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.

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-52, with the understanding that it is not exactly the bill that was needed. However, I have absolute faith that our critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, will be in there valiantly fighting for the amendments to improve this legislation, which does not go far enough.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the member for the amazing work she has been doing on her transportation portfolio. I know in my riding of Newton—North Delta, one of the most critical issues for the residents there is to have a national transportation strategy to help provide a framework so that we can have good, comprehensive public transit that will help us get rid of the gridlock, for the movement of goods and for people. When people do not have to sit for hours and hours in traffic gridlock, their mental health improves and they are much more productive at work.

Today we are here to talk specifically about the amendments to rail freight provisions. We are talking about rail freight customers. We live in a huge country, which is geographically challenged, or I might say, advantaged. We have a diverse climate. When I left Vancouver last night at 11:20, it was still 6°C. Then when I arrived here to our beautiful, balmy weather in Ottawa, it was minus whatever.

Moving goods for mining companies, farmers and even for people who want to ship cars across the country, we realize that shippers have a huge geography to contend with. It was with that in mind that our forefathers had the foresight to build a national railroad. It is unfortunate that we have not been good caretakers of the national gift that was given to us. We have seen it face quite a few challenges. On the passenger side of rail, my colleagues who have rail service in their areas tell us how wonderful it is, but out where I live in B.C. we have had much of our passenger rail cut and the rest is not running that regularly.

When we talk about freight in Canada we are not talking about moving goods 100 miles or 300 miles, we are talking about moving goods thousands of miles across the country, going through mountainous terrain, our prairies, from coast to coast to coast. As well, there is the incredible challenge of our climate, yet we have to keep our freight moving throughout the year.

I am an absolute fan of trains, be they freight trains or passenger trains. Having grown up in England I had access to some of the best train service way back before the British privatized their train service. Britain is now looking to see how it can buy back the rail services and move toward nationalizing that national treasure once again.

I want us to look at some of the key facts surrounding this issue in Canada. We usually talk about quality service. However, here is a fact: 80% of rail freight customers are unhappy with their services. When I think that 80% are unhappy, that means that only 20% are happy. If I were teaching in my classroom today and I was grading a paper that was only 20% okay, it would not receive a very high mark or even a passing mark. As a matter of fact, it would be an abysmally failing mark, and I feel that is exactly what we are doing. We are failing our mining industry, our farmers and other shippers in industries that transport goods using the freight service.

Our services are so unreliable. They cost the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars every year. If there were no other argument, surely my colleagues across the way could accept the fact that when it costs our economy hundreds of millions of dollars a year, it is an issue they need to address immediately. It is not something we should tinker with part of and then just leave alone for a long time.

By the way, I do not give much credit to my colleagues who are sitting in opposition either, the Liberal Party, because it was under them, under their stewardship, that the CN was privatized in 1995. They privatized the track. There is another way, which other countries are looking at where they keep the track and privatize the actual rail service. However, it was that kind of privatization, without checks and balances, without guarantees, without getting contracts in writing into the future, that is jeopardizing the transportation of goods. I want my colleagues to remember that.

We always have to look at our history. History is a great teacher. Basically what we are looking at here today is that if 80% of the people are unhappy and the unreliable freight service is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars each year, just think what it is costing the companies that invest. Think of the rotting crops for farmers who cannot get the service they need when they need it to move their goods from, let us say, the Prairies out to the west coast to be shipped away, or to the east coast. The transportation is stopped. Imagine the idled plants, even on our coastline, that are waiting for the railways to arrive, but they are running late and so they have backlogs. Imagine the mines that miss their shipments. These are the day-to-day realities that these industries have shared with us.

This is a missed opportunity by my good colleagues across the way to come forward with a comprehensive piece of legislation. This particular misstep will continue to hurt Canada's exporters, damaging our global competitiveness and costing us decent jobs. The bill takes a baby step in the right direction, but when we are dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars and peoples' livelihoods, baby steps are not always what needs to be taken. This is a missed opportunity for the Conservatives to address the bill in a comprehensive way.

What we find when we read the bill is that the protective measures do not even cover existing contracts between shippers and rail companies. As well, the legislation will only offer a narrow, costly arbitration process for failed negotiations for new contracts. Key demands, such as the shippers' call to include penalties for rail companies and service agreements, performance standards and an easily accessible conflict resolution process were basically ignored in this piece of legislation.

By the way, these are not the key demands of the opposition. These are not key demands that we have dreamed up. Our critic has done an amazing job consulting with the industries that feel the most impact.

Once again I would say the government is pandering to its corporate friends instead of the industries it needs to be supporting so that Canada can grow its export business and thus address its own economic strength.

Our rail transportation system, despite all its problems, is the backbone of Canada's economy, with 70% of all surface goods shipped by rail. As a matter of fact, if anyone has ever travelled through the Rockies by rail, there is a point where one can stand and see the beginning and the end of a train, because of the geography and the way the rail track was built. If anyone ever gets the opportunity, they should go see that. It is truly amazing. Watching that for what seems like forever, it really strikes home just how much Canadians rely on rail to transport our goods.

Pricing for rail freight services is also damaging Canada's shippers. Bill C-52 explicitly excludes pricing, despite the fact that many in the shipping community were calling for this very thing. One has to think, what is the driver for the Conservative government? It certainly is not listening to the people who need to move crops, who grow crops or mine minerals, or the people who are using the freight service. The government is not even listening to the shippers.

Canada's trade deficit is ballooning. I know the Conservatives like to live under the delusion that they are fine economic managers. However, when we look at the real world outside, it is a very different story. I would like to invite some of them to visit my riding and see that reality for themselves.

Canada's trade deficit is ballooning, reaching almost $2 billion in November. I am not talking about hundreds of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. I am talking about $2 billion, a number I do not think many of us could even write down or imagine how many zeroes come after the number two. We would have to go back to our high school days to remember that. We cannot afford to lose even more ground by taking little baby steps. This is the time when the government could have been bold, addressed all the issues and moved us forward in the right direction. We have to be competitive in the global market. Canada's products can only be competitive when we see an improvement in that figure of the 80% of people who are unhappy with the freight service.

Rail freight service is not only central to Canada's economy, we also need a strong freight service to take trucks off the roads and tackle greenhouse gas emissions. I am not going to try to persuade my colleagues across the way about the need for environmental protection. Whether it has been in the omnibus budget bill or other actions around the Kyoto protocol, the government has shown it has absolutely no commitment to regulations that protect our environment. As a matter of fact, it has shown it is not willing to make any movement toward making improvements to protect our environment.

At the same time, I feel it is my moral responsibility to point out to government members that, if it were improved and more people were happy with it and it were running on time, et cetera, at least our railroad service would take many trucks off the road. More people would use the freight service because they were happier with it, and thus it would be good for the environment.

I know that deep down, somewhere, even if not when they are sitting here in the hallowed House but when they are back at home with their children and grandchildren, Conservatives must think about planet earth and what we must do to protect it, if not for ourselves then for our children and grandchildren.

It would have made environmental sense to have addressed some of these issues in a more comprehensive manner. Rail freight is only one aspect where the Conservatives are slow to act. I could give many other examples, but I do not think there is enough time in the day.

From new rail safety measures, which we have been calling for, to cuts at VIA Rail and blocking the introduction of high-speed rail in Canada, Conservatives do not give Canada's rail network the attention it deserves. It is absolutely so. There is nothing more relaxing than sitting on a train and travelling to work and home. I have done this at another stage in my life, and I can say it is far superior to travelling by car to work and back and sitting behind the wheel getting all tensed up.

We are not the only ones who are saying that this bill does not go far enough. There are others who agree with us. As I said previously, the official opposition's critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, has done an amazing amount of legwork on this. Actually, she has met with many of the movers and shakers in this area. She, herself, has formulated policies and amendments that she is bringing forward based on what she heard, not on some ideological shift way out there or a need to look as if she is doing something, but based on listening to the customers and those who move their freight.

Key stakeholders in agriculture, mining and the forestry industry associations have been calling for rail freight legislation for years; for example, and I am only going to name a few, Pulse Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Forest Products Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada. They want, and we want, to have strong legislation to protect rail customers. However, once again the government has given in to inaction or a tiny baby step of action, which creates a great deal of dissatisfaction.

Let me just sum up a few things. Rail transportation is the backbone of our economy. More than 70% of the surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail. I would say that we need to make sure even more are shipped by rail, to get the trucks off our roads. Eighty per cent of service commitments for agricultural rail customers are not met by the rail companies due to delays, an insufficient number of rail cars, etcetera. That is quite a shocking figure. Agriculture cannot live up to its commitments 80% of the time because of the fault of the railway services. That is quite an eye-opener in itself.

The rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers are not satisfied, as I said earlier, but within that whole group, we have agriculture, a key backbone of our country. How can we live with a service where 80% of agriculture commitments are reneged on, not due to any fault of their own but due to the railway service?

We stand with the farmers, and we know how little respect my colleagues across the way have had for the farmers, and we stand with the mining and forestry communities to end unacceptable treatment and unreliable freight services from the big rail companies. We need a stronger bill and we will do everything we can. I have absolute faith in our critic. We will do that through amendments to protect rail customers, and we will work with the shippers to get them the fair and reliable freight services they deserve.

Unreliable rail freight services cost hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damages. Canadian jobs are on the line. Surely the time to act is now and not to keep waiting. Waiting for Godot will not solve this problem.

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

I will try to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have.

My private member's bill would accomplish all of the things rail customers want. My bill would cover all customers, whether they have existing contracts or not. My bill would provide a model agreement so that it would be much faster and easier for the customers and the company to come to a consensus and sign an agreement. My bill proposes that there be financial consequences for bad service delivery so that the customers are compensated if their grains do not show up on time or they end up rotting at port. Customers would not have to book several containers in case the train shows up late or early.

My bill proposes to deal with price gouging and the monopoly of power the rail company has. Unless we deal with that, the situation will still be one-sided. We have to find some balance between the customers and the companies. If not, the customers will continue to be gouged, and the services will continue to be unreliable. I hope my Conservative colleagues across the way will work closely with me and be non-partisan about it.

Let us fix Bill C-52 so that it works for all customers and shippers. Let us make sure that there are substantial consequences if the services are not reliable.

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

Mr. Speaker, every day Canadian shippers suffer from the consequences of getting unreliable freight services.

Farmers cannot get their grain, soybeans and canola delivered to the port on time, resulting in missed ships, upset overseas customers and rotting crops. Lumber and paper companies in more than 500 forestry dependent communities cannot get their products shipped or supplies delivered because of patchy rail freight services, affecting the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Mining operations, the largest employer for aboriginal people, have to idle productions because they cannot get their coal and other minerals picked up on time.

The effects are real: hundreds of millions of dollars in lost productivity; and countless lost jobs and lower competitiveness for Canadian businesses in the global marketplace. Canada's farming, natural resources and manufacturing companies are innovative and hard-working, but they lose out against global competitors when they cannot connect with their export partners and disrupted supply chains.

Why is this? Why are our farmers frustrated about delayed pickups of their crops? Why are mining companies frustrated about promised rail cars that are never delivered? Why are paper factories frustrated about damaged rail cars on which they cannot put their products? It is because we have a classic case of market power abuse. The small lentil farmer in Manitoba simply cannot get reliable and affordable freight services from a rail company like CN, even though CN made an annual profit last year of $2.7 billion. Those lucky enough to get a contract with CN and CP have to put up with service disruptions, while many smaller companies cannot even get a contract in the first place.

Eight out of ten rail customers are unhappy with the freight services they get from the big rail companies. Around 80% of rail commitments between the rail companies and farmers and grain elevators are not fulfilled. The future picture is even more dramatic. Forty-five per cent of shippers say that their rail freight services have become worse over the past three years.

Why is the situation so bad? Healthy competition in a marketplace brings prices down and creates a balance between supply and demand. However, that is not the case with rail freight services. Rail freight customers are faced with the entrenched dual monopoly. Together CN and CP dominate with a market share of close to 95%. CN alone accounts for 57% of the market based on revenues and CP accounts for 38%. The remaining 5% is 49 short-line operators that haul freight to the 2 main lines.

Around 80% of rural shippers are captive, meaning they have no choice but to go with the one big rail company that operates in their area, a textbook case of a monopoly. They have no choice but to pay higher prices, no choice but to suffer the consequence of unreliable services and no choice but to endure scheduling changes without advance notice.

Canadians have no choice but to get a black eye on the international stage for unreliable export delivery. It is a marketplace that is broken, where legitimate demand is not countered by adequate supply of services. In the words of the Canadian Industrial Transportation Association:

Railway Freight is not a normally functioning competitive market....This is the fundamental issue underlying all the price and service problems encountered by rail shippers....It is dominated by the sellers.

By that, it meant CN and CP.

What about other modes of transportation? Why can rail freight customers not ditch the rail companies and go with delivery by truck or ship?

The Canadian Industrial Transportation Association said:

—the reality of moving to other modes in most cases is not practical in any reasonable scenario. Truck equipment may not be available in the short to medium term and volumes may be too great to transfer to truck....Over the past seven decades, the railways have lost significant market share to trucking and it is likely that most traffic that could take advantage of the trucking option, has moved to truck.

In other words, trucking only works for certain distances, depending upon the value and the volume of the freight. Just to illustrate this point, a train hauling potash carries an average cargo of 10,000 tonnes. That is the equivalent 385 semi-trucks.

Leaving aside considerations like pricing and delivery time, just getting such a fleet of trucks is simply unrealistic, in most case, when the rail company decides not to show up on time.

It is not just the shippers that are captive. Many of Canada's ports are as well.

East of Montreal to the Port of Halifax, CN is the only major railway. A similar situation exists in northern B.C., with CN being the only railway serving the port of Prince Rupert. Likewise, southeastern B.C. and southern Alberta are served only by CP. In parts of northern Ontario, the CN and CP main lines are enough separated that they are monopoly rail carriers in those areas as well.

Given this situation, any efforts from the industry and the government must focus on improving rail freight services, while making the pricing competitive so rail freight customers are not left completely vulnerable.

One of the core issues is that shippers have no effective way to get the contracts fulfilled, if they are even among the lucky ones who are able to sign an agreement.

In the words of the Western Grain Elevator Association, rail companies continue to deliver unreliable services, “because they can—there are no effective legal or financial consequences”.

When it comes to consequences for non-performance we, again, have a completely lopsided situation.

By contrast, shippers have to pay penalty fees to CN and CP if they do not have the promised volumes ready for shipping or if they fail to load the rail cars on time. However, it does work the other way around. If rail cars do not show up on time or if goods are delivered late, there is no problem for CN and CP. They get away with all the unreliable behaviour, or bad behaviour, without paying a penny, or should I say a nickel today? The shipper has no choice but to suffer the economic consequences caused by the rail companies. Therefore, we have a pretty desperate picture of Canada's rail customers.

What has the government done to protect them?

For years, it kept itself busy with talking and making promises. In 2007 the government promised an independent investigation of the situation. The much-heralded rail freight service review finally started in 2008. For almost three years, its experts gathered information, talked to shippers and rail companies, commissioned a much revealing survey and came up with eight key recommendations. The final report was tabled in early 2011.

The minister of transport at that time promised legislation. Then what happened? There was an election. After the election, there was more talking.

More than half a year after the final report, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food decided it was not time for action yet, so he started the crop logistics working group.

Of course, the Minister of Transport did not want to be outdone, so he kicked off a mediation process between shippers and rail companies in late 2011.

However, as predicated, the mediation was ultimately fruitless because there was a complete imbalance of power. CN and CP were unwilling to make meaningful concessions during the several rounds of negotiations. Without yielding any concrete results, the chair, Jim Dinning, released a report in June 2012.

New Democrats have stood with the shippers along the way. I tabled my own bill, the rail customer protection act, using the recommendations of these various reports. I have repeatedly called on the minister to give rail customers fair, reliable and affordable services they need to be successful and to make Canada's economy stronger.

The shipping community has consistently been asking the federal government to fix major issues. They have been talking about this for at least over 10 years. One would assume, after all those deliberations and investigations, the government would present a rock solid bill that would protect rail customers, would level the playing field and would bring a balance of power to shipping customers. Unfortunately, while Bill C-52 is a step forward, it falls short of what should be accomplished.

How? While shippers would have the right to a service agreement in the bill, there is no model, guideline or template to back up that right. Shipping customers want a model service agreement that gives shippers and rail companies flexibility to negotiate, while starting with certain elements already on the table, like performance measurements and consequences for non-performance. They did not get one in the bill.

Instead, the bill has said nothing about what should be in the service agreements. Many shippers are already afraid they have won a hollow victory. They will sit down with a rail company, knowing they have the right to an agreement, but ever component would have to be a concession of CN and CP, which is a very tough place from which to start.

It comes as a disappointment for many shippers that penalties for non-performance are not included in the bill. Rail customers desperately need to include such penalty fees in service agreements to get compensation for service disruption and the resulting damages and productivity losses. The current bill only includes fines of up to $100,000 in the case of arbitration outcome being ignored by either party. That arbitration process is only available to shippers that negotiate a service agreement for the first time.

The other problem is that such a fine would be paid to the federal government, not to the customer. To act as a real deterrent, fines would have to be significantly higher. Keep in mind unreliable rail services are costing customers millions of dollars, while CN made $2.7 billion last year.

Another shortcoming of Bill C-52 is the brand new arbitration process is only available for shippers that are negotiating new contracts. Instead of offering quick and reliable help through conflict resolution to all shippers, Bill C-52 offers arbitration to a small group of shippers. The other problem is that the outlined arbitration process could end up being too costly for smaller shippers. To place the burden of proof on the shippers to demonstrate that they need rail customer services, that they are indeed captives, is indeed unfair and one-sided.

Bill C-52 applies only to new service agreements, not existing ones. That means many shippers will continue to be stuck with unreliable, unfair and unaffordable services. They will continue to be without any conflict resolution process in the case of violations to existing service agreements.

The bill does not even tackle the elephant in the room, which is pricing. For years shippers have been complaining about uncompetitive freight rates. It is common that shippers pay prices that are three times as high as the rail companies' variable or direct costs for services, just because shipping companies can get away with it. There is no choice for customers.

The government is wasting the opportunity to get rail customers not only fair, reliable, but also affordable and competitively priced freight services to give rail customers real protection from unreliable services, price gouging and a monopoly that costs the farm, logging and mining industries millions of dollars.

In conclusion, it is clear that federal action is needed to create a level playing field for Canada's rail customers and shippers, many exporters among them. They deserve fair, reliable and affordable rail freight services to compete and survive.

Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction, but it falls short of the hopes of many shippers. The bill would not cover all rate freight customers. Many would be left behind. It would not provide a model agreement, and customers would have to start from scratch. The bill would not compensate for bad service. What would be the consequence for unreliable service? There would not be much. The bill would not curb the monopoly power of the rail company giants, and it would not end price gouging.

In committee, I will work hard to improve the bill, in line with key customer demands. I look forward to working with the government and the shipping community to address the shortcomings of Bill C-52. I am optimistic that a stronger and more useful bill is possible. It is within reach to finally make rail freight services reliable and affordable for Canadian businesses.

This country was built on railways, and we owe it to the farmers in the Prairies, the paper mill workers in Quebec and the miners in British Columbia that we make Canada's rail system work again for all.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence before us suggests that the government has not listened at all well to the customers of these major freight companies. Eighty per cent of them are unhappy with the service they are receiving.

Bill C-52 only goes part way in redressing the concerns and complaints of the customers of CN and CP. The major freight rail companies seem to have had the government's ear in the drafting of the bill.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-52 and to kick off today's debate on an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Here is a word about the rail industry in Canada to set some context for this discussion of Bill C-52. First, rail transport is critical to Canada's economy, and 70% of all surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail.

The rail industry has to work for Canada. Under the current government, our trade deficit is ballooning, reaching nearly $2 billion in November alone. There can be no tolerance, because there is no room in our economy for the kinds of inefficiencies, excess costs and performance woes that characterize our rail system presently.

The problem is that rail freight customers are struggling to get fair and reliable services from the virtual monopoly of CP and CN that control Canada's rail system. Many rail freight customers cannot even get a contract for service from one of these companies. Those who do get them have to contract for unreliable services that are costing the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Rotting crops, idled plants and mines, missed connections to other forms of transportation, all of this is hurting Canada's exporters, damaging our global competitiveness and costing us jobs.

These issues affect a broad range of economic activity, from agriculture, forestry, mining and the chemical industry to the automotive industry.

This set of circumstances is not new. It has defined the industry for a number of years, frustrating rail freight customers so that 80% of them are now unhappy with their rail service. They have been demanding change: action from the federal government, legislation that would compel CN and CP to provide service agreements to shippers.

Change has been slow in coming, however. The rail freight service review began in 2008. We had the panel, its report, a mediation exercise, another report and then the promise of legislation from the minister.

However, it seems that it was the private member's bill, Bill C-441, of my colleague, the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina, that pushed the government at last to release the government bill we have before us.

This is a tepid response to a real economic problem. It does not cover existing contracts. It offers only a narrow, costly arbitration process for failed negotiations for new contracts. Freight customers' demands to include penalties in service agreements, performance standards and accessible conflict resolution were ignored.

It is a start, but much more needs to be done and we will support the bill through to committee for amendments to redress the weaknesses and omissions in the bill.

Before it gets to committee, I think it is useful to think through more carefully and thoroughly what opportunities are lost to our economy, to us, with our rail system structured and regulated as it is presently.

The current issues confronting freight customers stem from the fact that the rail industry in this country is a virtual monopoly. It was made that way in 1995 with the sale of Canadian National Railway, along with the tracks, to private interests.

What was made with the sale was a virtual monopoly of a $10 billion industry that sits at the heart of the Canadian economy. Quoting from a Transport Canada document on rail transport:

Of total Canadian rail transport industry revenues, CN accounts for over 50% and CPR for approximately 35%. Together, CN and CPR represent more than 95% of Canada's annual rail tonne-kilometres, more than 75% of the industry's tracks, and three-quarters of overall tonnage carried by the rail sector.

It is important for both our economy and our environment that our rail system run with full efficiency. The alternative to rail freight is on-road transportation by way of trucks.

According to the latest Environment Canada national inventory report, 1990-2010, most transportation emissions in Canada are related to road transport. Emissions from road transport rose by 37 megatonnes, or 38%, between 1990 and 2010. Of those 37 megatonnes, emissions from heavy duty diesel vehicles or large freight trucks rose by 20 megatonnes. That is a 101% increase.

It is worth noting here that the GHG emission intensity of freight rail improved by 24% between 1990 and 2008. It should also be noted that there remains plenty of room for improving the emission intensity for both freight and passenger rail travel.

We know that not all truck freight is replaceable by rail freight and vice versa, but this is a worrying trend. It is worrying not just from an environmental perspective, but it also speaks to the broader issue of congestion on our roads and the environmental and economic costs of that congestion. Clearly, the more freight we can move by rail, the fewer trucks are unnecessarily using our road network for freight transport.

The same obviously holds true for passenger travel. It is notable that while passenger kilometres—that is, passenger travel by motor vehicle in Canada—have been on a long upward trend, passenger kilometres by train have remained virtually steady since plummeting in 1990. Of course, it was in 1990 that VIA Rail lost over 45% of its ridership in the aftermath of the federal government ordering VIA to abandon certain corridors and branch lines. As a result, passenger travel on VIA fell from its peak of about eight million passengers per year in the 1980s to a ridership that has bounced around the four million mark since.

Efforts to increase rail service for passengers have been stifled by the virtual monopoly of CN and CP. VIA operates its trains on 12,500 kilometres of track, but it owns a mere 2% of that. Eighty-three per cent is owned by CN and CP, with CN owning the majority of that track. The remaining track VIA uses is short line infrastructure, which is owned and maintained to reflect the freight market that these tracks serve. Therefore, with virtually no ownership of track and no priority access to track, VIA Rail must negotiate train service agreements with these major freight carriers in order to provide its passenger service, and it finds itself in the unenviable position of sitting between a virtual monopoly and the succession of Liberal and Conservative governments that failed to recognize the enduring value and incredible economic and environmental potential of rail travel to the country.

This indifference of our government to the economic and environmental potential of rail extends well beyond freight-related issues and intercity passenger travel, right into our cities. This is certainly the case in my city of Toronto. Investment in transit infrastructure, particularly in the form of rail transit, is critical to unleashing the economic potential of Toronto's city region. Infrastructure, and transit infrastructure in particular, is a key component of a competitive business environment.

This is most certainly the view of members of the Toronto Board of Trade. They identified transit infrastructure as their top priority. The Board of Trade's 2011 annual global benchmarking study shows why it requires urgent attention and investment. Toronto finished 19th out of 24 global cities on transportation issues, including last place in commute time and, significantly, 16th for kilometres travelled by rail. There is near consensus that the absence of adequate transit infrastructure in Toronto and the Toronto city region is the biggest impediment to Toronto's global competitiveness. It has been estimated that the annual cost of congestion to Toronto's regional economy is $6 billion. That cost is projected to rise to $15 billion if no significant action is taken.

It is time to take significant action. The cost of the status quo is too great and unnecessary. It is one of the great mysteries of the current government. It continues to contradict its own marketing materials and brochures every day. It is emphatically not a sound economic manager. It stands idly while opportunities for economic growth pass it by.

Bill C-52 is just the latest example of any easy fix but also of a government that responds only when pushed, and only then half-heartedly, to opportunities to improve the economy of the country and the lives of Canadians.

The House resumed from February 1 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I would like to begin by wishing all of my constituents and colleagues a happy new year since this is my first speech in the House this year. I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her tremendous and brilliant work on this issue. I am sure that we have her to thank for the fact that the Conservative government decided to do something about this issue.

I would like to go over some facts and talk about why this bill came into being.

Rail transportation is the backbone of Canada's economy because 70% of our goods are shipped by rail. That is why it is critical that rail transportation services benefit both rail transportation companies and shippers.

The cost of rail transportation is also hurting Canadian shippers. Unfortunately, Bill C-52 is silent on the issue of rates because the government ignored the demands of a number of groups of shippers.

Canada's trade deficit continues to grow. It hit $2 billion in November. We cannot allow Canada's products to lose more ground competing on the world markets.

Rail transportation is essential not only to competitiveness, but also to the domestic economy. We also need rail transportation services to help keep trucks off the roads and to curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Although railways still make up a considerable proportion of surface transportation, frustrated businesses are turning to trucks when possible, and that is devastating to our environment. That is important to note.

We must also look at the economy as a whole, since Canada's trade deficit is increasing. As I mentioned, it reached nearly $2 billion in November, and our economy cannot afford to lose even more ground in light of the global situation.

The Conservatives' reluctance in the past to do anything for Canada's rail shippers shows their overall attitude towards rail transportation. Whether it is their inaction on new railway safety measures, cuts to VIA Rail Canada or their opposition to bringing high-speed rail service to Canada, the Conservatives refuse to give Canada's railway network the attention it deserves.

The Conservatives are taking a piecemeal approach to this country's transportation infrastructure that shows a lack of interest and a lack of investment. This is the case in my riding, which used to be a railway riding. It no longer is and we have to wonder why. One answer is the clear lack of investment to keep these railways running. Railways and their tracks are increasingly being sold off, when they could be used for other purposes, such as public transportation.

Instead of letting things go and making only occasional investments here and there, Canada needs a comprehensive approach to transportation that is based on a national public transportation and railway strategy. For years, farmers and other businesses have been paying the price for the poor quality of rail freight services, and have not managed to get Ottawa's attention.

The NDP's position is simple. We support businesses and exporters. We are determined to get them the transportation services they need and deserve.

Even though Bill C-52 does not follow through on certain demands from stakeholders, it should receive our support. I am rising in the House today because shippers are happy with it, more or less.

Now it is up to us to fill in the gaps, strengthen this bill for shippers and underscore the NDP's participation throughout the process. As I mentioned earlier, the member for Trinity—Spadina has done some excellent work on this issue.

We will keep working to ensure that we improve our country's rail transportation system and use it for what it was intended: to meet economic and environmental needs.

Unfortunately, Bill C-52 will cover only new service level agreements, and not those that already exist. Many shippers will have to continue to cope with unreliable and unfair service without any access to dispute resolution if their existing service agreements are violated.

Arbitration is available only for shippers who are in the midst of negotiating new contracts. Instead of offering fast, reliable conflict resolution for all shippers, as the NDP is asking for, Bill C-52 is offering a limited arbitration process for a small group of shippers.

The proposed arbitration process may be too costly for shippers. The burden of proof may be unfair if they have to prove that they are in need of services from the railway.

Certain shippers also wanted to tackle the issue of tariffs during the legislative process, but unfortunately the Conservatives made it clear that they would not address that issue until the next legislative review of the Canada Transportation Act in 2014-15.

Obviously, shippers agreed to look at tariffs at a later date and to focus on problems with service level agreements.

It is worth repeating that the mining sector is the second-largest employer in aboriginal communities, after the public service.

Improving rail freight transportation services for mining companies could also be of economic benefit to aboriginal people in certain areas of the country.

The whole question of rail freight is particularly important to rural areas. I come from a rural area. The industries that will be most affected by this are in western Canada, in British Columbia, as well as in Quebec and, to a lesser degree, Ontario. This represents both a challenge and an opportunity for everyone and for parliamentarians to really effect positive change for people in rural areas.

The Prairies are very sparsely populated, for instance. However, this matter is important to the small towns and rural communities of the Prairies, and those are the main groups we should be reaching out to.

Nearly 100 communities depend on the forest industry for their survival. That is the case in my riding, where most forestry-related transportation is done by truck. Why not invest in the railways that exist in my riding to transport lumber?

My colleagues and I would like to see penalties included in the agreements in relation to service levels, in order to compensate shippers for service disruptions, damages and loss of productivity.

Shippers are also afraid, and I agree with them, that this bill will not apply to rail shipments from Canada to the U.S. Why not?

In closing, this is an important piece of legislation. It needs improvements. Of course we hope this government will keep an open mind and accept many of our recommendations.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Ottawa Centre agrees that government regulations should be a last resort. That is why we gave the two parties, the shippers and the rail lines, a period of time to try to work this out in a private commercial agreement.

Unfortunately, they were not able to do that.

Based upon that, we knew it had to be done. We have had many talks with the stakeholders. We listened to all sides of the story and looked at the challenges they have and tried to put a bill together based upon the input from the stakeholders on both sides. We think Bill C-52 contains the substance we need, including the period of time from when the complaint is first brought, the time allowed to resolve it and, if not resolved, a brief arbitration period, which can be extended for a short time. At that time, if the railways, for whatever reason, fail to rectify the situation they are subject to fines of $100,000 per day per complaint. If one single shipper has five complaints about bad rail cars, that would be $500,000 a day. If we multiply that by the number of forest outfits across the country, it could be significant.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for giving such an informative, accurate and superlative presentation on Bill C-52. As proof of that, Mr. Speaker, you saw that everyone clearly understood the value of the bill. They clearly understood my friend's message. Of course, there would be no questions or comments given that situation, so he is to be congratulated.

Let us look at the genesis of the bill and understand that Bill C-52 would not be in the House were there not some disparities in the rail service that has been provided to shippers across Canada by Canada's two railways. The Minister of State for Transport this morning described that as a duopoly, which is just a hair's breadth away from a monopoly. The bill would not be in the House if the relationship between the railways and the shippers was a perfect one.

The relationship has been far from perfect. The shippers could be appropriately called “captive shippers”; there is little or no alternative for shipping their products. These are primarily bulk products from the agriculture, mining, oil and gas and propane sectors. Rail is the most economical and most profitable way to ship bulk shipments across Canada. I am sure that is a point that will not be debated.

I am happy to support Bill C-52 because I have spent some time working with a particular sector that is prominent in my riding, the forest sector. While that sector reaches all across the country, my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, which I am sure my colleague from Prince George—Peace River would agree, could be appropriately called the forest capital of the world. In my riding, and the Peace River, Okanagan—Shuswap, Kelowna—Lake Country, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Kootenay—Columbia and Okanagan—Coquihalla ridings, we all have sawmills, pulp mills, fibre mills and pellet mills. I can honestly say that those ridings combined probably ship the bulk of forest products from their locations to the U.S., Asia and abroad.

I serve as the chair of the Conservative forest caucus, and the members I just mentioned are part of that. I can remember, going back six years ago when I took on that position, that we were talking with the CEOs and the leaders in the forest industry across the country. They were telling us about some of the challenges they have; one of them was the rail service they were getting.

There were a number of other things, which our government has successfully addressed. One that we can be very proud of is the green transformation fund, which was a real winner in the forest industry across the country. It helped us to stay in tight competition with our U.S. counterparts. That is good because the U.S. is still our biggest market for forest products. We send the bulk of our products into the U.S. by rail, as we send to the coast for shipments overseas.

I remember this meeting from about four years ago. We had solved most of the problems and challenges and we asked what was left. They said we still need to deal with the service we are getting from the railways.

My colleagues and I made a promise to the leaders of the industry. We said that it was number one on our bucket list, that we would see this fixed. We said that we would get this solved one way or another and we began to work on it.

I will not say we did not have encouragement from colleagues across the way. It is a common interest. I thank them for their assistance.

We pushed that forward. There were a multitude of meetings where we got a very clear understanding of the problems with which the forest product shippers were faced. Also, it became evident that they did not have any means to seek remedy to get those problems fixed. There were problems such as were mentioned today, where an individual was expecting to have 65 railcars on site for the week of July 5, had a promise they would be there, only to find that after the shipper had geared all the production to be shipped that week, there were 37 cars, not 65. When the shipper called up the rail lines to ask where the rest of the cars were the answer was that they had not been able to get them, that they would give them to the shipper as soon as they got them.

That is not good enough. When railways make a promise to shippers that they will have 65 or 75 cars in that particular week, they have to keep that promise because an agreement, honesty and a good working relationship is all about that.

When shippers have cars show up to the pulp mills, where they are shipping rolls and bales of pulp and paper out of their mills and lo and behold there are holes in the roof and it is raining, they know there will be damage to the cargo inside. That is unacceptable. They need to have a way to seek remedy to that.

Shippers can be in production and all of a sudden 27 cars show up that were not ordered. When they phone the rail line, they are told that they probably will need them. If they say they do not need them for two weeks, they are told they already have them. They are then paying demurrage on them every day they are sitting on the site while they are trying to gear production to get them full. They did not ask for them, but they have them and they are paying rent on them until they use them.

The way it has been in the past is if the captive shippers, as I will call them again, were to bring their complaints to the rail lines, they could not seek a remedy that would be lasting. That is why they looked for help from the government. They tried to have a commercial arrangement that would solve things, but that was just simply not possible.

They looked to the government. We were pleased to step in and get this service agreement done so it would satisfy the shippers across the country, while at the same time it would make it something that the rail lines could work with. We know how important they are to moving goods back and forth across the country. It has to be an agreement that works for both sides. I think we have that.

It has been applauded by the shippers' coalition and major shippers across the country, since we put it all together after continuous discussions with them, trying to figure out how we could solve the problem. What would the remedy time be? How long would we give to get the agreement to work, to get the thing fixed? We have fines in there for not having remedies.

I am proud to stand here with my colleagues who have forest industries in their ridings, who were there to make that promise to the forest industry that we would get this fixed. These folks are from all across the country.

Our government has now done it. I want to thank the minister and the minister of state for their hard work in putting this together. I thank the forest industry for giving us the opportunity to put this together for it, to work with it. We thank it for their input.

Let us hope the bill will pass through the House and committee quickly. Maybe it can be approved. It is pretty good right now. At the end of the line, we will bring out the best product that these shippers can possibly expect.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

As I said earlier today, I got into politics to, in my own small way, expand freedom so people could take responsibility for their own lives, earn success and own their destiny. To make space for this freedom, I believe governments should only do the things that people cannot do for themselves. It is therefore with great skepticism that I always approach any proposal that legislates government action within the economy. The question is this. Does this legislation represent an action that is needed but that people cannot do on their own? In analyzing the industry of which we speak, I believe it does.

Canada is the second largest with the eighth least dense population of any country on earth. There are 5,500 kilometres separating Cape Spear, Newfoundland from the Yukon-Alaska border. On these vast lands, with much of them thinly populated, the prospect of ubiquitous railway competition is almost impossible. It is not the result of human error. It is the result of physical geography and math. As a result, we have only two class A railways in the country and many communities that require for their economic lifeblood the export of products to far away markets often have only one choice to ship those products.

Seventy per cent of Canada's goods and services are moved by surface freight. However, as I have said, we have only two class A railways to move them and in many places there is only one option. This creates immense economic imbalances between the buyer and the seller of the service. As such, there is a consensus that some redress of this economic imbalance is justified in this rare circumstance. As a result, we have proposed Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, which is designed to do as I just described. Allow me to describe the practices that this law would codify.

The legislation would give shippers the right to a service level agreement with a railway. A shipper would now be able to ask their railway for an agreement and the railway would be obligated to provide one within 30 days. This statutory right to an agreement would be an important gain for all shippers, including small and medium-sized shippers. This right would allow shippers to initiate bilateral commercial negotiations with the railway and clarify in writing the service agreement the railway would provide.

These agreements could identify performance standards such as frequency of service, transit times and the number and type of cars that the railway would provide to the shipper. These agreements could also include recovery plans that identified the actions the railway would undertake to recover from service failure or the communication protocols for monitoring service performance and dealing with any service issues that might arise.

In most cases, shippers should be able to reach an agreement with their railway commercially, but when they cannot, the shipper should be able to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency and ask an independent arbitrator to establish service agreements for them. Furthermore, the shipper should now be able to trigger a fast and efficient arbitration process, thanks to the bill. All he or she has to do is demonstrate that an effort has been made to reach an agreement commercially and give advance notice to the railway before commencing or requesting arbitration.

Shippers get to control the timing of launching an arbitration process. The legislation allows shippers to frame the issues to be addressed in the arbitration process by identifying the services they need. This gives the shipper the ability and the flexibility to ask for what is important to them. Every shipper operates in unique circumstances and has unique needs, and that is why these agreements will take many different forms. Tailoring service agreements to suit circumstances of both shipper and railway will allow for the diverse nature of Canada's transportation economy to continue to flourish.

Let me be clear. The bill is not about forcing our railways into an agreement, but ensuring that their obligations are met. We want railways to continue to manage an efficient, low-cost network to meet the needs of all of their customers in their network. The arbitration will follow a very efficient process to make these decisions. In a market where time means money, shippers have repeatedly asked for a process that is quick and timely so they can focus on growing their businesses.

The bill stipulates that the shipper can get an arbitrated service agreement within 45 days, although this could be extended in unique circumstances by an additional 20 days. In very complex service agreements with the shipper and the railways, the extension would be applied. The point remains that this is a fast process, to ensure we continue the operation of our rail network and get our supplies to where they are most needed.

I should note that the government acted with a great deal of meticulous care in setting up this process. We realize that in the last three decades the federal government has largely gone out of the rail business, through reduced regulation and obviously reduced ownership. This experience with a private sector railway system has been an unmitigated success. We should celebrate every day the success that our railways and their workers have created through this free enterprise system. We should congratulate them for the enormous improvements they have achieved in service standards, particularly when compared to their international peers. At the same time, without reintroducing excessive government intervention into the system, we are redressing a natural market imbalance that is inherent in most rail sectors around the world, and particularly so in a country with our geography and population.

We on this side of the House of Commons understand that a commodity-based economy, spread across vast distances, will require an efficient, effective rail system to move the commodities to their marketplace. That is why we have acted in this bill to provide a system by which our free market rail industry can continue to prosper and connect businesses with customers, and customers with the goods and services they need.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman's confidence. I have had the pleasure of consulting with many of those shippers myself over the course of the last five or six years. They have been very frustrated by the length of time this has taken, but they are hopeful that it will now come to a successful conclusion. They do though have a number of technical questions, partly for clarification reasons, to understand exactly what the legal and practical consequences will be of some of the wording that is included in the bill. They also have at least some suggestions for improvements where they think some of the areas need to be strengthened.

Bill C-52 is important legislation that should be intended, and I think is intended, to level up the imbalance in the playing field that was described by the review panel that reported in the fall of 2010. We all now need to be focused on ensuring it does accomplish that objective. We will know that when we allow shippers who want to be heard the opportunity to come before the committee, give their testimony, give their approval or criticism whichever it may be. If they have specific recommendations for making the bill better, then I hope the committee will be open to receiving those recommendations for improvements.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Wascana already knows this, but I would like to assure him that Bill C-52 was crafted based on mountains of consultations with shippers all across the country. That is how the bill was formed. I am sure the member will appreciate hearing the shippers' applause for the bill as their input helped to put the bill together. The member and his party will be able to support it wholeheartedly.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on that question and many others, we need to hear what the shippers have to say, because they are the ones who have paid the penalty for bad service up to now.

It is clearly important for any penalties in this kind of legislation to be adequate so they can actually change the behaviour about which the shippers are complaining.

In some of the provisions of Bill C-52, the penalty provisions appear to be significant. In others, they do not. Quite frankly, the question the hon. member raised should be looked at very carefully in committee. Will the enforcement mechanisms, including those penalties, be adequate to solve the problem?

The best solution for all concerned would be for the legislation never to have to be used, that it was there setting the legislative framework, but that the parties were able to find commercial results and not need to have recourse to the legislation. However, the legislation needs to be strong and robust enough to ensure that if it has to be used, it actually does achieve the result the shippers want.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate this afternoon on the second reading of Bill C-52, dealing with the issue of the level of railway services across the country. The House has been waiting for this legislation for several years. More importantly, shippers across the country have been waiting for this legislation for a very long time. I am sure we are all very happy that it is finally here.

The Liberal caucus intends to support Bill C-52 in principle at second reading because the shipper community is anxious to get the bill into the standing committee for detailed examination of the precise meaning, from a legal and a practical point of view, of all of the provisions in the bill. Shippers want to ensure, and we need to ensure, that their needs would actually be satisfied by the legislation.

The shippers coalition supporting level-of-service legislation, as it has become known, is a very broad and comprehensive coalition. It obviously involves agriculture, and that is a big and important part of the shipper community, but it goes far beyond agriculture. It also includes the forest products sector, minerals and chemicals, potash and fertilizer, manufactured goods and much more. They have all had common issues and a common problem, which is substandard service from the railways in shipping their products and commodities to market.

The intense debate about railway service levels has been raging across the country since about 2006. In 2007, specific requests were made by the shipper community for a legislated solution. They asked for a legislated solution because a commercial solution did not appear to be available. In 2008, the Government of Canada promised a formal review of railway services. It was not until a year later though, 2009, when the government finally appointed a panel to conduct that review of railway services. The panel worked for about a year, and by October of 2010 it had finished its work and had written its report. In that report the panel confirmed that service levels provided by the railways were seriously deficient.

To give just one example, and there are dozens referred to in the panel's report, farmers could typically count on getting the service from the railways that they needed, that they ordered and that they paid for, only about 50% of the time. That is obviously not an adequate level of performance by the railways. Similar troubles affected most other shippers right across the broad spectrum of the coalition. The details differed from one industry to another, but the bottom line was the same: the shipper community was being badly served. That is what the panel concluded in the report it wrote in the fall of 2010.

The review panel said that the problem was a serious imbalance in clout and power in the marketplace, an imbalance between the railways on one side and the shippers on the other. The shippers are mostly captive, as I said in the House earlier today. They do not have competitive options for moving their products. They are captive to one particular shipper at any given moment in time. That is what the panel concluded. It said there was little genuine competition, that shippers have no realistic commercial alternatives and that they also have no legal recourse to address the problem.

For the most part, they do not even have access to enforceable contracts that set out both their obligations and the railways' obligations, which are then binding and enforceable on both sides. That would be one's normal commercial expectation. The parties doing business would write up a contract and they would fulfill the terms of the contract or there would be consequences one way or the other. That practice seems to be missing in the relationship between the railways and the shipper community.

According to the panel that was appointed by the government and which reported in the fall of 2010, the playing field is totally tilted in the railways' favour. The panel said that if that imbalance is to be remedied it would be preferable to do it by commercial means. However, if a commercial solution is not readily available, and that is obviously the case by this long process that has gone on since 2006, then the review panel said that there should be legislation and regulations to fix the problem. That is, there should be legislation to require the railways to provide their shipping customers with service level agreements that are readily enforceable.

The railways have said, “That was then and this is now” and claim that things have improved. I think objectively a number of shippers would say that indeed there have been some service improvements over the course of the last three or four years, especially service improvements by CN. Even CN notes that the controversy about bad service and the suggestion of some new legislation or new regulations coming down the pike have, at least in part, brought about that improvement. In other words, there has been a threat hanging in the air that there may be legislation or regulations and the railways have pulled up their socks a bit. It was in response to that threat of legislation, the speculation in the community that there would be legislation, that has in fact contributed to the level of service improvements.

The review panel's report was done in October of 2010. The government then waited six months before committing to implement its recommendations. That commitment finally came forward in the spring of 2011, ironically just on the eve of the calling of an election.

After the election, action was once again postponed. Instead of bringing the legislation forward in the late spring or early summer of 2011, which was an imminent possibility, the government waited another six months. Then it launched a second review process, this one to be conducted by Mr. Jim Dinning of Alberta. That process started in the fall of 2011 and ran until the spring of 2012, again trying to find this elusive commercial solution to the problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Dinning's efforts were largely for naught and there were no significant results from that process, except for another six month delay. The government then waited another six months, until this past December, to finally table the legislation that we have before us today, Bill C-52.

This has been a painfully long wait. The discussion began back in 2006 and we are now in 2013, so it has been a seven-year process. The shippers are anxious now for action, at long last, to become promptly tangible. I think the House owes them that. We should have a sound debate at second reading on Bill C-52, but it does not need to be a protracted debate. We should discuss it properly and efficiently in the House and then move Bill C-52 as quickly as we can to committee so that we can hear from shippers and others and, on the basis of their evidence and testimony, determine if Bill C-52 is in fact good enough to get the job done.

I hope the government would ensure that there are no restrictions put on the transportation committee in hearing the witnesses that will want to be heard on this very important matter. The shipper community has been waiting a long time. Now that the bill will soon be at committee, the very least that Parliament can do is to give the shippers the opportunity to be heard fully so that all of their comments, recommendations and advice can be taken into account.

The preliminary reviews of Bill C-52 have been reasonably positive. That is encouraging. It would appear that the legislation does provide all shippers the right to have an enforceable service level agreement with the railways without discrimination among different tiers or categories of shippers. If that proves to be the case when we have the opportunity to legally and comprehensively review the legislation, then that would indeed be progress.

The legislation also appears to specify at least some of the mandatory content that each service level agreement must cover. It also appears that it would provide robust penalties if the railways fail to perform up to an acceptable standard.

The shipper community has been quite explicit about the kinds of things they want to see in these proposed service level agreements. It readily admits that with each particular shipper or sector within the shipper community there would be variations from agreement to agreement. Each one would not be an exact cookie-cutter copy of the others. There are logical differences that would need to be taken into account and there is a commercial negotiation process that would need to take place here. However, shippers have specified six subject areas that they think every service level agreement should deal with. It is important to put these on the record so that when we get to the committee we can examine the legislation to see if these six areas would be adequately covered.

The shippers say that each service level agreement that the railways would be required to provide in negotiation to their shippers should include the following. First, it should include a section covering the services and the obligations. They should spell out what each side is supposed to do to have a successful contract between the carrier and the shipper.

Second, it should include communications protocols so that when they are trying to work out their commercial relationship, or if things go wrong in the relationship, they would all know exactly what they are supposed to do to communicate with one another in an effective way, rather than two ships passing in the night that never quite get around to connecting with each other.

Third, there would need to be performance standards specified in the agreements. What is the acceptable performance to be expected in the circumstances? Fourth, there would have to be performance metrics. In other words, how do you measure the performance against the standards laid out in the agreements?

Five, there would need to be consequences for non-performance. There are obviously penalties provided in the legislation. We will have to examine as to whether they would be appropriate and sufficient to achieve the kind of behaviours that the shippers want to see. Finally, there would need to be dispute settlement mechanisms included in the agreement.

Those are the six areas that the shipper community mentioned. It is important for the committee to examine in detail whether Bill C-52 would cover those areas adequately from the point of view of the shippers.

Finally, I will mention four or five other areas, beyond the nature of the contract that I have just described, where the shippers have said they are not clear about what the legislation seeks to accomplish and whether it would get to the result that the shippers want.

First is the issue of train movement into the United States. To what extent would a service level agreement in Canada also affect the kind of service that is provided across the border by the carrier, in some cases the same railway, when that carrier is operating in the territory of the United States? What would be the impact of service level agreements on cross-border shipments of product? Of course, between Canada and the United States, that is a huge volume.

Second, what would be the relationship between the service level agreements that apply to the main line rail carriers, basically CN and CP, when the product being shipped may originate on a short-line branch railway? Would the service level agreements have any implications for short-line rail operators and their relationship with the main railway operations?

Third, there is already a section in the Canada Transportation Act, section 113, that provides some description of service requirements imposed upon the carriers. Is there anything in Bill C-52 that diminishes the value or the effect of what is already in the act in section 113? The shippers are very anxious to have that clarified. Obviously they, and we, would not want to see the beneficial impact of section 113 diminished.

The fourth question that shippers have asked is on the matter of practical access to the process. The way the legislation is set up it basically says that the parties should go out and negotiate a contract. If they cannot, then the shipper can go to the CTA and get an arbitrated solution that will then be imposed by regulation. The question from the shippers is whether there will be practical access to that process or whether the process will be so complex, costly and slow that only the biggest shippers will be able to participate in the proposed arbitration proceedings. As a result, the smaller shippers will just find it too complicated, expensive or time-consuming to be able to avail themselves of an arbitration procedure. We will need to examine the practicality of how Bill C-52 will apply to make it accessible to all.

Finally, there appears to be a section in the act that says that if a shipper already has some kind of existing contract with a railway, if they have gone out and tried to negotiate something and put it in place, then the shippers do not have access to the provisions of Bill C-52 unless and until that existing contract expires. That needs to be clarified as well. To what extent are shippers impeded from having any benefit of Bill C-52 because they have already tried in some way to have a contract and have negotiated something, whether or not it lives up the standards of Bill C-52? Would they be prohibited from trying to get a Bill C-52 solution if they already have a contract in place?

Those are some of the questions that I have heard from the shipping community. By and large they are anxious to see the legislation proceed. They are looking forward to the committee hearings because they want to be heard and they have a number of questions to ask. I think it is incumbent upon the government and upon the House to make sure that we get into those hearings as quickly as possible and that we ensure that every shipper across the country that wants to be heard can have the opportunity to present their questions and their observations to the standing committee.

I welcome the debate this afternoon. I am anxious to see progress on this subject. Everybody has already been waiting far too long. Let us get on with it and try to make a tangible difference in the level of service that is provided to the shipping community, and therefore make a tangible contribution to the well-being and success of the Canadian economy.

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 second time and referred to a committee.