small and medium-size businesses. It would ensure that they have an opportunity to negotiate service with the railway directly.

Second, if the parties cannot agree commercially, the shipper would have access to a timely and efficient process to establish an agreement. Under the auspices of the Canadian Transportation Agency, shippers would be able to request an arbitration process. This important arbitration process would establish, in a clear and comprehensive manner, how the rail service would be provided by the railway.

For many years, shippers have raised concerns that they have faced additional costs or lost sales when rail service is inadequate, particularly when they face regular problems such as delays in receiving rail cars. Canadian businesses or farmers can agree that this situation is a significant challenge for their operations. Shippers generally acknowledge that railways have made improvements to freight service in recent years. However, shippers believe that an effective enforcement mechanism is essential to ensuring that improvements continue.

This brings me to the third important point. We want to ensure that railways are held accountable in the event of service failures. This would be achieved through monetary penalties. These financial penalties could reach up to $100,000 for every confirmed breach of an arbitrated service agreement. Specifically, the financial penalty would take the form of an administrative monetary penalty under the auspices of the Canadian Transportation Agency. This consequence would ensure greater railway accountability.

Now, let me explain how this new provision would work. When a shipper is concerned that a railway has breached a service agreement that the agency had arbitrated, he or she could ask the agency to examine the situation. If the agency confirms a service failure in such a case, it can apply the monetary penalty to the railway company for a confirmed breach.

This potential and significant financial penalty would provide a strong incentive to comply with arbitrated service agreements. The amount of the penalty imposed would depend on the severity of the service breach. As with any administrative monetary penalty system managed by a regulatory body, the penalty would be payable to the Crown and not to the shipper. The agency is the appropriate body to confirm whether a breach has occurred, and can set a penalty accordingly. Indeed, the agency's role under this new provision would be to look at the reason for the breach and determine the right consequences, case by case.

Giving the agency the authority to impose the administrative monetary penalties is a sound approach. During consultations for this bill, both shippers and railways acknowledged the agency's expertise in rail freight service issues. In addition to this strong new enforcement tool, shippers will also have access to two other mechanisms to address railway service problems.

Of course all shippers will retain their right to file a complaint on service with the agency. All shippers will also retain the right to seek damages resulting from railway service failures through the courts. These rights apply regardless of whether shippers have agreements arbitrated by the agency or agreements they negotiated commercially.

First, a shipper can file a complaint with the agency under the existing level service provision under the act, which requires railways to provide adequate and suitable service. If the agency confirms that the railway has not met its service obligations, it has broad powers to order a range of corrective actions to be taken by the railway.

The new provision on service agreements complements this existing remedy for examining rail service complaints. If a shipper has a service agreement that defines clearly the railway's service obligations, this will provide a more precise reading of when obligations are not met, and facilitate the filing of a complaint in such a case if a shipper deems it necessary.

Second, shippers will continue to be able to sue for damages incurred due to rail service failures. Seeking damages through litigation is an especially important option for those shippers who are seeking compensation for significant lost sales or costs incurred due to a railway service failure.

Shippers wanted to ensure that any new enforcement tool, such as administrative monetary penalties, does not undermine any existing remedies. This strong new enforcement mechanism would not in any way disrupt, replace or erode existing shipper remedies.

I am confident that in most cases shippers and railways would be able to work out service agreements commercially that include communication protocols to be followed when service failures occur. Moreover, I expect commercial agreements would also identify recovery plans to mitigate the impact of any service failures.

The great strength of Bill C-52 is that all of its elements would help drive commercial negotiations.

Through the implementation of the bill, shippers will be in a better position to negotiate service agreements with the railway in the commercial forum. Both railways and shippers have expressed their preference for commercial solutions.

As all stakeholders continue to work in collaborative partnerships, I firmly believe that Bill C-52 includes a strong enforcement mechanism. It provides the best way forward in supporting commercial solutions and innovations that strengthen our rail freight system, a system that will foster Canada's economic growth, a system that will support shippers and railways as they strive to grow their businesses, capture new opportunities and create jobs and prosperity for Canada and Canadians.

I strongly encourage all members of this place to vote in favour of Bill C-52, a bill that would not only help strengthen our railway system, it would support our growing economy and lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague.

CN made $2.7 billion in profit last year. Do the Conservatives really think that a $100,000 penalty is going to change the way the company operates?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Good grief, Mr. Speaker, only the NDP would see profit as an evil. It is absolutely ridiculous.

We on this side of the House have imposed penalties in the range of $100,000, but we encourage the parties to work it out commercially together, not have something imposed from the top, which we know the NDP members love to do because they think that government knows better than individuals do, government knows better than the two parties who are negotiating in free and open agreement do.

We on this side are focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We see profit on our side of the House as a good thing, not an evil, as does the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would give the member credit. He sure does have those talking points from the Prime Minister's Office down pat. I will give him full credit for that.

My question is related to a lost opportunity. The government was in a wonderful position where it had substantial support outside of the House and inside the House to move forward. A number of amendments were brought forward that would have provided more strength to the legislation, that would have had a broader appeal, particularly to many of the stakeholders, the shippers, the people the hon. member says are generating the jobs.

We do recognize the valuable role in job creation and how they generate the jobs for our economy, there is no doubt about that.

My question to the member is, and he should put the speaking notes aside for now, why does he feel that his government put a pass on improving the legislation, which would have given more strength to the legislation and which would allow for an even fairer playing field for our shippers from coast to coast to coast?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government consults more than any other government in Canadian history. There were extensive consultations, not on the economy, but on Bill C-52. In fact, on the bill itself, for example, Kevin Bender, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said:

These measures will create the conditions for improved railway performance and accountability. It will help ensure all shippers can gain access to an adequate level of service.

This goes on and on. I have, from the president of the Grain Growers of Canada, from the chemistry industry, from the Forest Products Association of Canada, quote after quote on how Bill C-52 would create a fair, open, accountable and legitimate form of commercial interaction between the shippers and the railways.

The member talks about a lost opportunity. I will tell him about a lost opportunity. 1993 to 2006 was a lost opportunity when the Liberals were in power in this country. They sat on their hands, did nothing and left the country in a mess. It is our government that is picking up the pieces and giving Canada back to the Canadians.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our natural resource committee, we have been studying market diversification in the energy sector. I note that Jim Facette, the president and CEO of the Canadian Propane Association said this about the bill:

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.

One of the things we did hear as part of that study and testimony was the propane industry's ability to potentially expand its markets to replace higher carbon fuels all across Canada.

As we know, rail is a good way to get into many of our rural areas.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on the possibilities of expanding existing businesses in Canada with strong, stable rail service?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member who has provided the first informed and educated question of this question period.

Let me say that it is our government that has made the economy the number one priority. It is our government that focuses on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. It is our government that has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G8 country. It is our government that has the strongest job creation record of any country in the G8.

Our government has created the conditions for business to thrive and to grow in this great country of Canada. In the interests of fairness and support for business, we have introduced Bill C-52, which the member has commented on, which would help small business. It would help big business. It would help the energy sector. It would help the mining sector. It would help all sectors of our economy, from one end of our country to the other.

Thank goodness that we have the best finance minister in the world and the best Prime Minister and leader that one could ask for to lead our economy as the number one economy in the G8.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is just unbelievable. They are all tooting their horn on the other side.

However, I do agree with the member that the big problem started in 1995 under the Liberals, when they decided that they were going to sell CN.

I had the opportunity to attend one of the committee hearings on this matter where the shippers indicated that they routinely suffer from service disruptions. Sometimes some of them would actually lose the freight they were shipping because it was going bad; it would not get there on time.

We see at committee after committee opportunities to strengthen the bill. We are not saying it is not a good bill. We believe it is a good bill. The only problem is that there have to be amendments. How could the Conservatives be so arrogant to believe that there should not be any amendments?

Let us look at this one, in particular. Nine amendments were put forward by the NDP and 10 by the Liberals. We did not pull these out of our hats. These amendments were brought forward by witnesses.

Why is that the Conservatives spend the money bringing witnesses here and they choose to ignore them all the time, no matter what? It is just unbelievable.

Why were all recommendations from the independent rail freight service review not incorporated into the bill? Why is it the Conservatives continue to ignore the requests of witnesses who would be directly impacted by the amendments they will not change?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member on one specific point, which is that in 1995, under the Liberal government, it was an abomination, and we should have seen results back then. Typical of the Liberals, they just find it difficult to make priorities.

The member says that we did not listen at committee. We did listen at committee. We had a variety of witnesses from all sides. We had a thorough consultative process before the bill was even drafted.

I have a number of quotes. Let me just give the member one from Richard Paton, president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association, who said, on Bill C-52, “The level of service offered by Canada's railways can make the difference between companies investing here, or taking their business elsewhere”.

This government focuses on what matters most to Canadians—jobs, growth and long-term prosperity—and on creating an environment in which jobs can grow and we can maintain our position as the number one job creation economy in the G8.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I also want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her work as our transportation critic, for her tireless work with a community that is invested in seeing improvements to the Transportation Act and for her efforts to improve the bill.

Bill C-52 would amend the Canada Transportation Act. It is a bill that is long overdue.

Rail transportation is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is in the DNA of our history, and it is something that touches a huge part of our economy. More than 70% of all surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail. We are a vast country and a country that is open to the world. It is very export oriented, and having good transportation networks is absolutely fundamental.

Many of us are familiar with the railway industry. I know that in my family, my grandfather, my husband and my mother all worked in the railway sector. It is part of our country, part of our history and part of our current economy. It touches so many Canadians.

What we have been finding through the study on the bill and leading up to the bill is that 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers, which means that they deal with food, feed and farm materials, are not met by the railway companies. There are serious delays, insufficient numbers of rail cars, et cetera. A rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers were not satisfied with the service they received.

What is the root of the problem? One would think that after a couple of centuries, we would be getting our rail service right, but sometimes when governments rush to fix one problem, they create other problems. Sometimes when governments have ideological blinders on, they are wilfully blind to the problems they are creating.

In 1995, the Liberals were in a rush to show that they were jumping on board the privatization bandwagon. They wanted to prove to the world that they could privatize with the best of them. One of the companies they rushed to privatize was CN. They privatized the company, CN. They privatized the tracks. What they forgot to do was put in any safeguards for Canadians, safeguards for shippers and safeguards for our passenger rail service in terms of access to the railway tracks. They basically turned it over to the private sector.

CN is doing very well. It made a profit of $2.7 billion. Bravo. It is doing well. It was just announced this week that the CEO made a salary of $48 million. I am sure he worked hard for every single penny of it.

The trouble is that these ideological decisions create problems. It was the Liberals in 1995 that unleashed this, and frankly, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives after them, for almost 20 years, have done anything to fix the problems until this bill. It is with insufficient measures that they are trying to address the problems.

Let me say up front that this is a bill we will be supporting at report stage and third reading, but it is a weak bill. It is a bill that does not do the job Canadians really need it to do.

The bill would give rail freight customers or shippers the right to service agreements with rail companies. It is shocking that they have not had this before now, especially with the two majors, CN and CP. It also puts in place an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, in cases of failed negotiations or where there are penalties for violating the results of arbitration.

This is positive. Canadians deserve fair and reliable freight services. This is obvious and logical.

Shippers pay good money, but they need a stronger position vis-à-vis the two main companies that form a duopoly. Together they have a kind of two-party monopoly. Their power is only partially addressed by Bill C-52.

There were recommendations by the shipping community at the committee stage that were sensible, practical and modest, yet the Conservatives ruled them out of hand with no serious consideration.

As the official opposition finance critic, I certainly know this. With every budget bill we have massive omnibus budget bills. We have been dealing with another one this week, Bill C-60, which again, is an amalgamation of all kinds of changes to different laws, many that have nothing to do with finance and budgets. We have seen that they never accept one amendment to any of their budget implementation legislation. Experts in their fields have testified at the finance committee that the government will have problems if it bullies ahead with certain changes, such as getting rid of the inspector general of CSIS. The expert who helped set up CSIS told us that this would cause problems, but it did not matter. The Conservatives are more expert than the experts, and they went ahead and made the changes anyway.

In this case, they heard expert testimony about why certain changes should be made. However, the Conservatives gave them no serious consideration. They rejected the changes out of hand, which is a bit sad, because this House ought to be about discussion, debate, learning, and ultimately, compromise to get the best laws possible for Canadians.

The bill needs further improvement. The NDP will continue to work with businesses and shippers across the country to improve this legislation and to tackle the issue of uncompetitive freight rates and gouging of the shippers. What we heard from businesses across the country was that they are getting poor customer service. They have had disruptions in rail service and unacceptable service costs. We heard about produce rotting, because it could not be shipped. We heard about lost contracts, because there was no guarantee that the goods could be shipped reliably, which made Canadian businesses unreliable suppliers. We heard about missed connections with ships for travel and shipping. This is a daily occurrence for industries across Canada.

Poor rail services are hurting Canadian exporters, damaging our global competitiveness and costing us jobs, which is a little ironic from a government that talks a lot about jobs. However, when the rubber hits the road, it often misses the train. That is what has been happening with this legislation.

There are a number of key amendments we put forward that the shipping community pushed for. They were championed by the NDP and defeated at committee. Without the rejected amendments, this bill remains only a partial success. Nevertheless, it is still worthy of our support. I want to stress that we are dissatisfied with the outcome. It is not what the shippers really wanted to see. Therefore, there is a need for future strengthening of this legislation.

Sadly, I see that my time is just about up. There is so much else to say. Thanks for the attention of this House. I look forward to the questions of my hon. colleagues.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member talk about her support for the bill, because the bill is supported by Pulse Canada, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Canadian Canola Growers Association and Western Canadian Wheat Growers.

I would like to ask my colleague if the NDP will support this bill and have it expedited as soon as possible.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course, shippers across the country will want some progress. One step forward is better than nothing, especially after almost 20 years.

The hon. member knows full well that there was still tremendous frustration that the bill did not go further. For example, the penalties in the service agreements are very limited, a maximum of $100,000, and they do not compensate the shippers. The penalties go to the federal government. It can be costly to fight this arbitration process. There was concern about how all that would work. The arbitration process only applies in very limited situations and only to future agreements, not to existing ones.

There are still real problems, but, as the member heard me say from the outset, we will support the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of Conservatives have stood in their place and pointed out that X and Y support this legislation. There is no doubt there is a fairly long list of individuals or different stakeholders supporting the legislation. I would highly recommend to those listening or presenting this list that they also recognize the fact that just because they are supporting the legislation does not mean they would not like to see the legislation improved upon. In fact, I suspect if we were canvass a number of the groups that the most recent questioner put on the record, we would find a number of them would like to have seen some of the proposed amendments supported and passed by the government.

Is my colleague of the same opinion that many groups support the legislation because they see it as a step forward, but, in the same breath, it is a lost opportunity where we could have done so much more? The minister might have the support of all members in the House, but it does not necessarily mean the Conservatives should pat themselves on the back because they could have done a whole lot more. Would she agree with that synopsis?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after almost 20 years of dealing with the frustrations and tremendous power imbalance, I would call it, between the power of the railways to determine the level of service they will offer and the shippers who are desperate to get their products shipped within Canada, out of the country or perhaps to the U.S., certainly any step forward is better than nothing. I agree with that.

However, let me give one example of a shortfall. We have greater transborder trade and exchange with the U.S. than between any other two countries in the world, yet shipments from Canada to the U.S. are not covered by the legislation. It is another area where there is a shortfall. Does that mean this bill does nothing? No, of course not. It is a step forward, but it is a missed opportunity. It is not even half a loaf. It is a couple of slices of bread when perhaps we could have had the whole loaf. That is the point.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for her excellent speech and her responses to the people who asked her questions. I am always impressed by what a fine job she does as finance critic. I am convinced that Canada would be much better off if she were Minister of Finance today.

I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), which comes to us from the office of the Minister of Transport, who is also one of my riding neighbours.

I want to say that, although the NDP and I are preparing to support this bill, which is a step in the right direction, we found the government's closed-mindedness during the study in committee unfortunate.

As opposition members, both Liberal and New Democrat, we put forward amendments that were supported by witnesses and experts in the field, and the Conservatives systematically voted against them.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Trinity—Spadina on the incredible job she does as transport critic. Seriously, I would immediately substitute her for the minister from Roberval, who is the Minister of Transport, and transit in Canada would be much better for it.

To get to the heart of the matter, for those not familiar with this bill, I want to say that it partly addresses the problems of railway transportation service customers that do not have access to adequate service as result of the monopoly held by the major railway companies.

However, since the bill covers only new service agreements, current agreements and contract breaches, which are major causes of revenue losses for shippers, are not affected by Bill C-52. That is one of its deficiencies. We would have liked to remedy that in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but that was not done.

I will mainly address three points, given the time I have today.

First, Canada's shippers deserve fair, reliable railway transportation service that is worth what they pay. The need to strengthen the shippers' position against the monopoly of CN and CP is only partially addressed in Bill C-52, as I mentioned.

The six recommendations from shippers, in committee, were reasonable, practical and modest. That is why we proposed them, yet the Conservatives rejected them without even considering them. I will elaborate on this later.

There are other areas that need improving.

I would like to stress that the NDP, especially the member for Trinity—Spadina, the NDP transport critic, will continue to work with shippers. Shippers shared their concerns with us, and it is clear that despite the passage of this bill, this file will not be closed.

We are going to continue to work alongside shippers to improve Bill C–52 and address the problem of excessive prices caused by a lack of competition. This is a problem, for which the Conservatives are to blame, because we know that they are in bed with the lobbyists for the major rail companies.

Personally, I believe that the bill is biased. The Conservative government has acted shamelessly. It could have taken a closer look at the bill and what shippers wanted instead of systematically siding with the rail lobby.

Shippers are often SMEs. I stand up for SMEs. My riding is located in rural Quebec, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The main industries in the region, for those who are not aware, are forestry and aluminum production. The Niobec mine, not to mention agriculture, can also be found in my riding. All of these products can be shipped by rail.

This bill and the future of Canada's railways directly affect me. At the end of the day, the more that is done to improve the rail network, the stronger the economy that uses this mode of transportation will be. Rail transportation is far more environmentally friendly than transportation by truck.

Concerning my first point, many shippers are not satisfied with the services they receive given the price they pay for those services. They are especially critical of the rail transportation service interruptions and the hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the Canadian economy year after year.

For Canadian industries, this may mean that harvests rot in the fields, that plants and mines are just marking time and they miss the ships meant to transport their products. It may also mean that inadequate rail freight services hurt Canadian exporters, jeopardize our competitive position internationally and cost jobs in Canada.

We cannot afford to suffer losses on the international marketplace just because the railways are unable to organize their services properly.

In addition, the clients of rail freight services, from farmers to mining companies, are penalized by the virtual monopoly in rail services. In most parts of the country, shippers cannot choose which rail carrier to use because they only have access to CN or CP. Such is the case in my riding. Even where both rail companies provide services, one of them usually sets its price too high, leaving the shipper with hardly any choice at all.

Shippers routinely defray the cost of service interruptions, delays and a range of performance shortcomings by CN and CP. Pickups and deliveries are made on time or not at all. The number of cars requested is often different from the number of cars provided, and the cars provided are sometimes damaged.

The situation affects many sectors, such as natural resources, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry products, mines, chemicals and the automotive sector.

For the most part, the products of these industries are intended for export. The poor quality of rail transport services undermines the ability of Canadian exporters to compete on the international marketplace.

As an example, soybeans from Argentina have a competitive advantage on, for instance, Japanese and Chinese markets because they are delivered more quickly and more punctually than soybeans from Canada, even though the distance covered by the Canadian products is substantially shorter. This clearly shows that there is a problem with our rail system.

Shippers have told the Conservative government about their dissatisfaction for years now, but the Conservatives have not taken any real measures. Since 2007, their approach has been to talk about it and wait. They started off by promising to ask a panel of experts to study the issue.

I know that the Conservative government likes to postpone the passage of good bills endlessly. However, at some point, you have to move from consultations to actually taking action.

What we want is clear. Farmers and other businesses have been footing the bill for years for the poor quality of rail freight services and have never really been able to get Ottawa’s attention. I am pleased that they have a listening ear in the member for Trinity—Spadina.

In order to truly remedy the situation, the NDP advocates strengthening the shippers’ position. We are on the side of businesses and exporters, and we are determined to get them the rail freight services they deserve.

Bill C-52 will cover only new service agreements, not existing ones, and that presents a problem. It means that many shippers will continue living with unreliable and unfair services with no access to the resolution process when existing service agreements are violated.

Arbitration is available only to shippers negotiating new agreements. Instead of offering all shippers speedy, reliable assistance through dispute resolution, Bill C-52 offers a limited arbitration process to a small group of shippers.

The arbitration process presented could be very expensive for shippers and place an unfair burden of proof on them by asking them to prove that they need the services of the rail transportation company.

One of the things we are calling for is the inclusion of penalties in service agreements, to compensate shippers for service interruptions, damage and lost productivity.

In its present version, the bill provides for maximum fines of $100,000 to be paid to the federal government, not the shipper. In order for fines to have a deterrent effect, they should be higher, given that CN made a profit of $2.7 billion in 2012.

The NDP will stand up for farming, mining and forestry communities, like the ones in my riding, and will fight to put an end to the unacceptable treatment and unreliable rail transportation services provided by the big rail companies.

We need a stronger bill to protect the customers. We will work with shippers to get them the fair and reliable rail transportation services they deserve.

The poor quality of rail transportation services causes Canadian shippers hundreds of millions of dollars in damage every year. Canadian jobs are at stake. We have to act now.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record what Richard Paton, the president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, said:

The level of service offered by Canada’s railways can make the difference between companies investing here, or taking their business elsewhere...this legislation is critical — not only for our industry's competitiveness, but for Canada’s overall productivity and prosperity.

Would that encourage the member to help have this legislation be moved expeditiously?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell my Conservative colleague that the NDP and I want to have this bill passed, even though it is not perfect.

I consider it a privilege to have spoken today, because it is not often possible to speak, when we are gagged with time allocation motions.

I am grateful that my colleagues and I have been able to speak. It is very important to hear what people have to say. In Ottawa, I like to talk about my riding and about agriculture and forestry and mining companies.

I would therefore like the others to be allowed to speak.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on his excellent speech and for standing up not only for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, but all of the Saguenay. He does a very good job at representing the greater Saguenay region.

Moreover, unless I am mistaken, the greater Saguenay region will soon be celebrating its 175th anniversary. We can therefore be proud of our member of Parliament. I am very proud of him.

Like him, other colleagues have done an excellent job on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Unfortunately, the Conservatives chose not to adopt the excellent motions moved by the NDP. Nevertheless, we did a remarkable job in committee. We always bring forward amendments to improve bills.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are blinded by their ideology, and they do not listen to the experts.

Would my colleague like to share his comments regarding the excellent job the NDP did on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague from Drummond stole my thunder.

The NDP team is doing an excellent job on every committee of the House of Commons.

Indeed, in my speech, I did not have the time to mention all my New Democratic colleagues who are doing an excellent job and are doing their utmost to convince the Conservatives on the other side of the table to adopt good amendments, even though they are not always successful.

I would therefore like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: the member for Trinity—Spadina, the member for Trois-Rivières, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston. They made a valiant attempt to have nine amendments passed to improve the bill.

This evening, Canadians realize that in 2015, they will be able to vote either for the status quo or for a proactive team that wants to improve Canada's rail system.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord spoke about how important it is to have legislation that will convince the big rail companies to respect the people who use them: forestry workers, miners, farmers and so on.

He went on to say that the fine was not steep enough to convince the major corporations, CN and CP, which make billions of dollars a year, to respect their clients. Of course, this ruffled the Conservatives’ feathers.

It is important to have good managers, yet on the other side of the House, the Conservatives are very bad managers. They lost track of $3.1 billion earmarked for the fight against terrorism, and they have no record of a $90,000 cheque from their chief of staff, which was used to pay off the debts of senators who are not able to pay their own debts.

I would therefore like to hear why my colleague thinks that it is important to have credible, solid legislation to ensure that rail companies respect their clients.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under the current bill, the fines imposed on CN would only amount to $100,000, which is really too little for a company that makes $2.7 billion.

The CN president even did some lobbying of the Conservatives, and he managed to influence them so they would not increase the fines. We can see that the Conservatives are not on the side of shippers, but are on the side of the rail lobby instead.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and put some comments on the record in regard to this bill. I had the opportunity to serve as the chair of the transport committee that listened to most of the presentations, and we certainly listened to the concerns expressed.

Before I begin my comments, I would like to give congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport. This has not been an easy file. It has been a file where if they do not get it right, they will not get a lot of second chances. They have spent a lot of time working together. They have listened to stakeholders and they have listened to the people who have vested interests in producing a fair deal at the end of the day. This particular bill we are putting forward would address many of the issues that were proposed and put forward by the stakeholders in the negotiations.

I do want to start right off by saying that I support this bill. Particularly in my new role as chair of the agriculture committee, it is one that will benefit the agricultural sector, and also the people I represent in the communities of Brandon and Souris.

The decision to move to a fair rail freight service act was discussed in 2011. It was an act to provide shippers with the right to a service level agreement and a process to establish such agreements when commercial negotiations fail. Many people would ask why this new bill is important. Why it is important to agriculture and to farmers? Like any business, it is one thing to have a great product, which I believe our farmers in Canada have, but it is another to be able to get it to market in a timely and efficient way.

Across Canada, producers and processors export 50% to 85% of their production, and they rely on an efficient and effective rail service to get their products to their customers. Farmers today ship 65% of their soybeans, 70% of their wheat and over 83% of their pulses beyond our borders. Last year alone, Canada reached a new record of exporting $47.7 billion in agricultural food and seafood, with significant increases in key markets, such as China, Hong Kong and Russia.

We are not done. We are on track to increase those export dollars and expand our markets. A full one-third of those exports are driven by Canada's world-class grain industry, which is also a powerful engine of our jobs and our economy and what our government has been all about for the last several years. It brings $15 billion to the farm gate. Jobs and growth depend on exports. An efficient rail service upholds the reputation of our agricultural exporters in foreign markets, and if our buyers are happy with delivery they will come back for more Canadian products rather than moving on to other sources of supply.

Our government remains very focused on trade because it drives one in five jobs across our great country. As part of our government's strategy for economic growth and prosperity, we have been pursuing a very ambitious trade agenda. I suggest to the members opposite that regrettably they were not able to participate in approving the trade agendas we have put forward, but they continue to move Canada forward, particularly our agricultural producers.

In fact, a key part of our economic action plan is the most ambitious trade agenda in Canadian history. Since taking office, we have concluded trade agreements with nine countries and have many more in the hoppers. We recently released the Agriculture and Agri-Food Market Access Report, documenting some of the keys wins we have had on the trade front over the last few years. Those wins include restoring beef access to South Korea, a potential market of $30 million by 2015; expanding access for canola to China, a market worth $1.6 billion; and, just recently, expanding access for our beef to Japan, which will double our market there.

I understand that numbers being put out there sometimes confuse people, but the bottom line is this: our Manitoba producers, our Canadian farmers, our food processors and our economies depend on trade to prosper.

What would the bill do to ensure a more efficient and reliable rail system for farmers? Most importantly, the fair rail freight service act would give shippers new tools to level the playing field in their relationship with the railways. The fundamental change would help to ensure the smooth and uninterrupted delivery of Canadian products to our customers. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is backing this commitment with the crop logistics working group, which provides a forum for transportation-related issues. On November 20, 2012, the Minister of Agriculture announced a new mandate for this working group to continue finding efficiencies and driving costs out of the entire food value chain.

We all know that the potential for growth lies beyond our borders in this great country, and our Conservative government continues to work closely with industry to open up new markets while strengthening and expanding our existing trade relationships. We cannot afford to put that business at risk. Canadian grain farmers and grain marketers have sales orders to fill around the world and are heavily dependent on the railways to move their product to market.

I am pleased to note the strong support from industry for this new bill. Stephen Vandervalk, president of the Grain Growers of Canada, said:

This new legislation will go a long way to address our farmers’ shipping needs. We are thrilled to see this legislation moving through Parliament. A lot of hard work has gone into this.

Pulse Canada also stands behind this new legislation. Gord Bacon said:

We're very pleased to see the government taking some action, because we have a long history of wanting to see improvements in the predictability and reliability of rail traffic.

The Keystone Agricultural Producers have expressed their support by stating:

The ability for shippers to acquire service level agreements is something we’ve been requesting for a long time. Reliable rail service is a major concern when we market our grain, so the sooner this passes, the better.

This legislation is a no-brainer. We have both sides at the table. We have both sides in agreement. Rail service disruption damages our entire reputation for exporting into foreign markets. If our buyers are concerned about delivery disruptions, they will soon move on to other sources of supply. We do not want our customers to think twice about buying from Canada. The livelihood of Canadian farm families depends on uninterrupted, timely and efficient rail service. I ask that we act now. I ask that we move forward on the bill as quickly as possible.

I would also like to add a couple more comments from people who have passed them on to me.

Richard Paton, president and CEO of the chemistry association said “...this legislation is critical — not only for our industry’s competitiveness, but for Canada’s overall productivity and prosperity”.

I want to congratulate all parties involved in this. It was a difficult challenge laid before parliamentarians, but also for members of the committees who met to try to hammer out this deal. Mr. Jim Dinning was very effective in creating the groundwork that we needed to come to this. At the end of the day, I believe with the ability to create service agreements, the people who have had issues with rail delivery and rail service in the past will have a way of resolving this.

I want to congratulate the rail companies, the short-lines and all people involved in that transportation industry. They have worked very hard to create an atmosphere where we can grow, where our opportunities will continue to grow, and where service will become the mainstay of western Canada and Canadian deliveries, not only to our markets to the south but to markets around the world.

I encourage all members to support this legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have noticed in the northwest of B.C. that because of the system we have established, where there is often a monopoly of service to some of the shippers, that CN, in the case of the people I represent, has been less than forthcoming about getting cars, especially on any of the spur lines. Lumber mills or grain shippers who happen to be slightly off the main line have an incredibly hard time finding a company that is willing to deal with them. There have been a lot of complaints lodged with the Competition Bureau, et cetera, and so on down.

I wonder if my colleague is satisfied that the changes being made here would provide some of those sawmills with service. I am talking about Burns Lake and Fort St. James, and places that are keeping their mills going but just hanging on. The idea that cars do not show up is unacceptable. They are willing shippers. They are willing consumers. They have the money and they have the product to move but they are too small sometimes, it would seem, for CN and these large players. We have afforded them this monopoly in a lot of cases. They do not have access to another way of getting their product to market.

Would this legislation satisfy what these shippers, sawmills and grain shippers are going to need? As he said at the beginning of his remarks, we only get a few chances to get this thing right. We do not look at reforming our rail too often, and it has been wrong for a while, particularly for these types of producers.

I wonder if he has anything in this legislation that would offer those good people a solid sense that they will be able to be viable in today's competitive market.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that no matter how big or how small we are in this industry, it is individual producers who ship grain cars. They are reliant on not only agreements but on working arrangements with the rail line companies.

For the shippers and the people who use that service, with the ability to have service agreements and contracts, a commercial deal will always stand up. Lack of service has always been the challenge and the question the shippers have put out there. What do they do when they are shorted? They have no alternative.

Having it in the agreements and having commercial agreements will go a long way toward resolving a lot of those issues, and not only for people in the hon. member's community. I respect that, but we have the same issues and the same situation, and we are trying to resolve them. I think this measure will help.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Brandon—Souris for the very good work he is doing as the chair of the committee that is examining the bill. He has done a lot of great work over the years. He has worked with both shippers and the railway companies to find a suitable legislative resolution for what are sometimes very difficult problems.

With the demise of the Wheat Board monopoly, which has been quite good for western Canada, producers now have the opportunity to grow more wheat and send out more product.

We are seeing a tremendous resurgence in some of the crops that were not being grown because of the stifling effect of the Wheat Board monopoly, but I am concerned about the smaller shippers mentioned by the member across the way, small grain farmers and others who want to ship their products around the world.

Does the member see a solution for some of the concerns people have raised when it comes to smaller producers and smaller shippers against larger rail companies?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that recently producers from western Canada were before the agriculture committee. One of the questions raised was whether they had seen a service level improvement, even without the agreement but with the idea that it is in place and looks to be moving forward. To a person they suggested to us that the shipping, through the west coast particularly, had become better than ever before. We have obviously seen an increase in wheat grown this year, and I think it is because of the freedom of choice that people have.

The fact that agreements can be struck with any individual, any organization or any business suggests that the companies, particularly the rail companies, are very serious about doing business. They got the message loud and clear, and other than a few glitches this winter with weather and other conditions, we have seen the ability to provide service. We have seen them making great efforts to satisfy their market. They know very well that their success depends on getting that product to market in a timely fashion.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the shippers made six recommendations to the committee that were not considered by the Conservatives; none of them were accepted. Yet we know very well that these new agreements will not address contract breaches.

Since there are two main railway companies providing these services, if there is an interruption of service the shippers cannot count on another railway company to transport the goods. That affects their ability to compete on the world market.

How does the hon. member propose to improve this bill, which is really a mess at present?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have read most of the transcripts of the debate and the discussions that went on in moving this bill forward. A number of organizations, particularly the shippers, came forward and expressed discontent that they did not get it all and that there were other things.

Negotiation is that way. Whenever I go to negotiate, I always want to get more, but at the end of the day, when both sides are a little bit happy and a little bit unhappy, they have probably reached a fairly good compromise.

When we have comments by the leaders in the industry saying that this is a good thing for their suppliers and their people, I suggest that it is a good thing for all Canadians.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to congratulate the chair of the committee on making sure this legislation is going through smoothly. I would like to remind him how important it is, and I know he knows this, to our own agriculture industry.

I am surprised that there were shippers who were not happy. I read that the president of the Grain Growers of Canada said:

This new legislation will go a long way to address our farmers’ shipping needs. We are thrilled to see this legislation moving through Parliament. A lot of hard work has gone into this.

He added:

We were also happy to see performance standards included in the arbitration process.

I just wondered if the member would like to elaborate a little on what this is doing for our agriculture, especially in landlocked areas such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and how important it is to have this for our farmers.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I would suggest that sometimes Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not always landlocked, since they are surrounded by water.

It is interesting, because the whole debate about this rail service agreement was to find a way to satisfy both the shipper and the rail companies. We understand that choices are limited, so the rail companies have to understand that they have to provide good service, while the shippers have to understand that they have obligations to make and commitments to keep in a deal. If either one makes a mistake or creates an impasse, there are legal ways of resolving it and coming to the solution and ways of moving forward without being tied up. Previously they were tied up in courts forever, and it was just a waiting game. Now we have a direct resolution.

I think producers like it. I think shippers like it. I think the rail companies will grow to like it as we move forward. Canadians will benefit from it.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on Bill C-52. During the course of this debate, all sides in the House have said they are glad to see this piece of legislation before the House. At the end of the day, it will probably garner pretty general support.

However, there is indeed disappointment, not just in the House but among a very significant number of those in the shipping community, who had been hoping and working for years—

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is a conversation going on at a fairly loud level. Could I ask members who want to have a conversation to take it outside into the lobby? I am having a hard time hearing the member.

The hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for attempting to regain a little order. It is much appreciated.

What I was saying was that there is significant disappointment, not just in the House but in the shipping community. The legislation does not fully achieve the objectives that the shipping community had been hoping for. They have been waiting for this legislation for a long time.

The debate about level of service agreements in the country began in 2006-2007. Before that period of time, the focus was on costing agreements and the level of freight rates and whether or not farmers and other shippers were receiving the full value that they thought they should receive. The argument was all about having costing reviews and the timeliness of costing reviews, what revenue was raised by freight rates and how it was shared or not shared across the entire continuum, from the shipper to the port and ultimately to export destinations.

In 2006-2007, the focus really zeroed right in on the issue of level of service agreements. That is when this debate really began.

The government took a while to think about that, but in 2008, the government said it agreed that there was a legitimate issue, that service levels might well be deficient and there ought to be a review of the level of service provided by the railways to the various shippers.

I should make the point that we are not talking here about just the agricultural sector. As large and as important as the agricultural sector is, the shipper community includes those who move virtually anything by rail. It includes the forestry sector, the chemicals sector, the fertilizer sector, mines and minerals, and manufactured goods. It is a broad cross-section of those who rely upon our railway system. They made the general complaint that they thought the services they were getting were in fact deficient.

As I said, the government agreed in principle, but there was an issue here, starting in 2008, and it said it would have a formal review. That review panel was appointed in the fall of 2009. It got to work pretty quickly and completed its work in about a year. It finished its report in the fall of 2010. The report was officially published at the beginning of 2011 and by about March, the government said it accepted the report of the review panel and that it intended to implement the report.

The panel essentially said that the marketplace for transportation services was basically a non-competitive marketplace, that there was not a fair balance between the shippers on one side and the railways on the other and that there was indeed an imbalance of market power that was biased in favour of the railways. That report of the review panel appointed by the government came out at the beginning of 2011.

In March of 2011 the government said that it essentially accepted that principle and that it would do something about it. The discussion continued to go on without a specific proposal from the government. In fact, it referred the whole matter back to another review process, chaired by Mr. Jim Dinning from Alberta. He was not able to move the yardsticks any further in trying to reach consensus between the railways and the shippers, so the process dragged on through 2011 and through 2012. By the end of 2012, in December of last year, the government finally tabled legislation. We are now halfway through 2013.

I would just remind the House that this whole process began in 2007. It has been a long time, and the shippers have waited patiently for legislation that they hoped would address their concerns. Unfortunately, they are disappointed. They find this legislation to be deficient.

The shippers essentially wanted four things in the legislation. First, they wanted in legislation the enshrined right that they would be entitled to an enforceable level of service agreement with the railways. That was number one.

Number two, they wanted the legislation to lay out what constitutes the basic services that the railways are to provide and how performance or non-performance would be measured. That was their second request. They wanted some clarity and some specificity about what constitutes service and how it is measured.

Number three, they wanted it very clear that if there were a breakdown somehow in the system, if the level of service that they contracted for was not in fact delivered as promised, then they would be entitled to recoup damages for the deficient service that they were delivered.

I would note that the review panel had reported, when it examined all of the anecdotes presented by shippers, that the typical agricultural shipper in western Canada could expect to get exactly what it ordered from the railways only 50% of the time. That is a pretty compelling statistic. If we can count on the transportation we have ordered to deliver only 50% of the time, we have a big problem if we are relying upon the railways to actually perform in that manner. Obviously the situation was serious and the shippers wanted the opportunity to recoup damages. They hoped they would not have to do that, but they wanted the opportunity to recoup damages if in fact the level of service fell below what was expected.

Finally, the fourth element was the dispute resolution mechanism.

The right to have a level of service agreement was point number one. They could negotiate that. If the negotiations were not successful, then it would be referred by arbitration to the Canadian Transportation Agency and the agency would impose an arbitrated agreement. That actually is in the law and that is a good part of Bill C-52. It is the other elements of the ask that are missing. The clarity with respect to the definition of what services are to be provided and the consequences if the level of performance falls short. In other words, the ability by the shippers to recoup damages.

Those two things, the clarity of the definition and the ability to recover damages, are not in Bill C-52. Those are the two primary reasons why the shipping community feels that this legislation is deficient.

The government's answer with respect to the definition of level of service is that it is just going to rely upon the traditional language that has been in the Canadian Transportation Act for 40 or 50 years and it does not need to upgrade that language or make it any more specific to satisfy the concerns of shippers. I think quite frankly that the government is going to find out that this is a false conclusion on its part. The definition in the act is what has caused the problem in many ways over the last number of years. It is not clear. It is like nailing Jello to the wall. To simply say, “we're going to carry on with those same definitions of service levels in the future and cross our fingers and hope for the best”, the government, the shippers and the railways are going to be disappointed. The language has proven to be deficient in the past and the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

We are not going to get a different result, so the definition in this legislation is not adequate to change the water on the beam, to solve the problem that the shippers have been complaining about and that the government's own review panel concluded was in fact a legitimate problem and that the shippers were not crying wolf.

Second, on the issue of enforcement, what happens when the level of service turns out to be deficient and it does not measure up to the standards that the shippers have every right to expect? The government's answer is not to give the shippers damages. The government's answer is to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties, in layman's language, fines for railway substandard performance. Some might think that is a kind of penalty and enforcement mechanism, would that not work? The problem is the fine goes to the government. It goes into the general revenue fund.

It simply becomes an additional revenue source for the treasury of the Government of Canada and bears no relationship whatsoever to the transportation problem out in the field. What the shippers need is the ability to recover damages. If a shipment is not delivered on time and it misses a customer or a market, that is a monetary penalty that shippers have to pay. They lose income, lose profit and incur added costs because the transportation system has failed them.

It does them no good whatsoever to say we will slap the railways on the wrist and they will pay a fine to the government. That does not move an extra bushel of wheat, that does not move an extra tonne of lumber. All it does is transfer a bit of money from the railways to the government. Meanwhile, the shipper is stuck with the same problem: deficient service for which there is no remedy because they cannot recover damages unless they go through the elaborate process of going to court.

We just had a discussion about small shippers and the disadvantages they have. The railways have deeper pockets for the lawyers in the court process than the shippers have and, undoubtedly, that imbalance will continue to function in favour of the railways and to the disadvantage of the shippers.

Probably the greatest illustration of the discrepancy remains on the playing field. Remember, the panel said the original problem was a lack of balance on the playing field. It was tilted in favour of the railways and the shippers were largely in a captive market situation. They were not in a position to find some other railway to move their product and they were not in a position to enforce their legal rights because they did not have the legal rights, so they were stuck in a disadvantageous position.

Perhaps the greatest illustration of that discrepancy is the fact that railways can, and always have been able to, level unilateral demurrage charges against the shipper if the shipper fails to deliver their side of the bargain on time or in the way the railways had expected. The railways can extract a cash penalty from a shipper called demurrage if the shipper falls down on its obligations, but on the flip side of the equation, the shipper does not have the ability to recover a cash penalty or cash damages from the railways if the railways fail to perform. Therefore, the railways have the power to punish the shippers, but the shippers do not have the power to punish the railways. That is a classic illustration of the fundamental market imbalance that exists in this situation and the imbalance that the shippers had hoped would finally be rectified by this new legislation.

Those are the fundamental problems. The legislation creates, to a certain extent, some steps forward. There will be a legislated right on the part of all shippers to have level of service agreements with the relevant railways. They can first try to negotiate those agreements and if the negotiations succeed, great. Everybody hopes that is the way it will work, that they will not need recourse to the legislative and regulatory framework so that the parties will be able to work out a deal. However, if the shipper is not able to successfully conclude an agreement with the railways, the legislation takes an additional step, which is good, in saying that the shipper can then to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency and get an arbitrated settlement from the agency. Those steps in the legislation are positive steps forward.

However, let me repeat that where it falls down is in the language that is in the act or, more accurately, that is not in the act defining what “level of service” means. The same vague old language is being used that has been there for decades and that vague old language is part of the problem. There needs to be greater clarity about what constitutes level of service and the way level of service is measured. The second major deficiency is that when there is a failure to perform on the part of the railways, there is no ability on the part of the shipper to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency through some form of dispute settlement process and obtain liquidated damages to address the practical problem that the shipper has, that their goods are not moving because the railways have failed to perform.

Paying a penalty to the government does not do the shipper any good. The money is in the pocket of the government, not in the pocket of the shipper and the shipper is the one that has experienced the problem.

Those are the issues that were discussed at committee. Those are the issues that members of this House, both in committee and otherwise, have discussed with the shipping community across the country. They say that, because of the legal provision in Bill C-52 that would create the right to have a level of service agreement, the legislation is a step forward. It is, as they put it to me both verbally and in writing, better than nothing. They would like substantially more, but it is better than nothing.

On that basis, that it is some small improvement over what has existed in the past, Liberals will be reluctantly supporting this legislation. We would prefer to have it vastly improved. There still is an opportunity to do that. The parliamentary process is not yet complete.

Hopefully before it is complete and before this legislation is given royal assent, the government will have the opportunity to reflect on those two key points. First, a more effective definition of level of service and the way it is measured; second, the way proper service is enforced by the railways, by giving the rights to the shippers to have liquidated damages, as opposed to just a penalty paid to the government.

If the government would change those two things, the shipper community members would be a lot more satisfied with this legislation than they are today. I think all of us are reluctantly accepting it the way it stands, but the government will find it will be revisiting this issue in a year or two.

There is a statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act in the year 2015. This is going to come back again, because this time the government has not seized the opportunity to do it right, the way it should have.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-52 only applies to new agreements. Contract breaches and service interruptions are often related to existing agreements. The shippers have no recourse and they suffer financial losses. Sometimes these losses also cause job losses. If the crops are just waiting and are not sold, there are repercussions for the economy.

The bill is incomplete and it is imperfect. Perfection is difficult to attain. Still, the bill does not in any way reflect the six recommendations the shippers made in their testimony to the committee.

What does the hon. member think of the serious effect this has on the shippers' quality of life and Canada's economy?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, questions about existing service agreements between some shippers, certainly not nearly all of them, but some have over the last number of years been able to negotiate some kinds of confidential contracts with the railways to deal with their level of service. Those contracts are confidential between the railway and the shipper and their content, in terms of how effectively they deal with the service issues between the two parties, is not a matter that is on the public record.

However, the hon. member is correct to say that in those cases where a service agreement, such as it is, exists at the moment, the shipper is not entitled to refer the matter to the CTA unless and until that existing confidential contract expires. This may mean that some shippers might have to wait for some period of time before they would have access to the arbitration process.

We asked a number of questions in the committee about the existence of these pre-existing confidential contracts between some shippers and some railways. We were told that there were not very many of them and they were all pretty well of short duration. That was the testimony before the committee by the parties directly involved. We were given to understand that this was not a large problem.

However, if in fact there turn out to be more of these confidential agreements already existing than we were led to believe there were and if they are of longer duration, five or ten years rather than one or two, then I think there will be a problem with the legislation because a significant number of shippers would then be excluded from the right to have arbitration for some considerable length of time.

However, according to the shippers themselves, when we asked them the question on how many of these agreements existed now and how long they lasted, there were not very many of them and they did not last very long. That was the testimony they gave before the committee.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather hypocritical of my Liberal colleague to come to the defence of improved rail service in Canada when we know that it was the Liberal Party that helped create the current crisis by privatizing CN in 1995, without any protective measures for shippers. We might say they put the finishing touches on the virtual monopoly we see today.

What does my Liberal colleague have to say about that?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. gentleman just never lets the facts get in the way of good twisted ideology.

The fact is that in 1995, the issue that was largely before the railway community and the shipping community was a question about costing. The last costing review was done in about 1992. Through the 1990s that was the question the shipping community was concerned about: a costing review; were the revenues being raised; were they accurately measured; were they properly distributed among the various participants in the value chain.

The discussion about level of service began in earnest in the mid-2000s. It was a focus of debate, particularly, starting in 2006-2007. There was legislation going through Parliament at about that time. The shipping community said that it would like to have the level of service issue attached to the legislation the government had brought in, I believe, in 2006 and was dealing with in 2007. The government's response to that was, “We'll deal with the level of service complaints at a later stage”, and that is what produced the panel, which started in 2008-2009.

The hon. gentleman is just factually incorrect with the rant that he has made.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree strongly with my Liberal colleague, who is trying to sweep Liberal involvement in the current crisis under the rug.

I can understand that in 1995 the Liberals had their own reasons for privatizing CN, although I do not think the Canadian public came out on the winning side.

The Liberals, however, had until 2006 to solve the problems that are still haunting the railways, both CN and CP, and they did nothing.

What do they have to say? Will they still say that privatization justified the crisis they created over 11 years?

I repeat: the privatization took place in 1995 but they had until 2006 and they did nothing.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will get the hon. gentleman a calendar if that would help.

The focus in the 1990s was the costing review. The focus in 2006-2007 was the level of service review. The nature of the issue had transformed in the intervening years.

Quite frankly, the issue of private ownership or public ownership of the railways is, in these circumstances, entirely irrelevant. The shippers have had complaints about both sides of the equation, both the privately-owned railway, and while it was still in the public domain, the publicly owned railway. The point is that the ownership structure of the railway has proven to be irrelevant on the question of level of service.

At the moment, if we asked the shippers, they would be discrete in answering, but they would say that they are getting a better level of service from CN than from CP. There were times in the past when that was flipped around, but at the moment I think they would give CN credit for actually having tried to address the issue more effectively than CP has.

The bottom line is that shippers on both types of railways do not believe the level of service is up to snuff where it should be, which is why they were hoping for more effective legislation.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question about history as well.

I would like the member for Wascana to tie in what happened in the nineties and the first decade of this century to what happened in the eighties with the changing of the Crow's Nest freight rate. How may that have affected, positively or negatively, rail freight services throughout the country?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to what historically was called the “Crow's Nest rate” is that it ran into a serious impediment in the mid-1990s with the new World Trade Organization, which explicitly ruled that this form of structure in our freight rates constituted an illegal subsidy for the future. Accordingly, the government had to react with changes that provided a period of compensation for the loss of the subsidized rate and it tried to put the system on a more commercial basis for the long term into the future.

That was a very difficult transition for farmers. Those in the farming community in our country deserve a great deal of credit for having the strength and ingenuity to work their way through that period of great change and emerge successfully at the other side. However, they now need fair legislation that will give them the service they are paying for, and that is why Bill C-52 should be better than it is.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take great interest in the debate this evening, as well as a bit of pride, because this legislation is very close to me. I was in charge of the railways at the time when the rail freight service review was happening and on behalf of the government, I was able to introduce the announcement to initiate this legislation.

Here we are going into third reading, which is great not only for the House but for the country because all parties are indicating their support for the legislation. It is a great legislation for a lot of reasons.

I will start with why it is here and why we need the legislation. I would like to go back a bit and explain to the House and Canadians what the problem really was.

At the time when I was put in charge of railways, in western Canada the on-time delivery for CN's cars was about 52% to 55% for grain shipments. That is not a good performance. How could western Canadian farmers get their products from the combine to the port and off to international markets when they could only rely on the cars being there at the proper time 55% of the time?

As my hon. colleague from Wascana mentioned, during the review CN upped its game considerably. New management came into CN and really concentrated on trying to up its game at the time, and it did. It went from 55% to over 90% within about a year to a year and a half period. That was strictly because the spotlight was on it and it put full attention toward upping its service because the service review was taking place.

A lot of the shippers came to us and asked that we keep the review going and keep the spotlight on the industries and the railways so they would up the game. We encouraged them to continue to have service agreements with all their shippers. They committed to doing that and signed as many shipping service agreements as they possibly could. In fact, I know there were some in some of the industries, perhaps the coal industry, for over a decade, so there were some long-term agreements that were signed at that time.

This legislation does not really speak to the agreements. That is intentional because they are so diverse. Producers cars would have a completely different need and service agreement than would shipping of a coal, potash or forest industries. However, they all want service. Under this legislation, those agreements would be totally flexible because they could contain all kinds of penalties. We are not privy to what the agreements are. We do not need to know what they are. However, when the two parties come to an agreement, they need to have some kind of mechanism to do things.

The first is to ensure that whatever agreement they do reach is complied with. That is what this legislation does. It has penalties that would go to either a shipper or a railway depending on which one breaches the agreement.

The second is there for when an agreement cannot be reached. If negotiations between the shipper, the railway, and so forth are done to the best of their ability, whether in the forest, egg, coal or potash industry, whatever the commodity, yet they cannot come to an agreement, then they are really stuck. This legislation is a way for them to reach a final arbitrated settlement that would give them clarity as to what was fair in an agreement. That is what the industry and the shippers have asked for.

Instead of being held ransom and saying they cannot come up with an agreement because no one wants to negotiate, they are saying, with this legislation, that if they cannot come to an agreement, there will be an arbitrated settlement. It does not say who is going to win or lose in that arbitration. Rather it calls for that to happen. Because of that, there will be a better system all the way around. If we go through the rail service review data carefully, as did the committee and the government, there was a lot of blame on both the shipper and the railway sides.

Let us not pick winners or losers. Let us just fix it in the best interests of this country. That is what this House is all about. It is about designing a piece of legislation that will move the country along. We do not really care who wins or loses. We want it to be fair so that both win. Canada wins because we move product to shore and on to international markets, where the real win is for the railways, the shippers and the country. That is why this should be supported.

International trade is really our stimulus for the future. We just came through a tremendous economic recession that has challenged the world. It challenged North America. It challenged the United States, our largest trading partner. Last year we had $528 billion in trade. Three-way trade between Mexico, Canada and the United States is almost $1 trillion per year. That is a large number, when we start talking about trillions of dollars.

About 40 million jobs have been created in our country because of NAFTA. I love the map at the Canadian embassy in the United States. The map shows for each state the number of dollars traded with Canada and the number of jobs created in that state because of that trade. It is very effective information that our American cousins need to understand more directly. Canadians also need to understand it. The number of dollars traded and the number of jobs created in each province is also on that map. I would recommend it to anyone.

Why do I mention that? It is because one of every five jobs in Canada is created because of trade, because of exports. Sixty per cent of our GDP is from that trade. Is it growing or is it shrinking? The last statistics I saw show a 73% increase in trade internationally between now and 2025. That is a large number. Those countries that capitalize on that growth in trade are the ones that are going to win. I like the way we are positioned to capitalize on that. We are about to sign a European free trade agreement, which I hope will work. That is 500 million people and $17 trillion in GDP in that market that we will be able to capitalize on. Not only that, but when we go to the west coast, with the trans-Pacific partnership, we will be talking about 110 million people and GDP of $17.6 trillion.

These are tremendous opportunities, not only with respect to China and India but with the trans-Pacific partners. It will depend on what we have to offer those markets. We are also working on a bilateral trade agreement with Japan. We are working on more trade with China. China is a big player, particularly when it comes to railways and moving products to the west coast.

What do they want? They want two things: food security and energy security. Canada can provide both, and railways are a major part of that. Before railways and shippers start saying negative things about each other, why do both groups not look at the opportunity before us? Why do we not look at the opportunity before Canada? Never has the opportunity been greater to create a winning situation for Canadian industries. It might be products manufactured and moved back and forth by rail, as we do with United States when we move automobiles back and forth by rail. We can actually supply for the United States products coming from China through the port of Prince Rupert two and a half days faster than any other port on the west coast. It is two and a half days faster, because it comes through Prince Rupert and goes right down to Chicago to supply the largest economy in the world: the United States. It is because of our railways and our system.

People have been criticizing this piece of legislation and asking why we did not include shipments to the United States in this rail service agreement. I can say that the United States is looking very closely at this piece of legislation. Americans are wondering how it is working, what kind of support it is getting and if it is going to actually do the job. I believe that it will do the job. The Americans are very keen to look at it and perhaps even use it as a model for their country. When that happens, there will be a continuous system between Canada and the United States, which is our largest trading partner and always will be.

This is a great piece of legislation for many reasons. When we look at the international markets, it is indeed amazing.

The railways carry a tremendous amount of freight, about 240 million tonnes of freight. About 70% of the surface freight in this country is moved by rail. That includes the bulk commodities such as grains, minerals, forestry products, energy products and so on.

I was talking to a representative of CN last night. He was telling me that the number of cars they are ordering to supply energy to markets by rail is off the charts. That is happening because of the resistance to pipelines. Whether or not the pipelines come, there is no question that rail will play a big part in moving our energy products to shore and beyond.

It is very important that this piece of legislation work not only for the agriculture sector, for grains and seeds, but for the energy sector, mining, potash and so on. It is a great piece of legislation that would go a long way in making certain that we level the playing field.

My hon. colleague said that CN used to be one of the worst as far as providing service. I would tend to agree with him. Perhaps now the reverse is happening, and CP is having more of a struggle providing service than CN. That is hard to argue with, and it is probably true.

We have heard arguments from the president of CN. He is asking why we are bringing in this legislation. He says that it will halt negotiations and drive people away from the negotiating table. It would do just the opposite. It would drive people to the negotiating table, because if they did not get a service agreement, there would be a very quick arbitration process in place through this legislation that would actually make sure they got a deal. That is what the legislation is designed to do. That is why it would work so well.

Would it be used an awful lot? Probably not. I hope not. I hope it is never used. If we bring it in, the jig is up. There should be an arbitrated settlement. If there is not, somebody will do it for them. They will do it quickly, and it will not cost a lot of money. Once the process has been challenged, a precedent will be set. The rest will fall in line with it, and the service agreements will comply.

I do not believe that this piece of legislation will be used terribly much, but it needs to be there, because the manager of CN or CP may not always be the most friendly guy who always wants to do the right thing. When we bring in legislation, it is for a long period and it is in the best interests of the country. It has nothing to do with the personalities of the people who were there.

I remember the forest industry. We were within hours of finalizing an agreement with the forest sector of this country. We brought them to the table. We did everything we possibly could to get them over the line. We could not quite get there. We would get there now, because we would have a piece of legislation that would arbitrate it. I will not say who would win or lose in that arbitration, because I do not know, but I do know that there would be an arbitrated settlement and they would move on.

It is really important that cars are placed in yards at the appropriate time for product to move from where it is produced to the market. That is the number one thing we can do to create the kind of economy, jobs and prosperity this country needs to move forward.

A lot has been said about the penalties that would go to the government. That is because we do not want winners or losers to use this piece of legislation other than as a tool to make certain that services are provided at the appropriate time.

There could be all kinds of penalties within their service agreements if the parties agreed to them. If the agreements were not recognized and not realized, the penalties would be a tool to make sure the service agreement was complied with.

It is a very great day for me. This has been a long process. It is a process that has had a lot of consultation.

I have quotes here from the agricultural, forestry, coal, potash and mining industries that say that this is a very big step in changing the dynamic between the railways and the shippers. They feel that they have a government that will back them in an arbitrated settlement process that does not play one against the other. It is truly there to try to make certain that an agreement works for both and that the service is provided in an appropriate way. Predictable service is something we cannot talk enough about. Unpredictable service is the number one thing that will retard the opportunity for shippers to be prosperous and get their products to market.

I want to commend the standing committee on transport. It worked very hard over a number of years to make this happen. The Minister of Transport has picked this ball up and has pushed it very hard. He has worked very hard to bring this to where it is tonight.

Tonight is a wonderful evening. Think about it. When was the last time we had a substantive piece of legislation such as this that was agreed upon by everyone in the House? I can think back a long time. I know that there have been frivolous pieces of legislation that perhaps have had unanimous consent, but there have not been major pieces of legislation like this that are paradigm shifters that would change the dynamic. It is probably the most significant piece of legislation to come between shippers and railways in 50 years or more, so this is a very significant evening. It is a significant piece of legislation.

I am very proud to be lending my voice to it, and I look forward to the vote, which I hope will happen tomorrow. We will move it into the Senate and on to royal assent very quickly.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked this question of his Conservative colleague earlier, but the answer I got was not very satisfying. In fact, I did not get an answer to my question. I will ask it again.

Since CN made a profit of $2.7 billion last year, do the Conservatives really think that a $100,000 penalty is going to change the way the company operates?

Personally, I do not think so, but perhaps the Conservatives have a different answer.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he is asking if the penalties are large enough to force compliance. It is $100,000 for every car that is not there on time, which is a fairly significant penalty. If it is not, we might have to go back and raise it.

I believe that it is significant enough. There is no one I know in the railway industry who would say that they would just pay the $100,000 and forget to bring the cars. I do not believe the railways will play that card. If that happens, there is an opportunity to go back and address it, but I would not do it at this stage of the game.

What is done for one is the same for the other. The penalty can be for the shipper as well as the railway. It is fair to say that it is a fairly significant penalty for every violation under this act. I do not expect that it is going to happen, but there are all kinds of tools to address it if it does happen.

There is an opening up of the entire railway act coming in 2015-16, so I do not believe that the railways are going to play silly with this piece of legislation. They will try to comply, because it is in their best interests to do so. It is in their best interest to make certain that they have the cars there appropriately and that the service agreements are fair for both. The shippers have to win for the railways to win, and the railways have to win for the shippers to win. If both win—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I agree with much of what the hon. member said. It has already been indicated that the Liberals will vote in favour of the bill.

However, he gives extraordinarily short shrift to a central point made by my colleague from Wascana, and that is that what the shippers want is to be compensated if they are badly served by the railway. For example, if the railway is late or loses the goods and it costs the shipper $1 million, and it is judged to be so, the shipper should be compensated for that $1 million to overcome the loss. The shipper would not then be a winner or a loser. The loss incurred by the shipper would be offset by the compensation.

For the bill to simply say that instead of compensating the shipper, the railway would pay the government, for no apparent reason, weakens it considerably. Why does the government do not include the principle of compensation?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not designed to get into the service agreement.

It used to be that when a shipper ordered a car from CN and it did not show up, it was no big deal. There was no penalty, nothing. If a shipper had trouble with weather or unforeseen circumstances and the car could not be loaded fast enough and moved out, then CN or CP could ding the shipper significantly, without any recourse.

This piece of legislation does not talk about what is in the service agreement, so if someone wants compensation for lack of service then it should be put in the agreement. All we are saying is that if the agreement is not complied with, the penalties will apply. There needs to be a tool to make sure that whatever is agreed upon is actually complied with, and that is what this legislation would do. Complying with the agreement should not be a winner or loser within the agreement to use as a tool. If someone wants compensation, it should be put in the agreement.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me, as a member from Saskatchewan, to put on the record what this legislation means to the Canadian fertilizer industry. I want to quote Roger Larson:

The federal government has taken an important step towards balancing the commercial relationships between railways and their freight customers. Fertilizer companies have commitments to their customers not only in Canada, but the United States and around the world. Railway service cannot continue to be the weak link in Canada's export pipeline.

I would like the member to elaborate on how important this is with respect to our relationship and our trade with the United States.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our trade with the United States is a great success story. I always say that we do not really trade with the United States; we build things together with the United States. Our supply chains are intricately linked. It does not matter if it is the forestry sector, the beef sector, the auto sector, or many other sectors, we do things together.

When I talk to my colleagues in the United States Congress, I tell them it does not matter whether they go after international markets and sell products to China or Japan, or that we do. The United States ambassador says that for every dollar that Canada trades with Japan, 25¢ of that goes to America because our supply system is intricately linked. We need to collectively go after those international markets because of the productivity gain that we will create. Both the United States and Canada will capitalize on those growing international markets in a much better way.

By 2050, there are supposed to be an extra three billion people in the world, and two billion of them will move from poverty to middle class during that time period. They will need energy, food and all of the things we produce in Canada and the United States. Those are the markets we need to go after.

Thinning the border, creating the productivity gains by having a good railway system between Canada and the United States, is absolutely essential in ensuring that we capitalize on those markets. We are the most productive in the world. Canada has great systems. We have some of the best food. We produce some of the best things, whether it is our automobiles and so on.

Canada and the United States are great allies and partners. We do a lot of back and forth trade—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again with my Conservative colleague.

Is the member really saying that, even though the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met with the CN representative a dozen times, that amount of pressure on the Minister of Transport was not a factor in his introducing a weak bill?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the president of CN, Claude Mongeau, had impact on the minister, the bill would not be here. I have sat down with him a number of times, and he said we should not do it. He gave me all kinds of reasons why it would be a terrible piece of legislation. The railways are not really excited about this.

My argument to him was that if the railways do not want the bill, then they should have service agreements, and if they do not want service agreements, then they need the bill to be able to get them over the line. I would suggest that there is no impact there.

This is not a piece of legislation that either of the railways is excited about or interested in. They see the rationale behind the legislation. They are not supportive of the bill, but they are not saying anything very negative about it either.

Any time that both sides do not agree 100% on a bill, then that bill is usually striking the right note and balance. I think we have that here.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Yellowhead for his wise counsel on tonight's debate. As he said, as we go after these international markets with our trade agenda, which is going to be so important for the expanding of our economy, as we see with oil pipelines, they end up being a network that joins job centres together. A rail network is very much like that as well. It is a network that joins job centres together.

Would the member like to comment a bit about the positive impact on the Canadian economy as we pursue international agreements and we use our gateways both in the east, in Halifax, Saint John, and other places, as well as the west? Could he talk about the positive impact of jobs for these rail networks?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The creation of jobs and the growing of our economy is absolutely critical, and the railways play a major role in that.

As a government, we have been able to put a significant number of dollars into infrastructure to make certain that the gateway project on the west coast, the corridor project to the south, and the eastern project corridor to the east capitalize on those international markets. The infrastructure that is built there would not only creates jobs, but it would also create an infrastructure that would create jobs because of the kind of trade we are expecting.

We are a blessed country in so many ways and have so much opportunity, especially as we see this massively growing international trading relationship around the world. Healthy railways lend themselves to the success of our country and the kinds of job opportunities we will have for the future.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Before I get going, I cannot help but mention that here we are, trying to debate an important piece of legislation, and yet the government has moved time allocation once again. This is the 37th time. What does the government have against parliamentary democracy? Why is it so determined to shut down debate and to prevent members of Parliament from having their say on important pieces of legislation? My colleague said how important this legislation is, and because it is so important, I am very disappointed that the Conservatives had to use these tactics yet again.

When we look at this bill, it actually gives our rail freight customers, or shippers, the right to service agreements with rail companies, especially CN and CP. It also puts into place, as my colleague said, a Canadian Transportation Agency-led arbitration process for failed negotiations, and penalties for violating the arbitration results.

This all sounds good, but I want us to take a look at what this means. By the way, we are speaking in favour of this bill. However, we do not believe this bill is complete. It does not address all the issues that the shippers, farmers and everybody needed it to address, but it does go part of the way.

We call this bill a baby step in the right direction. As good behaviour should always be rewarded, it is a piece of legislation going in the right direction. We have heard that this will not alleviate all the challenges faced by the shippers but it will go a long way in addressing a few of them. It is one of those cases of “better something than nothing”. That is why we are supporting this bill.

At this time I want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Trinity—Spadina on this file. She is an amazing critic for the transportation file. She is dedicated, passionate and has worked incredibly hard with different organizations of shippers, and representatives from the mining companies, the pulse growers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the automotive industry, as well as the mineral and chemical companies.

It is her commitment, compassion and not letting go of this issue that I believe has forced the Conservative government to bring this bill to this House right now. Quite honestly, they have been dilly-dallying over this piece of legislation for a very long time, long after the report was out. They have had lots of time to act.

The member for Trinity—Spadina has a private member's bill, Bill C-441, rail customer protection act. It is her absolute advocacy and outreach, and that kind of work in the House, as well as the pressure from the shipping community, that has put pressure on the Conservatives to table legislation.

I think we should always give credit when members of Parliament put in an incredible amount of work to benefit our farmers, mining companies, automotive companies that have to move cars, and, of course, all the other resource industries as well, including forestry. We are absolutely delighted with the work that the member has done.

I also want to pick up on something that was said just a few minutes ago. CN made a profit of $2.7 billion in 2012, in one year, yet when I look at the penalty they will face, it is $100,000. By the way, that penalty is not paid to the shippers; it will be paid to the government.

I look at that and ask which lobby group has been successful. One just has to take a look at this bill. I have talked with shippers in my riding and visited a port where grains and legumes come in. This is when I learned something absolutely amazing, which you will be surprised at as well, Mr. Speaker. Did members know that Canada is the largest provider of pulses to India? In my naiveté, I always thought that lentils, chickpeas and all of those legumes were being brought to Canada from India and other countries. I was quite shocked to find out it was the opposite. It was the Canadian consul in Chandigarh who told me. He presented the figures and asked me if I knew that Canada is the largest exporter of legumes to India. A lot of those legumes go through the port of Vancouver and the port of Delta.

What I have heard from business people in my community, those who receive and ship, is the travesty that exists right now. They actually have to wait, sometimes for days and days, because the promised carriages do not arrive. If they are slow to unload a trolley—I think it is called a trolley—when it arrives, they end up having to pay fines, but there are no consequences for the railway companies if they are late, do not send enough trolleys or if the trolleys that arrive are damaged and, therefore, cannot be used.

I looked at the ledger with one of these business people in great detail, who wanted to show me the impact it was having on his business. Let us say that he does not get the shipment on time, that the shipment of pulses that arrives from the Prairies does not get to his place on time. In the meantime, he not only has trucks and truck drivers waiting but labourers waiting to unload, and he has time booked at the port. Guess what? He has to pay all of them, through no fault of his own, just because the railway company is delayed or because it does not deliver all the trolleys he was expecting on that date.

I thought it must just be a few dollars here and there. I was surprised at how much these shippers pay if they do not empty the trolleys on time. However, I was also shocked at the port fees they still had to pay if they did not take up their spots and how the costs escalated the longer they waited. Really, we are not talking about simple costing. This bill has compensation—no, not compensation, a slight penalty for the railway companies of $100,000 when they make $2.7 billion in profit. Guess who that money goes to? It does not go to offset the real costs incurred by the shippers and receivers, those who grow and ship the goods. That money goes to the government.

I have been shaking my head on that one, thinking this makes very little sense. Does the government really have a vested interest in making sure that this new piece of legislation really works, if it knows that every time CN Rail is late, it is going to get $100,000? That does not seem like a penalty. It seems like the government has built in a bonus for itself. We really have to take a look at that.

Our railway system is the backbone of our country. There is no doubt about it. From some of the early CP and CN stories we have all read about, glorious or not so glorious, we know that 70% of our surface goods are moved by rail. That is a significant amount. When we say that there are shippers who actually suffer the consequence of this, we are not talking about a small number of people.

This is another figure that absolutely astounded me. It is that 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers are not met by rail companies. I think 80% would get a big F if I were grading them for service. Let us say, out of 100 times, 80 times they fail to meet their deadlines. We are talking about produce that has to be moved quickly and people are waiting for it. We are also talking about some produce that could get spoiled, but we are also talking about the ricochet or cascading costs that I just mentioned earlier.

There are delays. There are insufficient numbers of rail cars. Some rail cars arrive and they are damaged. Sometimes they order 12 rail cars and guess how many arrive? For one person I was talking to, shippers might only get half the rail cars they ordered. That puts all kinds of stress on the system. Once again, when we look at the losses incurred by the shippers, the bill fails to address that. I would urge my colleagues, even at this late stage because it is in their hands, to really take a look at that.

The rail freight service review said that 80% of shippers are not satisfied. By the way, we are not talking about one industry. Of course agriculture plays a huge role in this area, but we are also talking about forestry, natural resources, manufactured goods, mining, chemicals and as I said earlier, all the agricultural belt. Key stakeholders in agriculture, mining and forestry industries, not just individual people but associations representing these industries, have been calling for freight legislation for years.

Let me give some examples: Pulse Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Forestry Products Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada. Once again I would say that as I have talked with many business people in my community who are involved in the shipping industry they have been so full of praise for the member for Trinity—Spadina who has done such great work on this file.

Canada's shippers deserve fair and reliable rail freight service for the good money they are paying. Right now with the way our country is, CN and CP seem to hold a dual monopoly. The impact of that monopoly has not been addressed by Bill C-52 because the one area that has not been addressed is pricing. That is a critical part as well, and it is not only pricing, but also the fact that there is no compensation for the shippers.

There were six recommendations from the shipping community at the committee stage, sensible, practical and modest. They were all rejected. This is an all too familiar pattern. I sit at the immigration committee as vice-chair, and it does not seem to matter what amendments we propose. Even amendments that the minister thinks would be really good ones because we take up his wording just get rejected.

However, these were not amendments from the opposition. These were amendments suggested by the shipping community, the business community, the people who are the backbone of this country who pay taxes and who were looking to the government to show them a level playing field. Once again, the government has failed to show a level playing field to all the industries I mentioned, including agriculture. Once again, it has chosen to stand closer to the big corporate friends like the railway lines, CP and CN.

Members know that the NDP is not going to give up. We are not planning to go away. We are planning to work harder than ever. We will continue to work with the shipping community to tackle the issue of gouging through uncompetitive rail freight rates.

Do members know what? This was an opportunity for the government to address that issue, to take a holistic approach, instead of taking a baby step, a very tiny baby step. In here, we can talk about the economy. We can talk about growing jobs. We can talk about all kinds of issues. However, here was a concrete opportunity for the current government to do something that would help to bolster our economy, agriculture, the mining industry, the forestry industry and the automotive industry. Once again, it was very short-sighted and just decided to take a baby step.

One of the key things we have to take a look at is that when we look at the moving of goods and think that 70% of our surface goods are moved by rail, in this huge country—and by the way, as we know, moving goods by rail is much more environmentally sound than it is to move them by road—the government had an opportunity, at this time, to support the pulse growers, the grain growers, the mining industry and the forestry industry.

We know that disruptions to rail freight services and unacceptable service costs cost the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars every year. The businessmen I have talked to when I have taken a look at the losses they incur, when they incur those losses, they impact the community I live in. They impact right across this country. A few of the business people have been telling me that they absolutely—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta has the floor.

Order, please.

To the hon. member for Newton—North Delta, when the Speaker is standing, typically, he has the floor.

I would say to all hon. members that I know it is getting on, but when another hon. member has the floor, we would certainly ask that they yield the floor to them.

The hon. member, please.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me. My apologies. No lack of respect was meant by that at all.

Because rail cars arrive late or because of the state they arrive in or because of all the other delays, that costs the economy hundreds of millions of dollars and that ricochets right across communities across Canada and then plays into the price for the goods. Quite honestly, it damages our international reputation as well.

Can members believe that Canada is the largest shipper of legumes to India? I never would have believed it if I had not found that out for myself.

In any event, rotting crops, idle plants and mines, and missed ships are the daily reality for industries across Canada.

The NDP stands with the—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta may have the opportunity to address those points perhaps in the round on questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), be read the third time and passed.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very passionate speech, but there were some contradictions.

First, the member made it sound like this government was pitted against industry. To that, I will read two quotes.

First, the Grain Growers of Canada, one of the groups she said we did not consult with, said, “We especially thank [the] Agriculture Minister, [the] Transportation Minister and the federal government for listening to farmers and moving this legislation ahead”.

The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, a second industry player, said, “this legislation is critical”.

The other contradiction is that, given all the doom and gloom the member has spoken about, how is she going to bring herself to vote for the legislation?

I believe the NDP is going to vote in favour of the legislation.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question.

We are going to be supporting the legislation, which is not a surprise. As I said earlier, this is a baby step in the right direction and we believe in rewarding good behaviour, which is what we are going to do.

However, those same industries that he said were pleased this baby step was being taken, also advocated through amendments and suggestions that they wanted far more. The bill does not go far enough.

We are willing to work with the Conservative government even after the legislation is agreed to so we can improve it and address the needs of the shippers, growers and miners. We stand with industry.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for making such an informative speech based on facts and figures. It is unfortunate that, for the 37th time, the government is imposing time allocation on us, especially on such a flawed bill that does not take the six recommendations made by shippers into consideration.

As well, we know that it mainly affects people outside our urban areas, because farmers and the mining and forestry industries are located in remote regions for the most part. It affects local and regional economies, and it hurts many workers in those areas.

I would like her to talk to us about that and about our frustration at not being able to debate these issues.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that this is a baby step. There was far more that needed to be addressed in the bill.

It is a fact that there is no compensation for the shippers if their goods are spoiled or delayed. If they miss their port time, there is no compensation for the incredible fees they pay to the ports, or their staff, truck drivers and cranes. None of that is covered in the bill.

The bill does not cover the kind of monopoly that CP and CN have over Canadians. It does not in any way address the gouging that takes place or looks at the pricing.

Remember, we are talking about just one of these railway companies, CP, making a profit of $2.7 billion. A lot of that profit is made at the expense of shippers who are losing out. Also, this company has an 80% failure rate.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put on the record how important this bill would be for Saskatchewan and for our economy.

We are a major player in the world potash market. In fact, Saskatchewan potash producers generated $7.2 billion in gross revenue. Therefore, the movement of potash is important to our railways. Saskatchewan producers spent $311 million on potash transport in 2011 and their production filled more than 110,000 train cars, equivalent to more than three full trains everyday. In terms of volume, potash is the third most important commodity for Canada's railway after coal and wheat.

Could the member tell the House if this spirit is also to be shared on that side of the House. Could she do anything possible to pass the bill expeditiously, so we can get on with our priority of our economy, which is important, and potash—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would only apply to new agreements negotiated. In fact, it does not apply at all to all the current agreements. For the potash, grain and legume shippers, all that will cause them some concern.

As I said, we will support the bill because it would go part way and that is better than nothing. However, it is very unfortunate that it this will not address all the issues for our farmers and for our resource industries when it comes to moving goods across our country.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta on her excellent speech, which I listened to carefully and appreciated.

I would like to commend the excellent work done by our transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, which my colleague also mentioned. She clearly demonstrates the importance of the work she has to do when it comes to standing up for shippers. She is also aware of the importance of rail transport and its effects in the context of combating climate change.

Unfortunately, our colleagues opposite, the Conservatives, have very little interest in combating climate change. To them, that is a pointless expense, when it should be a priority. In fact, it will be the challenge faced by an entire generation.

The question I would like to ask my colleague concerns the excellent work our New Democrat colleagues are doing in committee. They proposed nine amendments that referred to the six proposals she spoke about so eloquently concerning industry, business and shippers. Those very reasonable amendments would have been very effective in improving the bill, which would have gone from being a baby step to being a giant leap in the right direction.

On that point, I would like to hear her comments about the excellent work we are doing in committee, as compared to the one-way-only work done by the Conservatives, who are prisoners of their ideology.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the legume and grain growers associations, all the different organizations I mentioned earlier, came up with some very reasonable amendments that would have made the playing field in the shipping industry of goods across the country by rail a bit more level. Unfortunately, the government failed to grab that opportunity. However, I am glad that all parties in the House will support this.

I really need to mention this. It is the privatization of CN in 1995, under the Liberal watch, without any safeguard for shippers, that has led to our current virtual monopoly. That is one of our problems. Back then, if we had fought to keep the track system in the public hands, that would have made life so much easier, even for VIA Rail, et cetera.

I am glad the Liberals are on board, but when I look at this, a lot of the problems that have been created were created during their watch because they allowed this to happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have had more than five hours of debate on this motion. All speakers who follow will therefore have 10 minutes for their speech and 5 minutes for questions and comments.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act. My comments today will describe our extensive consultations with stakeholders from across the rail-based supply chain. These consultations helped shape Bill C-52 and helped to ensure that it would take a fair and balanced approach to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of rail-based supply.

In 2008, the government initiated the rail freight service review to address ongoing concerns regarding rail service. As part of the review, the government appointed an independent panel of three eminent persons. The panel's mandate was to provide recommendations on how to address rail service issues, including both commercial and, if necessary, regulatory solutions.

In issuing its recommendations, the panel consulted extensively and broadly with stakeholders in the rail-based supply chain. Indeed, the panel held broad consultations with 85 shippers, railways and other stakeholders and received over 140 written submissions.

Taking full account of input provided by stakeholders, the panel submitted its final report to the government. The government carefully considered the panel's recommendations as well as stakeholder views presented during the review and announced a number of key commitments to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of the rail-based supply chain.

A key commitment of our Conservative government was to develop legislation that would provide shippers the right to a service agreement and a process to establish one should commercial negotiations fail.

As part of our commitment for legislation, we launched a consultation process, inviting input from stakeholders. During the summer of 2012, we asked stakeholders for their views on the development of a new legislative provision to give shippers a right to a service agreement and on what process should be followed to establish one should commercial negotiations fail.

The response from stakeholders was robust and fulsome. Extensive consultations spanned a number of months, including meetings with shippers, shipper associations and railways that provided the opportunity to listen to a diverse range of views regarding rail service issues and a legislative provision to address those issues.

In addition, a variety of stakeholders provided extensive written input, including shippers, shipper associations, railways, provinces, municipal associations, ports and terminals. These stakeholders came from across the rail-based supply chain and had operations throughout various regions of the country.

I have described the formal processes of the review and our invitation to stakeholder input over the summer months of last year. I would also like to note that we have continued to hear the views of stakeholders on an ongoing and informal basis.

Throughout these consultations, we heard from a diverse range of stakeholders, including large, medium and small shippers, shippers of various products, including agriculture products, coal, potash and forest products, ports and terminals from east and west coasts of Canada, class 1 and short line railways and other levels of government. We listened carefully to stakeholder views and considered their input to develop a legislative provision that would ensure the best possible outcomes for the supply chain as a whole, as well as for the Canadian economy.

The fair rail freight service act responds to key points raised by stakeholders throughout the consultations, which I just described. For example, shippers reiterated that the legislation had to provide leverage in their negotiations with the railways to ensure they could get the rail service that met their needs. Shippers have also expressed that a process to establish agreements must be timely and efficient. Additionally, shippers have asked for a mechanism that would hold railways accountable for service failures.

We have heard these concerns. The bill provides every shipper with the right to a service agreement and a process to establish one where commercial negotiations fail. Service agreements would help give shippers more clarity on the rail service they can expect to receive. While we expect that most would be able to negotiate agreements commercially, the arbitration process ensures that shippers identify the elements to be addressed to ensure they can get the rail service that truly meets their needs. Furthermore, the arbitration process is 45 days and can be extended for up to another 20 days at the arbitrator's discretion. This timely process would allow shippers to focus their resources on growing their businesses.

In response to the request of the shippers for greater railway accountability, the bill provides for the Canada Transportation Agency to apply an administrative monetary penalty of up to $100,000 for each railway service failure. This is a strong mechanism to hold railways accountable.

The bill is a balanced approach, which is reflective of stakeholder views in several other respects as well. For example, both the shipper and the railway must first try to resolve the matter commercially. Should commercial negotiations fail, there is a process for an arbitrator to establish an agreement. The arbitrator would have sufficient flexibility to impose an agreement that is tailored to the given situation. In this flexibility, the bill recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that railways have an obligation to provide service to all users on their network.

It is clear that the fair rail freight service act is the product of listening to input provided by stakeholders. The bill's approach is firmly grounded in the views and concerns expressed by stakeholders from across the rail-based supply chain. This bill provides shippers with leverage to ensure they can negotiate with the railways to get the rail service that truly meets their needs.

Shippers have expressed their support for the bill, indicating that it meets their fundamental request for more leverage in their negotiations with railways. Bill C-52 balances the requirements of the railways to provide adequate and suitable service to all other customers. The balanced approach responds to concerns raised by shippers and railways, but more importantly ensures that the Canadian economy is the ultimate winner. Efficient and reliable rail service is key to the long-term prosperity and growth of the Canadian economy.

To remain competitive in global markets, shippers have to get their products to market. Canadian shippers work hard to maintain their global reputation as reliable suppliers. To enhance Canada's international competitiveness, shippers need a fluid rail-based supply chain to move product from farms, mills and mines to market, in a predictable, reliable and efficient manner. The fair rail freight service act ensures shippers would get the rail service that meets their needs, allowing them to grow their businesses and take advantage of global market opportunities. Railways would be able to manage their networks in a manner that benefits all users, and the Canadian economy would be better positioned to take advantage of new opportunities, thereby supporting long-term economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

Let us not forget that this speech is on the 37th time allocation motion. It is very important to remember that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have often resorted to such anti-democratic measures to shut down debate.

This bill is very important. It implements long-awaited measures. Unfortunately, even though we have been waiting for this for many years, we are getting just a few measures to meet the needs of businesses, shippers, farmers and other sectors subject to this legislation.

It is important to note that the shippers and other stakeholders submitted six proposals in committee, which were summarized in nine NDP amendments. Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected them out of hand.

Why did they reject these proposals?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have studied the bill and listened to debate today. We have had some five hours of debate already on the bill, today alone. It has been at committee. It has been well discussed and well debated on various avenues throughout its process.

The key focus of the government is jobs and economic growth. We want to ensure that we provide a reliable vehicle for shippers to get their products to market and to ensure that they and the railways are able to work together.

Richard Paton, president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada said:

The level of service offered by Canada's railways can make the difference between companies investing here, or taking their business elsewhere.

He goes on to say:

...this legislation is critical—not only for our industry's competitiveness, but for Canada's overall productivity and prosperity.

I think that puts it in a nutshell.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about how important this legislation is for the province of Saskatchewan, in particular, Canpotex, which ships potash.

The company's inland rail car network winds through more than 1,600 kilometres of rugged terrain and severe climate challenges to reach its export terminals on the west coast. To better accommodate this journey, the company has a fleet of almost 5,000 rail cars, customized to handle the bulk density. The company's specialized rail car design results in an increase in operating capacity. However, it wants to point out that it has a partnership with Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Rail in Canada, and with Union Pacific in the United States.

The company recently signed a 10-year agreement with CP, CN and UP, and the agreements have helped to secure needed transportation. That tells me that this shipping bill is a good balance because the company is already working very well with the rail.

The member spoke earlier about how important the bill was to have a good balance. I believe this is a good balance. Would the member like to elaborate on that?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the bill is about. It is about creating reliability and certainty for the shippers, and creating an environment where the railways will deliver on time and at the price contracted. The bill is fair and balanced in what it presents and certainly does exactly what it was intended to do.

I am delighted, incidentally, to note that we have support from the other side of the House to ensure that the bill will be successful.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech on Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), by pointing out that this is the 37th time that we have been faced with time allocation. It is the 37th time that we have been gagged and that we have been prevented from discussing, debating and proposing opposition arguments to improve the bills before us. This is the Conservative way, since their ideological blindness makes them think they can do whatever they like. They put on their blinders and refuse to listen to anyone who puts forward solutions and amendments to their problem.

In this regard, I would like to speak about the excellent work the NDP members have done on this bill in committee. I would like to name the NDP members of the committee, because it is important. First of all, there is the outstanding member for Trinity—Spadina, our transport critic, who has been doing a great job for a long, long time. There is our wonderful deputy critic, the member for Trois-Rivières, our exceptional colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston. Once again I would like to say that they are doing excellent work in committee.

It is now 11:10 p.m., and I am very proud to rise in the House, convinced as I am that it is important that we go on discussing this bill, that we go on arguing and explaining that, even though we are going to vote for the bill, it is only a first step. My colleague spoke very clearly on this point earlier, calling it a baby step.

It is a first step, a tiny baby step, even though shippers, farmers, mining companies and the various other companies that use the railways have been asking for this legislation to be reviewed for years now. Unfortunately, no one delivered on that, as the expression goes. The government has produced a bill that is very disappointing. We are going to accept it because it is a first step in the right direction, but considering the number of years that we have spent waiting for improvements, the government could have done better.

On that point, in committee, and I mentioned this earlier during question period to the other members, and I want to say it again, there were six proposals made by shippers and businesses. Those six proposals were not asking too much. They were very reasonable, and they had been studied and analyzed and brought forward by experts. They were then assembled into nine amendments by the New Democrats and tabled in committee. We submitted those proposals in a very professional manner. As people who do their job properly, we decided that even though it was a bill from the Conservatives, we could improve it.

Unfortunately, in their ideological blindness and their desire to get everything done fast and without consultation, thinking only of their own interests, the Conservatives brushed those proposals off. I am truly saddened to see that.

I would like to talk about the Conservatives’ short-sightedness for a minute. As I said when I was asking questions, the railway is important not only for shipping freight, but also for transporting people. We should invest a lot more in shipping freight, and we should invest a lot more in transporting people. If shippers can rely on an efficient railway, they will use it more, and even more businesses will use it too. In Drummond, some businesses use it, but if it were more efficient, more businesses would use it.

If we had a policy, a national public transit strategy, a national rail transportation strategy, as the New Democrats are calling for, and as the NDP’s excellent transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, is calling for, we could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and do a lot more to combat climate change.

The Conservatives do not think that combatting climate change should be a priority. I serve on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and, unfortunately, this is the message we get week after week.

In the two years that I have been in the House of Commons, we have been told that combatting climate change should be the Canadian government's top priority. We are told that climate change is currently the government's major challenge and that it will be for future generations as well. It should be a priority in committee.

However, unfortunately for them, the Conservatives favour studies that are less pressing, when they should be addressing climate change, and making it a priority.

The government should have a national public transit and rail transportation strategy to ensure on-time delivery. Currently, in 80% of cases, things go wrong, and 90% of shippers complain that they are dissatisfied with the service. Those are not passing grades. They do not encourage Canadians, shippers and big businesses to make more frequent use of rail transportation. Rail transportation should therefore be a part of a pan-Canadian strategy to combat climate change.

In the NDP, we are very proud to have this long-term vision, which is not just about the interests of big business, but also about the interests of all Canadians.

On that note, Canada is the only G8 country to not have federal funding and a national plan for transportation. This attests to just how far we lag behind other nations, when we should, in fact, be dynamic leaders. In the NDP, our vision is clear and progressive. It demonstrates why it is important to reform the Canada Transportation Act.

The NDP has three main demands regarding this bill. First, Canadian shippers deserve fair, reliable, bang-for-their-buck rail transportation. That is why it is important to strengthen the position of shippers vis-à-vis the CN and CP monopoly, which is something that Bill C-52 fails to address.

Shippers made six reasonable, practical, modest recommendations in committee. Unfortunately, the Conservators flatly rejected them all without giving them the time of day, while the New Democrats once again did all the work.

It is also important to remember that other improvements are necessary. For that reason, the NDP will continue to work very hard with shippers, forestry companies, mining companies and other businesses to improve the bill, which does not sufficiently address the issue of the lack of competition in this sector.

In closing, I repeat that we are going to support this bill. Unfortunately, it is only a baby step towards what should be accomplished, namely creating a national transportation strategy and a national strategy to fight climate change.

Those are the two greatest challenges for us to tackle on behalf of future generations, our children, our grandchildren and the people of Drummond, who come to see me often. They are worried about the environment and concerned about having a high-quality, efficient and reliable rail system.

The NDP is here and will continue to work very hard for a better rail system and a better public transit system.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record what works well when we let the industry work with the railways. Canpotex, which I mentioned earlier, is a shipper of potash and it recently signed 10-year agreements with CP Rail, CN Rail and UP Rail, which is Union Pacific. The agreements secured transportation for increasing export volumes with long-term customers in approximately 30 countries, a reliable and properly maintained railcar fleet that was essential. These were partnerships. These types of partnerships helped them achieve present and future logistic goals.

That suggests to me that if we work with the industry and perhaps have good legislation in place that is not too intrusive, the industry will take care of itself. I might add, being that the member got a little carried away on the environment, Canpotex also contemplated building a new greenfield terminal on B.C.'s west coast of Prince Rupert. If we let the industry work and we work well with the industry, I think—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that the shippers, of course, are happy that someone is finally trying to meet their needs and that the first steps have been taken. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there were six proposals that were not answered and were simply dismissed. I cannot explain that.

I must also mention something very technical, as my colleague called it. Arbitration can pose a problem since it is only available for shippers who are negotiating new contracts. Consequently, shippers will have no right to arbitration for their older contracts. That was one of the proposals that was made and rejected so brusquely.

A number of proposals of that kind were made and, instead of providing rapid, reliable assistance to all shippers through a conflict resolution process, Bill C-52 provides a limited arbitration procedure only for a small group of shippers. That is a good example of a situation the Conservative government has not been able to address, and it explains why the bill is unsatisfactory.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague very much.

He raised an interesting point in his speech, and that is that the Conservatives rejected all the proposed amendments and improvements, as they almost always do, yet those amendments did not come from us; they came from experts. They know a lot more about the subject than all the members here. I find it incomprehensible. Perhaps it is the arrogance of a majority government to reject all options, all information and all science, almost all the time, and this time, too.

That is why this bill is supported by New Democrats, but with some hesitation. The chance to improve an industry like this one comes around once a decade or so. Making such a tiny effort is not good for the public or for the economy.

Why does the government continually reject the opinions of experts and testimony by people who know the industry very well, instead of listening to a member of Parliament with a Conservative ideology?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who, in passing, does an excellent job as leader in the House of Commons.

The same thing can be said for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, on which I serve. Experts put forward recommendations and, unfortunately, most of the time, they are not followed.

For weeks, for months, it has been recommended that we carry out a study on combatting climate change. Climate change is a top priority for all Canadians and for the people of Drummond, who raise the issue with me every day, yet the Conservatives flatly refuse to conduct a study on combatting climate change in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The same thing occurred here regarding Bill C-52. Experts who know what they are talking about, who are well versed in what is really needed, proposed six reasonable recommendations, yet because of a deliberate, ideological, head-in-the-sand attitude, or plain arrogance, perhaps, as my colleague so astutely pointed out, the expert recommendations unfortunately fell on deaf ears.

We are going to vote in favour of the bill because it at long last addresses needs that have been evident for years, yet this is not enough. Once again, the Conservatives have missed a golden opportunity to do something positive.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act. The bill would amend the Canada Transportation Act to improve the reliability and predictability of rail freight service in Canada.

From the birth of our nation at Confederation to the present, railways have played a very critical and significant role in the forming of our great country. However, the world has changed over this period. Revolutionized by changing technology, the globe has been made smaller by faster, more efficient means of transportation and communication.

At the same time, the fundamentals of our economy have stayed the same. We are a trading nation and we need a transportation system to move our products to market. Nowadays shippers have a range of choices: air, rail, truck, marine when they transport their products to market. Shippers make business decisions regarding how best to transport their goods to market and the quality of service is a key component of this.

The “just in time” world has changed customers' expectations of service, making them demand greater precision and reliability. The fierce competition of the global economy combined with Canada's size and proximity to markets increases the pressure on service as we compete to sell to the world. Each mode works to respond to these demands. In our diverse economy, a shipper's transportation requirements depend on what he or she needs to move and the best mode of transport to get it there.

For example, pharmaceutical companies rely on air cargo to move medicines around the globe quickly and under controlled conditions. Retailers rely on trucks to move food and consumer goods from distribution centres to stores to serve shoppers. Of course our natural resource sector and manufacturing sector rely on rail to move raw materials and finished goods such as automobiles to market.

Our Conservative government has an interest in how the entire transportation system functions in support of the country's trade. Economic growth remains this government's top priority. This is demonstrated by our transportation and trade corridor initiatives that promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the system as a whole to bolster international trade.

To keep our transportation system as competitive as possible, we work with other levels of government and multiple stakeholders to ensure that we have appropriate policies and programs in place. Effective rail policy and legislation is a core element of our Conservative government's approach to ensuring the transportation system remains prepared to support our trade agenda.

Rail plays a prominent role in our economic success because it creates efficiencies by its economies of scale. It offers a means to transport bulk commodities and heavy goods over long distances at a relatively low cost. Because of this, rail has remained a critical part of our economic success and our ability to trade, especially as we promote our responsible resource agenda. This is why our government has made rail freight service a priority and has brought forward Bill C-52.

The Canada Transportation Act contains measures that contribute to the productive functioning of a rail-based supply chain and shippers' ability to obtain the rail service that they require.

The Canada Transportation Act provides a series of provisions that shippers can use to address rate and service issues. To start, if a shipper feels that a railway's rate is too high, the shipper can challenge the rate through the final offer arbitration provision of the Canada Transportation Act. Both the shipper and the railway present their cases before an arbitrator, and the arbitrator selects one of the offers to establish the rate.

In addition to the rate or the price for moving traffic, a shipper may feel that the railway's charges for additional services, such as the cleaning of cars, are too high. Through another provision in the Canada Transportation Act, the shipper can complain about such extra or ancillary charges to the Canadian Transportation Agency. If the agency finds the charges are unreasonable, the agency may establish new charges.

Finally, if a shipper feels that the railway has not been fulfilling its obligation to provide suitable and adequate service, the shipper can seek redress under the level of service complaint provision. The agency would investigate the complaint and determine whether the railway has fulfilled its obligations. The agency has broad powers to order corrective measures if it determines that the railway is not fulfilling its obligations.

The Canada Transportation Act clearly provides shippers with a suite of measures to help them manage their commercial relationship with the railways.

Bill C-52 would constitute a new provision on service to assist shippers. The new provision provided in the fair rail freight service act is an additional measure that would complement the existing suite of provisions under the Canada Transportation Act, some of which I have just described. The bill's goal is to provide shippers with the right to a service agreement and a process to establish one in the event that commercial negotiations fail.

Increasing the clarity and reliability of rail freight service is important to shippers. Shippers told us they would like to have a comprehensive service agreement in place in order to plan their business. Bill C-52 would provide this by giving the arbitrator the ability to impose detailed elements of service. Specifically, an arbitrator could establish operational terms that railways and shippers must follow to move traffic. This could include commercial or communication protocols, with internal escalation procedures and performance standards and metrics as appropriate. Operational plans to address potential service failures could include recovery plans to address how to recover from a force majeure, and finally, there could be the provision of incidental services by the railway and whether the railway can charge for the operational terms and incidental services that the railway is required to provide.

The new service arbitration provision would provide shippers with a fast 45-day process to have the terms of the rail freight service established if they cannot negotiate them commercially.

Bill C-52 would create a new enforcement mechanism to hold railways accountable for providing the imposed service. Administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for violation could be issued to a railway company if the agency confirms a breach of an obligation in an imposed service contract.

Bill C-52 would provide shippers with a powerful new tool to strengthen rail freight service, in addition to the existing provisions. Shippers would still retain the right to use any of the other measures in the act, which shippers told us was very important.

Shippers have supported the introduction of the bill as critical to addressing rail freight service issues and improving their leverage with the railways.

In conclusion, throughout the history of this great country, freight rail transportation has played a vital role in developing our economy. Many shippers rely on rail to get their products to market efficiently, predictably and at competitive costs. When they have challenges with their rail service or with rates, they can use existing measures in the Canada Transportation Act.

The fair rail freight service act, Bill C-52, responds to shippers' needs for better rail freight service. In a fast, powerful and effective manner, our government has made this a priority. I hope that all members join me in supporting the bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand up and ask a question after the fine speech that was just provided.

In my community, certainly the forestry and mining companies have come to me and talked about some of the challenges they have in terms of moving forward and having the security of knowing that their products can get to market.

I would like to hear how the bill would be of great benefit to our natural resource companies, our mining and forestry companies.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has really hit the nail on the head. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our government's number one priority is jobs and economic growth. That is what is at the foundation of Bill C-52. It is to help support Canada's economy, to support our important resource centre, particularly in the western parts of our country, and to ensure that our resource industries, our small and medium-sized businesses, can get their products to market.

We are a trading nation. It is absolutely critical that businesses can rely on transportation networks, in this case our rail networks in the country, to sell their products, to get their products to market and to do that efficiently and effectively. That is exactly what this legislation will do.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just said something that grates on me. In fact, I find it insulting to shippers, who are also business people. The member wants to strengthen economic efficiency, yet in committee, members are not given the opportunity to improve the bill by making amendments. Thus, for the 37th time, a gag order is being imposed. Members do not have the opportunity to discuss issues in a normal, democratic fashion.

The bills being discussed in the House are full of flaws. In fact, one of the many shortcomings that members have been discussing today is the fact that the maximum penalty for rail companies is $100,000. This $100,000 should be given to shippers to compensate them for lost productivity, delays and damage caused to harvests and products. However, in actual fact, this $100,000 goes directly to the federal government. That is not effective. The money is not going to the right place and, what is more, the fine is not even an effective deterrent. For example, in 2012, CN posted a $2.7 billion profit.

How can a bill that is replete with deficiencies benefit the economy and business people?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank this colleague and others who are part of the NDP caucus for their support of this legislation. Even the NDP recognizes that this legislation is important to Canada's economy and to our resource-based industries across this country.

I am not a member of the transport committee. I cannot speak to exactly the process that occurred at committee. What I can tell members is that the consultation process with stakeholders for this particular piece of legislation was extremely extensive, over a multi-year period. Stakeholders, industry, and the freight industry, are particularly pleased with this piece of legislation.

We look forward to the opportunity of moving it forward. That includes the important component of administrative monetary penalties. With this piece of legislation, like any other mechanism through federal legislation, administrative monetary penalties are paid to the Crown.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act. The purpose of this bill would be to amend the Canada Transportation Act in order to improve the reliability and predictability of rail freight service in Canada.

Over the past years, Canada's economy has managed to thrive amid a turbulent global economic downturn. Our success is in great part due to our Conservative government's focus on strengthening our economy. Bill C-52 would greatly improve Canada's rail freight service and consequently contribute to protecting and fostering the growth of our economy.

A great number of Canadian businesses, from grain and forest products to coal and chemical products, use rail services to ship their goods across the country or around the world. The range of sectors that rely on rail is reflected in the range of witnesses who testified on this bill at the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. As my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, said, “This bill is good news for Canada's farmers as it will help ensure all shippers are treated fairly by the railroads”.

Now let me explain how we reached the step of introducing this great legislation, and why all members of this Parliament should support it.

The years prior to 2008 were a time of unprecedented growth. Increased trade with Asia contributed to capacity constraints in the transportation system. In 2008, the government launched the rail freight service review to look into issues of rail service reliability that were brought to our attention by stakeholders. As part of the review, the government appointed an independent panel of three eminent persons to develop commercial and, if required, regulatory solutions to improve supply chain reliability. During the review, the panel held broad consultations with 85 shippers, railways and other stakeholders, and received over 141 written submissions. In December 2010, the panel submitted its final report to the government. It recommended several measures to improve rail service.

For example, the panel recommended the use of service agreements to define the commercial relationship between a shipper and a railway. It also recommended having a facilitator work with industry to develop a commercial dispute resolution process.

Our Conservative government agreed with the review's commercial approach and carefully reviewed the panel's recommendations. In March 2011, in a response to the panel, we announced a number of measures that we would undertake to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of the rail-based supply chain. Our commitment goes beyond the panel's specific recommendations in order to benefit the entire rail-based supply chain. Let me quickly go over the government's response.

The first measure we implemented was a facilitation process to develop a template of what service agreements could look like in a commercial dispute resolution process between shippers and railway companies. On October 31, 2011, the government appointed an independent facilitator, Mr. Jim Dinning, to work with shippers and railways. In his final report to the minister, Mr. Dinning provided clear direction for both shippers and rail companies, moving forward. This included a template service agreement and a streamlined dispute resolution process for parties to use in their commercial negotiations. This government believes this process served its intended scope and purpose. We successfully brought shippers and railway companies to the table to jointly pursue practical solutions that reflect their needs and the reality of their day-to-day business together.

To support these commercial tools, our Conservative government committed to tabling this bill that would also give shippers a right to a service agreement with the railways, and provide a process to establish an agreement should commercial negotiations fail. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, would do just that. It would give shippers a right to service agreements with the railway companies, and would outline a low-cost, timely and efficient arbitration process to establish such agreements, if shippers and railway companies cannot agree commercially of course.

This legislation would align well with what the review panel recommended in its final report. As shippers told the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, this piece of legislation would serve as a strong backstop to commercial negotiations.

First and foremost, the new provisions would create a strong incentive for the parties to negotiate service agreements commercially and to use legislation only as a backstop if commercial discussions fail. This reflects the panel's focus on commercial approaches to addressing service issues. If parties cannot negotiate an agreement commercially, the new provision outlines an arbitration process under the auspices of the Canadian Transportation Agency, which shippers would access to establish one.

The new provision prescribes service elements at a high level. Framing the provision broadly gives shippers the flexibility to ask for what is important to them, such as the number of cars needed for a shipment. This is in line with the approach suggested by the panel. It would also give the arbitrator the flexibility to tailor the service agreements to each case. If appropriate, the arbitrator could impose elements such as performance standards and communication protocols.

The new service arbitration process to establish an agreement would be fast, matching the 45-day process the panel proposed, although it could be extended by 20 days at the discretion of the arbitrator in some of the more complex cases. The arbitrator's decision on service would be final, binding, confidential and non-appealable. All told, this is a strong new provision that would improve rail service and make it more predictable and reliable.

Shippers echoed this sentiment during the hearings held at the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities and said that the new provision would enhance their leverage to negotiate commercially with railways.

To quote the testimony of the Canadian Propane Association on the bill at the standing committee, “...it contains all the mechanisms...we requested some years ago: a right to a level of service agreement, an arbitration process, and administrative monetary penalties”.

While introducing this legislation is a key component of our Conservative government's response to the rail freight service review, it is not the final piece. In collaboration with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Transport Canada is currently leading an in-depth analysis of the grain transportation supply chain to focus on issues that affect that sector and help identify potential solutions.

Finally, we are also committed to establishing an industry round table covering commodity sectors in the near future. The commodity supply chain table would provide a forum for commodity exporters, railways and other members of the commodity supply chains to address issues that affect commodity freight systems. This would be an excellent venue for all players in commodity supply chains to work together to improve the reliability and competitiveness of Canada's export market.

As members can see, our Conservative government is well on its way to fulfilling its commitment to help ensure that Canada has the rail system it needs to support a strong economy and our domestic and international trade.

Bill C-52 is a comprehensive package that supports the government's focus on economic growth, job creation and prosperity for Canadians. We are working to benefit the entire rail transportation system. As shippers and railways move forward in defining their bilateral relationships through service agreements, and as stakeholders come together under the commodity supply chain table, it will be important for parties to work collaboratively to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of the entire rail-based supply chain.

In closing, I strongly encourage all members of the House, from all sides, to vote in favour of this very important legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a region and represent a place that relies heavily on our ability to move product to market. I am talking about a lot of small lumber towns, small cattle operations and farmers of various sorts.

What we have found over the years is that the smaller they are, the more mistreated they are by the large rail companies. I know that the view is shared across both sides of the House that small operators, whatever the industry, have tended to get short shrift as CN, in particular, and CP and others have become more interested in the big fish in the market and less interested in those small operators that actually built up the company from day one.

We had some improvements and amendments to make to the dispute resolution mechanism, based not on our own particular views but on the testimony we heard from those very same shippers. There are concerns that the arbitration method and the fines that are to be levied are not of enough consequence for the company to actually change its behaviour and its ways, particularly because these companies are so massive. I am talking about the rail companies that turn such extraordinary profits. There is not the motivation to actually correct the behaviour and change basic business practices.

We only get to do this once every so often. It is not very frequent that the House is seized with changing and improving our rail system. While the NDP members are supporting this bill, our lament is that the government did not listen to any of the amendments that came forward. It did not listen to any of the advice that came forward from some of those very shippers it now claims to defend.

It is a curiosity to me that the government was so intransigent over evidence brought before the committee. Why go through the exercise if it is not willing to listen to the facts?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard over the many hours we have discussed this piece of legislation, both in committee, from a wide variety of witnesses from different industries across the country who appeared before us, and in the last five hours or so of debate in the House, this is a bill that was widely consulted on.

Views were heard from the people who are actually affected on a daily basis. Yes, we heard from the railway system. Yes, we heard from shippers from across this country. We put together a piece of legislation that we believe encompasses the key points that will help get product to market, including product in the hon. member's riding, in a much faster, more efficient, more accountable way.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often say that they are there to help the country prosper and stand up for businesses.

However, can the hon. Conservative member tell me why they are standing up for businesses that abuse their market power? Why are they not standing up for farmers and forestry and mining communities in Canada?

It seems to me that the Conservatives should be on the other side. It is obvious that the NDP supports the people in the second group.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is perplexing to hear a question like that from the hon. member, but I will endeavour to respond to it by simply saying this. We have put through a number of measures and a large number of pieces of legislation that address the needs and requirements of small, medium and large businesses in this country. We know, at the end of the day, that it creates jobs, growth and prosperity. It puts money in the pockets of everyday Canadians.

I would, for once, love to see the hon. member opposite support and vote in favour of some of this very important legislation rather than give me his party's talking points. Of course, part of the democratic process of the House is to oppose. However, to oppose for the simple reason of opposition is certainly not helpful. We will all be here at the stroke of midnight a few minutes from now, because we care about Canadians, and we care about putting in important pieces of legislation like this one that will benefit families from coast to coast to coast in this nation.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand tonight and speak to this bill. It was my privilege about seven years ago to go to my first meeting as a yet to be elected member of Parliament. There were a number of folks who were gathering in a community just outside of Peace River to discuss the issues of rail service in the local community. They had called me in because I was a nominated candidate and they believed it was important that I heard the concerns of the local community as we prepared to go into an election campaign.

Over the last eight years, I have been dedicated, in many ways, to ensuring that I bring the voice of Peace Country businesses and shippers to this House, our government, and to the shipping and rail companies, to address the concerns of my local constituents.

Today we stand on the precipice of having one of the largest and most comprehensive pieces of legislation to address many of the concerns we have heard about for the last number of years. However, it did not just arrive here.

My colleague just spoke about the extensive consultations that were undertaken across this country. I can assure members that is in fact the truth. I have the privilege of personally knowing the man our government named as the chair of the rail freight service review. The committee that he chaired was responsible for looking for solutions to the reality that our government recognized, and that this review committee also recognized very quickly, that being that small business owners, those people who are seeking to ship, really do have a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating with large rail companies.

Mr. Walter Paszkowski, the chair of the committee, served an invaluable role. He comes from Sexsmith, Alberta. It is a community that I have had the opportunity to call home. It is a farming community. It is an agricultural community. It also neighbours the city of Grande Prairie and is surrounded by the County of Grande Prairie. There are also a number of lumber producers in that community, as well as a growing oil and gas industry. That industry continues to depend on rail, and is growing in the necessity of being serviced by the rail industry as well. Therefore, we have three sectors that have become entirely dependent on rail service.

Having been a farmer and a former provincial agriculture minister, Walter knows the necessity of rail in the region of northern Alberta that I represent. He also has had the privilege over the last number of years to serve as the economic development officer for the County of Grande Prairie. It is a growing community. It is the community that I now call home. I can say that he has served our community well. We have been proud to lend him to the federal government, to all Canadians, to serve in this capacity. As Canadians, we can all be proud of the work that Walter has undertaken, both in this review and our local municipality, as well as his service in the provincial government before that.

With great disappointment, I would note that he announced just weeks ago that he is intending to move into what he is calling full-time retirement. I know that will mean he will do more work than ever because that is the kind of guy he is. I hope that Walter will take some time with his beautiful wife Marlyss to do some of the things they have never had the opportunity to enjoy because of Walter's dedication to public service. Marlyss has remained by his side throughout that process. Not only on behalf of Peace Country residents, but Canadians from coast to coast, I want to thank him and Marlyss for their service to Canada, to Peace Country, and to the province of Alberta. I know from the applause that my colleagues recognize that as well.

As Walter and the commission undertook their work, they recognized that there needed to be a new process put in place to ensure that shippers in our local communities, from coast to coast, had better and stronger clout in the process.

Now we have before us legislation that articulates a process, by which, if commercial negotiations fail, there is an arbitration process to ensure that shippers' interests are defended. This is the first time we have seen legislation like this. This is legislation that we promised.

We know what happened. As the service review was being undertaken, all of a sudden we saw CP and CN begin to improve their rail service. It was kind of interesting. It was almost comical in some cases where, all of a sudden, the rail service was beginning to improve. We recognized at that point in time, as well as communities across the country, that service could improve and that there were mechanisms in place that the rail companies had at their disposal to ensure this happened.

We have seen that it has not been applied consistently. Some communities are still falling behind in terms of service and some communities are moving ahead. Some industries are moving ahead in being served and some are falling behind.

In my local community there has been an improvement in grain shipping over the last number of years. There has been some movement and infrastructure improvements on the lines. I note, though, that at times we still a struggle with cars being delivered on time, but I have also heard major concerns from the lumber mills in the communities of Grand Prairie and further north where there are still some major challenges in getting cars allocated in the time frame to which these companies have committed. These new mechanisms will go a long distance to ensure there is a balancing of the rights and responsibilities of both players.

My bigger concern, as a representative of Peace country and the industries of agriculture, forestry and oil and gas, is about those people trying to get products to market. Our government has been dedicated over the last seven years that we have served in government of expanding trade with places around the world. One thing we know is that while we produce the best-quality agricultural, forestry and oil and gas products in the world, we continue to struggle to get these products to market.

We can sign all kinds of trade deals all over the world, but unless we can get our products to market, we will not to get the prices we deserve or continue to grow trade relationships. This is vitally important. Our government has been committed to growing our economy across the country, but what that means in reality is that every community across the country has to see efficiencies when it comes to exporting the things we are seeking to export. We are an exporting nation. Significant portions of the things we produce in communities like mine go to markets outside of our country. We look to rail service to provide mechanisms to get our products from the communities that I represent in Grand Prairie and further north to markets. If they go to Vancouver, the port of Prince Rupert or Chicago, they need to move and they need to move on time.

Our government is focused on continuing to develop trade relationships to ensure that our products can get to market. We are also ensuring that there are mechanisms to ensure that rail companies will undertake their responsibilities and move products.

I congratulate the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who has undertaken the heavy lifting with regard to this bill. This is important legislation. There are a number of people who I should thank. I should note the fact that the chamber of commerce in Grand Prairie and the surrounding area was dedicated to seeing this legislation move forward. It has been a strong lobbyist, not only at the local level but strong and vocal when it comes to the advocacy for a bill like this at the provincial and national levels. I want to thank the chamber of commerce as well as all the folks who undertook—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As important as the rail service is to the rest of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador has been exempt from a rail service for many years. As important as this debate is—

[An hon. member]

I want to call quorum.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

How many Liberals? You are the first one forever.

[An hon. member]

Quorum call.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Wake up over there. Let the debate continue, for Heaven's sake.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. There is a quorum.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The member for Peace River is out of time.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Where are they all coming from?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. That is enough. We will not let this last hour degenerate. The hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the recent interruption, we have to deal with the serious issue of Bill C-52, all the same.

The bill does in fact respond to some of the concerns of shippers, as has already been mentioned. The members of the NDP are still standing, they are still awake, and they are still ready to debate all the bills that have an impact on Canadians and the people in my riding.

The thing that is important to remember in this bill is that, in committee, shippers and businesses made six fair and reasonable proposals that would lead to something that was equitable. Unfortunately, the Conservatives flatly rejected those proposals, despite the fact that these were recommendations made by experts, by people who know the field and its problems.

I do not understand why the Conservatives stubbornly insist on going in one single direction and on taking a purely ideological view of everything they do.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members have a funny way of demonstrating their support. On one hand, they are supportive; on the other hand, they are not supportive. One of these days they will get it together. I am less interested in whether the NDP members are supporting it and more interested in whether the shippers are supportive of the bill.

We have support for the bill, not only from folks who live in my constituency, but from Pulse Canada, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Fertilizer Institute, the Canola Growers Association, and Western Canadian Wheat Growers. I could go on and on. I could go all night. Folks across this country are supportive of this legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason my friend is going all night is that, once again, we have a government that has difficulty approaching the opposition to work collectively and co-operatively on legislation.

We heard testimony, and my friend knows this, that led to amendments on this piece of legislation. As for cases, we asked the Library of Parliament to look at how the Conservatives approach amendments from the opposition, and 99.3% of all amendments moved by the opposition on a variety of bills have been rejected by the government out of hand. The basis of the amendments in this particular case came from those very shippers.

New Democrats will not sacrifice the mediocre seeking out the perfect, and in this case, we have a bill that moves us further down the road. The challenge is that governments only look at something like our rail system every so often, sometimes only once in a generation. To do only half measures and not listen to the testimony of those people my friend quoted seems a disappointment, because the rest of the quotes say there were improvements that they sought but were unable to achieve in this round of negotiations. They were about the arbitration and about the fines that will be levied on these major rail shippers who will not really feel the pinch.

The reason there is time allocation on the bill is not because we did not support it. It is because the government decided to shut down debate for no purpose at all. That kind of obstinance does not lead to good legislation. It does not lead to good governance.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not take my word for it, but why do we not take the word of folks who know what they are talking about? I will quote some of them.

These measures will create the conditions for improved railway performance and accountability. It will help ensure all shippers can gain access to an adequate level of service.

That was the president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

We especially thank [the] Agriculture Minister...[the] Transportation Minister...and the federal government for listening to farmers and moving this legislation ahead.

That was from the president of the Grain Growers of Canada.

[T]his legislation is critical—not only for our industry's competitiveness, but for Canada's overall productivity and prosperity.

That was from the CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada.

We will support opposition amendments when they make sense, and that is exactly what we have done 0.7% of the time.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight, even at this hour. I guess it is great to be here this morning, now. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-52.

The Conservative government has proposed new legislation to improve Canada's freight rail service—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

How are you going to improve that in Newfoundland?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are great comments from the Liberals, but I do not know what they are saying.

I am going to tell them a little story about town called St. Thomas in southern Ontario, where the railways ran for many years in our country. Sometimes as many as 13 railways ran through the city of St. Thomas, as it happened to be in a straight line between Chicago and New York City and Detroit and Buffalo. It cut through the Canada Southern and a number of other railways. It was in a day when the railway was the way we transported all of the goods in Canada. We transported people, goods and the resources that Canada was known for in those days.

I will tell another little story about St. Thomas in Ontario and a rail incident. P.T. Barnum brought the circus to town in 1886. I am sorry, but Jumbo the elephant was walking down the train line on the day it was moving the circus into town and was struck by a locomotive and killed--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is it in the bill?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is right, my hometown killed an elephant. It was back in a day when rail was king. It was a day when everything moved on the rails and some things, I guess, had to move out of the way.

This bill would bring Canada and the rail system in Canada back to those days of service by our railways. They were days when goods and resources were moved by rail.

There is no question that rail transportation plays a central role in the success of our resource companies and our resources in this economy. In fact, Canada's natural resources industries are the largest users of rail freight services in the country, even to this day. Taken together, Canada's forest, mining and energy industries account for two thirds of all carload rail traffic in Canada. We know that the manufacturers and suppliers to these vital industries and many other vital industries, which provide everything from trucks to pipelines, also depend on railroads to transport their products and materials to market.

Our goal is to provide Canadian shippers and railways with a means of agreeing on service levels and ensuring a more effective supply chain. That is exactly what this proposed legislation will do. With this new legislation, we are highlighting the important role that railways play in supporting our economic prosperity. The goal of the legislation is to encourage railways and shippers to work together and it creates a strong incentive for them to do so.

Bill C-52 is designed to provide shippers with greater reliability and predictability in rail service. It is essential to the success of our natural resources industries. It recognizes the needs of shippers in doing their business and the needs of railways to manage their rail assets effectively. The relationship between railways and shippers is vital to Canada's economy as a whole. We know that when shippers can move more volume, it means more exports, revenue and jobs in Canada.

Here is the bottom line. Improving rail service in Canada will help to unlock the potential of our great natural resources. As most Canadians realize, there is a great deal at stake.

Here are some statistics. In the mining industry last year, more than half a million carloads of coal, sulphur and fertilizer were transported by CP Rail. In 2012, CP Rail alone moved 67,000 carloads of forest products. Many of those in urban ridings may have only sat at a crossing and watched that economy move by them as they impatiently waited for the gate to go back up. However, in rural and resource Canada, that is money going by. In fact, it is about $20 million worth of goods a day.

Additionally, Canadian Pacific recently indicated in its 2013 outlook that its crude oil by rail prospects continue to strengthen as the company expects to move to double the movement of crude oil to 140,000 carloads annually by 2015. That is from today's current volume of 70,000 carloads. That is a doubling of carloads of oil being moved by train.

It would be a lot more efficient to move it by pipeline, I suppose.

Right now, natural resources are directly and indirectly driving almost 20% of the nation's economy and supporting over 10% of all the jobs in Canada. Natural resources are poised to play an even greater role in the future. Our opportunities for growth in Canada's resource sector, arising from the rapid economic ascent of some of the world's most populous countries, are unlike anything we have seen in our history. We have estimated that there are some 600 major resource projects currently under way in Canada or planned in the next 10 years, worth approximately $650 billion in investments.

While global economic conditions may be a factor in investor decisions to move forward, the size and number of the projects is substantial. Whatever the short-term obstacles, the longer-term outlook is one of increased value and a demand for Canadian resources.

We can point to tremendous opportunities that are happening right now across the country, from oil and gas in Alberta, to liquid natural gas in British Columbia, to offshore gas in Newfoundland and Labrador, to new discoveries of minerals and metals in the Ring of Fire in Ontario and in northern Quebec. These opportunities will continue for many years to come.

For generations, agriculture and natural resources have brought employment, growth and opportunity to every region of Canada. We must continue to harness this potential. Long-term growth and development in many of these sectors depend upon our railways and their ability to get the products to market.

In a recent report, the International Energy Agency emphasized that global energy demand will continue to grow by more than one third by 2035, being led by emerging economies like China and India. These trends represent opportunities for Canada's energy exports in helping to meet growing global energy needs. Because one thing that we know for sure is that these growing economies will need resources, resources that are abundant here in Canada, such as minerals and metals, lumber, oil and gas. This trend underscores the urgent need for Canada to diversify our energy export markets, such as that of Asia-Pacific.

Growing and emerging economies highlight the urgent need for Canada to develop infrastructure to export our resources to new markets and to ensure that our railways run smoothly.

Simply put, we know that developing an efficient transportation system is crucial to ensuring that our resource industries can compete globally.

The fair rail freight service act would provide the tools to build a strong and efficient rail network in Canada. This important legislation would support Canada's resource sectors as they continue to create jobs and prosperity right across this country. In these challenging economic times, it is good news for our natural resources sector and good news for all Canadians. With this new legislation, we would build on our country's legacy of railway and natural resources. We would be setting the stage for a brand new era of growth and prosperity in Canada.

Just as we mentioned at the beginning, the country started with a growth in railways and a use of railways to transport those resources from coast to coast and to build this country.

The resource industry today, in Canada, requires this act and railways to ensure that the resource industry can supply the world.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points that my friend across the way and I can agree on. I am going to leave the tragic case of the circus elephant behind because I am not sure that this bill directly speaks to that particular provision. I do not see it in the legislation. There are two things that we can agree on. One is the importance of rail. Eighty per cent of all of our freight moves on rail.

The second is that we have a particular challenge posed to us in Canada in that we have two large rail companies that almost entirely dominate every sector of the market. In the U.S. and in other circumstances there are other options for those shipping products. Canada has a duopoly. These companies have been shown by the Competition Bureau at various times to collaborate and coordinate, to raise prices, to offer less service without retribution because they know they are the only options people can go to.

We only get to address the rail system every once in a while. Does my colleague believe that any steps in Bill C-52 would do much to go after the service fees that have been talked about by many shippers in this country? They have had problems and real concerns that the pricing may be non-competitive. When there is a market with only two players in it, non-competitive pricing can pose a real problem to such a fundamental industry as the shipping industry in Canada.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that the fair rail freight service act looks at ways to allow those shippers who must move product in order to get the resources that I spoke about in my speech to market, to move agriculture products across this country, and do it using the existing rail system in Canada, whether it is the two major ones or some very small short lines. This legislation would allow those shippers to have some negotiating power with those railways.

Unlike perhaps my colleague across the way, I believe that a great capitalist way of paying for goods as they are being moved is a far better way to do it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London for his history lesson on St. Thomas.

I would like him to address the real elephant in the room, which is the fact that our friends in the NDP are telling us that they are going to support the bill, yet they are challenging it tonight and suggesting our government should interfere more in the commercial marketplace. Could the hon. member please comment on the elephant in the room?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, and what a great way to put it.

I will finish a bit of my history lesson. There still is a life-size statue of Jumbo at the far end of Talbot Street in St. Thomas. As one comes up the hill, there is Jumbo.

The member is absolutely right about the elephant in the room. It is a late hour and I have sat here for most of the night, five or six hours, listening to all the parties in the House suggest how much they like our bill. There is a saying back home in rural southern Ontario: my momma taught me how to say “thank you”.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-52, concerning rail freight. This is another bill we are debating under a gag order, which has been imposed for the 37th time.

[An hon. member]

Unbelievable!

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

This is actually quite insulting, and most of all, undemocratic. The Conservatives are forcing us to sit until midnight from Monday to Thursday, and yet this makes the 37th time we have a time allocation motion. Talk about mixed messages.

We want to discuss the issues, but the government limits the time for debate again and again. In addition, these are badly thought-out bills riddled with flaws. I will list them a little later in my speech.

This has been an ongoing trend with the Conservatives since they came into office. I am specifically thinking of omnibus Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60.

I speak of the Conservatives' incompetence because they are bringing forward bills full of flaws and weaknesses. They are not holding proper consultations. In committee, recommendations from many of the witnesses are rejected out of hand, as are the amendments proposed by the NDP, or anyone else for that matter.

They realized that Bill C-38 was flawed. Then they made hasty additions to Bill C-45 to rectify the other bill they had just introduced.

This makes no sense at all. It lacks credibility. It shows a lack of respect for the democratic process, for the people who were consulted and for those who were not. It shows contempt for the elected officials who serve the people who rely on them to make decisions. We cannot make good decisions because we cannot have a debate and carefully examine everything that should be considered. So yes, it is insulting and an outrage.

The official opposition will support Bill C-52 because it is, finally, a first attempt at establishing the right to service agreements between rail companies and shippers.

This is the first step that shippers have been waiting for for decades. It also establishes an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, to impose penalties in the event negotiations fail and for violations of arbitration decisions. There are therefore constructive, positive elements, but there are also a number of elements that shippers and the official opposition were calling for but that were rejected.

Four NDP members proposed amendments, based on recommendations from shippers. Those members were the transport critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina; the deputy critic, the member for Trois-Rivières; the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the member for York South—Weston.

What were those amendments and recommendations? I will explain them. They were not that complicated, and they would have really helped shippers.

We recommended including details about the service agreements. It seems to me that service agreements should, at the very least, be signed and contain details. I do not understand why that was rejected. We asked that the term “operational” be deleted because it would limit the ability to negotiate and arbitrate service agreements. Again, that seems to go without saying. It does not make much sense to limit the measure we are trying to implement. We wanted to include a dispute resolution mechanism in service agreements for breach of contract. We also asked to limit the ability of railway companies to levy penalties and charges that are not in the service agreement.

The rates are already exorbitant and the railway companies are abusing their power. Since there are only two main companies, there is a quasi-monopoly when it comes to shipping freight. The rates being charged to the shippers are too high. They prevent the entrepreneurs and the shippers from being competitive on the international market. We cannot even limit the capacity of the rail carriers to charge penalties that are not included in the service agreement. Nothing good will come of that either.

We proposed limiting arbitration when service agreement negotiations break off and issues are raised by the shipper. The last amendment sought to limit the capacity of rail carriers to raise network-related problems during arbitration.

All these amendments could have improved Bill C-52, but they were not considered. They were completely rejected.

Again, we are here to let the House know that people are not happy about this.The bill has other flaws. What about lost revenue. The Conservatives claim they want to strengthen the economy, but they are diminishing the capacity of the regions to prop up their regional economy, given that the affected sectors are the farming, forestry, mining, manufacturing and natural resources sectors. Most of these sectors are in remote regions.

The Conservatives are contradicting themselves again. They would have us believe that their position and their bills are best, but then they sabotage everything they are trying to do by not taking the time to do proper research. They do not take the time to consult the experts in the areas affected by their bills. That is part of the incompetence that we are talking about here.

Shippers are currently paying the price of service disruptions, damage to their crops and service delays by railways. What is more, they have no other option. As many of my colleagues have said, 70% of surface goods are moved by rail in Canada, and 80% of these shippers are not satisfied with the service they received. That is serious. That means that service is considered to be poor in four out of five cases.

That is why these types of agreements needed to be made after all these years. However, now that they are finally being made, they are more negative than positive. The money from the $100,000 penalties imposed on railway companies under this bill is not used to compensate shippers. Instead, it goes to the federal government. It really should be given to shippers who create jobs and who have to pay late fees and fees for services that the railways failed to provide.

This money is being sent to the wrong place. What is more, these penalties do not really act as a deterrent since we know that companies such as CN are making $2.7 billion in profit a year.

In short, we are going to allow this bill to move forward, but it has many shortcomings. We must listen to experts on this.

[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.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary 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.

[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.

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

This is correct.

[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.

[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?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Thursday, May 30, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-52.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #708

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)