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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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—

[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.

[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, 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.

[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—

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.