Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and our consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation), pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 29, 2007.

In order to open up the meeting and allow for questions and answers, I am calling clause 1 of Bill C-8, thereby permitting members to hold general discussion and ask our witnesses questions. It's just a formality to do that.

Joining us today we have the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, who will introduce Bill C-8 and answer questions.

I welcome you and ask you to proceed.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to say that of course I'm happy to be here early in this new session, and I want to congratulate you, as well as the two vice-chairs of the committee, for your election. And to the new members and the veterans, I look forward to working with you all.

I'm pleased to appear before the SCOTIC committee today to discuss Bill C-8, which improves the shipper protection provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. These are the provisions that deal with the potential abuse of market power by the railways.

I have with me today Helena Borges, director general of surface transportation policy, and Alain Langlois,

our legal counsel.

Bill C-8 is the reinstated version of the former Bill C-58, which had been referred to this committee before the previous session of Parliament was dissolved. It is the third and final bill amending the Canada Transportation Act. These bills have all been based on extensive consultations dating back to the statutory review of the CTA that took place in 2000 and 2001.

Bill C-3, the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, received royal assent in February of 2007. As well, Bill C-11, which amended provisions related to the Canadian Transportation Agency, air travel, mergers and acquisitions, rail passenger services, railway noise and the grain revenue cap, received royal assent in June of this year.

Bill C-8, by far, is the shortest of the three bills. However, it is extremely important to rail shippers, the hundreds of companies that use railways to ship their goods. This bill is also important for the growth of international trade and the competitiveness of our economy as we experience unprecedented levels of trade with the Asia Pacific region. The bill will provide the regulatory stability that the railways have been seeking, which will, in turn, ensure that much-needed capacity investments are made on the key trade corridors. Improved capacity will help our railway industry and shippers to remain competitive with their counterparts in the United States.

I am sure that most of you have heard many complaints from shippers about railway service and rates. Shippers are looking for stronger statutory remedies to improve their leverage in negotiations with railways. I had very positive feedback from shippers on the former BillC-58. Shippers expressed strong support for it to be reinstated and passed as quickly as possible.

The railways feel that Bill C-8 reintroduces too much unnecessary regulation. I believe that it establishes a better balance between shippers and railways. Passage of the bill will put an end to the extensive debates that have taken place and will provide both sides with regulatory stability.

When I announced tabling of the former BillC-58 on May 30, 2007, I also indicated that the government would conduct a review of railway service to commence within 30 days after the bill is passed. I will speak more on this later.

These two initiatives, BillC-8plus a review of railway service, fulfill an important commitment I made to shippers: that I would address their concerns about railway service and rates.

The CTA is the legislative framework that regulates the economic activities of the railways. The act generally relies on market forces to govern the relationship between shippers and railways. However, as I noted earlier, there are a number of sections that protect shippers from the potential abuse of market power by the railways.

I want to note that the legislative and policy framework for railways in Canada has worked quite well. CP and CN are among the most efficient railways in the world. They both operate networks in the United States and compete quite successfully against their U.S. counterparts. They don't require any operating subsidies from government. Their financial success means they have the capital funds necessary to maintain and expand their infrastructure and to acquire new equipment.

While the framework has worked well, it's not perfect. Transport Canada officials have heard increasing complaints over the last few years about poor railway service and high freight rates. I have heard many similar complaints in my capacity as minister. Also, I know that many members of the previous committee heard from shippers and others, even when the former Bill C-11 was being reviewed by the committee and the House.

These complaints may stem from the strong performance of the Canadian economy and the fact that the supply of transportation services, including rail freight services, has been quite tight relative to demand throughout North America. Railways are of critical importance to many Canadian shippers in domestic, continental, and international markets, especially to shippers of bulk commodities, who often don't have any practical alternatives. Shippers need reasonable access to efficient and reliable service at fair rates.

I believe the time has come to rebalance the legislative framework in favour of shippers.

During the consultative process in the summer of 2006, I encouraged the railways to develop a commercial solution that would complement amendments to the shipper protection provisions. The railways developed a commercial dispute resolution proposal for discussion with shippers. Significant progress was made. Unfortunately, the two sides were unable to reach agreement. I still support a commercial approach, since it would be more expeditious, less costly, and less confrontational than regulatory remedies.

With your permission, I would like to briefly describe the provisions in the bill.

The existing section 27 of the act requires the agency to be satisfied that the shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm before granting a remedy. Shippers have long objected to this test. It is being dropped under BillC-8.

The bill amends the notice that a railway must give for increasing freight rates from 20 days to 30 days. This will provide more time for shippers to make the necessary adjustments to their shipping plans.

There are two new provisions that deal with shippers' concerns about railway freight rates and ancillary charges. I want to clarify the difference between these two terms, since different remedies apply to each.

I'll deal with freight rates first, since it is the easier concept to understand. Freight rates are simple rates applied to the movement of traffic from point A to point B, for example, for moving wheat from Moose Jaw to Vancouver.

When you look at the various rates and charges levied by railways, the payment for freight rates are the big-ticket item. Now, I want to point out that the intended remedy for freight rates is final offer arbitration.

Aside from the rate application applicable to the movement of traffic, railways levy various other charges. These charges can either be levied in relation to the movement of traffic or in relation to the provision of non-typical railway services provided by the railways.

Now, the best example of a charge that may be imposed by a railway in relation to the movement of traffic is demurrage, which is the amount paid when cars are not loaded or unloaded within the free time provided by the railways. Examples of charges that may be imposed in relation to non-typical railway services provided by a railway include car cleaning, weighing, or storing of the cars.

The amounts paid by shippers for the various charges imposed by a railway are less significant than that amount stemming from the applicable rate for the movement of traffic. However these charges have become an issue with shippers over the last few years. Amongst the concern frequently heard is the fact that these charges, or their associated terms and conditions, are unilaterally established by railways and are often unreasonable in light of their purpose.

With respect to these charges, a new provision is being added that will give the agency the authority, upon complaint by one or more shippers, to review such charges and associated terms and conditions that are contained in a tariff of general application. Now, the agency is also given the authority to order the railway to amend the tariff if it finds the charges or associated terms and conditions to be unreasonable.

The bill contains a number of factors to guide the agency. The agency will determine the period of time any revised tariff will be in effect, provided that such a period does not exceed one year.

Shippers were hoping that the issue of charges could be addressed through changes to the final offer arbitration (FOA) provisions. In our view, the agency review approach is more effective. It provides for a “one-stop shop“ to address complaints. The FOA approach could require a number of FOA applications to accomplish the same thing, because FOA decisions are normally limited to the applicants.

The FOA provision is one of the more popular shipper remedies. A shipper can apply to the agency for FOA if the shipper is not satisfied with the railway's freight rates for the movement of traffic or any of the associated terms and conditions. Under FOA, the railway and shipper each make their final offer, and the arbitrator selects one of them without modification. This encourages the two sides to narrow their differences.

Bill C-8 expands the availability of the FOA remedy to a group of shippers. In order to qualify for group FOA...

Editorial Note: technical difficulties

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back. Please excuse the interruption, but I think everything is working now, technically.

Mr. Minister, I'd ask you to proceed.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was saying that this is to ensure that both the matter and the offer are common. Without sufficient commonality, the group FOA would simply be a series of individual FOAs with little in common. This would be unworkable and unfair to the arbitrator.

Group FOA is a new concept, and will undoubtedly be subject to challenges as the parties seek to clarify what is meant by "a matter being common to all shippers" and "a joint offer, the terms of which apply to all of them". We will have to rely on the good judgment of the Canadian Transportation Agency and the courts. I want to emphasize, however, that this is a remedy that is aimed at helping shippers—it is quick, effective and less costly. There will be practical restrictions on what qualifies as an eligible group FOA to ensure that it be an effective and expedient remedy. However, it is not intended that shippers must be facing exactly the same circumstances in order to be eligible for group FOA.

Under the new group FOA provision, the agency must be satisfied that the members of the group have attempted to mediate the matter with the railway. This is consistent with the government's preference for encouraging commercial solutions before regulatory remedies are pursued.

Bill C-8 permits parties to a single final offer arbitration to suspend the arbitration process by mutual agreement in order to pursue mediation. This provides both parties with an alternative without jeopardizing the shipper's right to final offer arbitration. The FOA process will resume if mediation fails.

Shippers strongly support group final offer arbitration and are eager to see it implemented.

Bill C-8 ensures that the line transfer and discontinuance provisions apply to lines that are transferred to a provincial railway but revert back to the federal railway. This will ensure that interested parties, including governments, have an opportunity to acquire such lines before service is formally terminated. This provision closes a potential loophole.

A complementary provision requires CN or CPR to make payments to local municipalities if a grain-dependent branch line reverts and is subsequently closed. These payments are $10,000 per mile per year over a three-year period.

A new provision requires CN and CPR to maintain and advertise a list of sidings that grain producers use to load their own cars and to give 60 days' notice before closing such sidings.

I also want to speak briefly about the commitment to commence a review of railway service within 30 days of the bill being passed. This commitment has been a priority for shippers and has been well received by them.

The objective will be to focus on solutions to the problems that we have been hearing about for the past year or so. The review may include an assessment of the effectiveness of the level of service provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. We will be looking for innovative solutions to a challenging issue.

Shippers and railways will be consulted on the scope and terms of reference for the review. I expect Transport Canada to contact interested parties for their views later this year.

The government has taken significant steps to address shipper concerns through Bill C-8and the railway service review. Many, if not most of us, have heard serious complaints about railway performance. Shippers have been waiting for these improvements for over five years and are very supportive of Bill C-8. They want this bill passed expeditiously.

For their part, the railways may object to some of the provisions but they want regulatory stability. I believe that Bill C-8 provides this and a better balance between shippers and railways.

We have an opportunity to take corrective action. I encourage members to support Bill C-8. I hope that once the bill is passed, shippers and railways will become re-engaged in discussions on a commercial dispute resolution mechanism.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll now open the floor for questions.

Mr. Volpe, you have seven minutes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, and members of the department.

Those of us from the official opposition find ourselves in a really felicitous situation, because we see before ourselves a bill that we presented 24 months ago, although it seems like only yesterday. I guess we were kind of hoping for a different type of legislation from a different government. But we want to compliment you on seeing the wisdom of some of the legislation that the Liberal government presented some 24 months ago. You probably think that's partisan of me but it isn't; it's just a little bit of a preamble.

When the predecessor to Bill C-8 came before the House last spring, we didn't really have much of an opportunity to debate it because it came very close to the end of the session. So you'll forgive me if I put some of the questions into a particular context.

I don't mean to chew up the time, but from our perspective Bill C-8 should focus—and our questions will focus—on the maintenance and growth of transportation infrastructure to help a very valuable sector and component of the Canadian domestic product, but also communities throughout Canada. So our interest in Bill C-8 will be determined in part by the extent to which all of the amendments nurture that growth or maintain the level of infrastructure required to allow our producers to be competitive as they are being more productive.

Secondly, we want to make sure there is protection of the interests of not just the shippers but the producers as well. As I said, we didn't have an opportunity to debate this at any great length in the House, and we probably won't be able to do that except here in committee, but that too is a concern.

The third major issue is competitiveness, and I'm not sure if what's in the bill is going to ensure that competitiveness. Minister, you alluded to the fact that you want to guarantee that the railway companies will be able to continue to offer a good quality of service, and encourage investment at any rate. I'm looking forward to seeing how the bill will do that. We'll probably get to do it in committee.

But there are two other issues, and I ask for your comments. One is on the way the bill is going to work out. On the question of service, you said you were going to initiate a review within 30 days of the passage of the legislation. I'd like to understand why you wouldn't do that right now.

Secondly, there's a clause that says shippers will no longer need to prove financial damage. I understand the reason why you wanted to put that in. I think you said you wanted to shift the balance back to the shippers. We want to make sure there isn't any frivolity in any of the issues, so I'd like you to address that.

Finally, the big concern for a lot of the smaller producers is the shutdown of lines. I was encouraged by one of your amendments that said you have to go through a process. Then I immediately took away my enthusiasm when it said that in the event that they go through the process and decide to shut the lines down anyway, you will make sure they return a fine to the local municipalities. That's great, but they will still be without service. That goes back to what I said earlier—that we want to make sure we maintain infrastructure, if not grow it.

I've gone on a little bit because we didn't have a chance to debate this at great length in the spring, but I'd like to have some of your comments in response to those concerns.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much for your comments.

At the outset, let me say that I share the principles you put forward. I think we unanimously, on all sides of the House, want to see this industry grow. We all wish to see Canada become competitive.

I won't go into the initiatives we've taken over the last several months, but let me say at the outset that I am in complete agreement with you. The railway industry is thriving and prospering well. Both CPR and CN—pursuant, of course, to its privatization and commercialization—have been able to successfully continue their growth rate and become part of a larger marketplace, and certainly leaders in that marketplace in North America.

This having been said, of course, our concern—and your concern, as I understand it—is to make sure that our producers, with the shippers, are able to get the products to where they have to be so that they remain competitive. I think we're all in agreement with that.

Your first question wondered, why not do the service review now, rather than put it off for 30 days. It's my view, Mr. Volpe, that it's important that we get this legislation passed and that we focus on the piece of legislation. My officials have already begun preliminary discussions and laid the table, but we don't want to get off track. We want to make sure that once this is done we'll be able to focus all our attention on the service review.

It's precisely for that reason that we've decided to proceed in this manner. First things first: we get the piece of legislation through; then we settle the service review.

Regarding the second issue, the shutdown of lines, I'll ask Helena Borges to address it.

[Helena Borges, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport]

As you mentioned, Mr. Volpe, there is an elaborate process—not totally addressed in this bill, but it was addressed through Bill C-11—whereby, if one of the main railways, either CN or CP, no longer finds a line suitable for its business, which is providing the transcontinental business, it offers it up for sale to what are called short line railways. We have about 40 of those in Canada right now.

Those short lines are, in fact, providing a lot of the service to the smaller shippers on these smaller lines and then feeding into CN and CP. In fact, there hasn't been an abandonment of a lot of rail lines in the past 10 years. Even though the railways have shed some of their lines, these have been picked up by the small short lines, and we're comfortable that the provisions allow that to happen and that most of the shippers have service.

There are situations, if it is in an area where there isn't a lot of industry, that you may not have it, but there is trucking available throughout most of Canada.

We are, through other programs, helping the short lines ensure that they have good infrastructure to continue the service, through the funding programs the minister has announced through the Building Canada Plan.

So we are taking various measures to protect the smaller rail lines and ensure that they provide service. The objective of the law is make sure there are opportunities for other companies—or for municipalities, if it's related more to passenger service—to take on the lines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, in your presentation, you make two important observations. In the fourth paragraph on page 2, you say, in connection with Bill C-8, that:

the Bill is also important for the growth of international trade and the competitiveness of our economy, as we experience unprecedented levels of trade with the Asia-Pacific region.

This is a very important observation. But, since your government has never used any WTO provisions at all to curb unreasonable competition from foreign economies, we will be importing more. Then, clearly, the value of our dollar restricts our exports.

That brings me to your second observation. On the fourth page of page three, you say:

Transport Canada officials have heard increasing complaints over the last few years about poor railway service and high freight rates.

Tell me if my interpretation is correct. Bill C-8probably will fix the problem of freight rates that are too high. That will provide help to our exporters, who are sorely in need of it. But it will not solve the other part of the problem, the mediocre railway services. You are going to start a review 30 days after the bill is passed. But until then, what will happen if the railway companies react badly to the decision on freight rates and decide to provide even worse service to firms that challenge those rates? Will they have to wait for the end of the review that will start in 30 days and end who knows when? You are telling us that the review will start 30 days after the bill, but you do not tell us when it will end. We must be able to address that issue. It is not impossible that the mediocre service provided by our railway multinationals, who control all rail service, will become even worse for anyone challenging the rates.

What do you think, Mr. Minister?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Laframboise.

I have to say that you are quite right in your assessment of the essential reason for the bill. Costs are indeed too high, and I am sure that you will have seen that the bill also deals with the entire question of ancillary charges. Procedures are already being put in place that will allow these things to be corrected.

As I said in my answer to your colleague a few moments ago, what we want to do first and foremost is make sure that the final offer process can start as soon as the bill is passed and becomes law, with no further delay. The process itself gives our partners, the shippers especially, a guarantee that things are moving forward.

In the meantime, we have given them the undertaking that we will look at service levels. We will do this subsequently look that we are sure that we get that stage right. You asked me how long we think that it will take; my answer is about six months. But our shippers cannot be penalized in the meantime. Because of the mechanisms proposed in the bill, we can start to look at the financial aspects as soon as it is passed.

I am being handed a document here that lists the responsibilities of the railways. Basically, Mr. Laframboise, the service provisions of the bill place a host of service responsibilities on the railways. Specifically, they authorize the Canadian Transportation Agency to investigate complaints and provide it with the power to require corrective action if necessary. The bill does not change these provisions in the slightest. They are still there, but the government has undertaken to examine services, as the bill states. What follows clearly explains the act's provisions on service levels.

A railway's service obligation is that the railway company is required to furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of all traffic offered for carriage; to furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carriage, unloading and delivering of the traffic; to receive, carry and deliver the traffic without delay, and with due care and diligence; to furnish and use all proper appliances, accommodation and means necessary for receiving, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering the traffic; and to furnish any other service incidental to transportation that is customary or usual in connection with the business of a railway company. The traffic must be taken, carried to and from, and delivered on the payment of the lawfully payable rate.

You see that a railway company must provide people with suitable facilities for transporting, delivering and transferring of goods. And a company that has or operates a railway forming part of a line that links or intersects with another railway must also provide all reasonable facilities.

This is exactly what we want to review, but in the meantime, the other elements, that I hope the committee will move to adopt, will already be under way; there will already be a process designed to provide the basic balance and fairness, if you will, that we want to see in the market.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Minister, you will concede that we must send a clear message. If we control ancillary charges, demurrage costs and things like that, we do not want the result to be that there are more lay days and fewer services for the customers. That is the kind of message I want to pass on to you.

We must be sure that railway companies clearly understand that, because those other charges have been controlled, limited and reduced to a reasonable level, it does not mean that they can take their sweet time, and say that because demurrage costs are lower, they can lay over for two days, three days, a week or more, and be quite happy to do so with the result that the shipper has no service. That is what I want to be sure of.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I share your view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing here.

Bill C-8, obviously, is really taking care of some low-hanging fruit in terms of fixing some of the chronic problems that we have right now. My concern is that, especially coming from Windsor, where I've seen the rail system not have the proper investment and also with the rules and procedures that are in place, it's lowered our productivity as a country. There's no doubt about that.

Hence, what I'm really interested in right now are assurances with regard to the study that's being proposed. I'd like to know how much money has been earmarked for that study, and whether it's going to examine productivity with, for example, comparisons to the United States system and also with Europe and maybe some other countries in Southeast Asia.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'll let Ms. Borges answer that.

[Helena Borges]

The level of service review is going to address the type of railway service that we have in Canada, and it will definitely compare to what is happening in the United States and Europe and Asia.

You should know, however, that both Canada and the United States have the most productive rail system of anywhere in the world because they are dedicated on rail lines for freight. Most of the other ones are sharing them with passenger. They don't have equivalent systems across countries. So when you're looking at a continent, even in Europe, they're not as efficient as they are in North America. But it will definitely look at that.

It's going to be looking at a variety of things, and we've already started discussions with the shippers, as the minister said, and the railways on the terms of reference. The kinds of things we want to look at are: what is the service they're providing today—what is the demand for the service; what are the kinds of cars; are they providing enough cars, not enough cars; what's the time it takes to get the product from origin to destination?

We're also going to be looking at the railway operations and the way that has evolved over the last few years when demand has been increasing a lot, and making sure that there aren't inefficiencies in the system there, so you get at the question of productivity and making sure that the products getting to the export market, particularly to the ports, are getting there as efficiently as possible and empty cars are returning as efficiently as possible.

We will probably be conducting it through an independent monitor who will get the data for us. We already have somebody engaged on the green sector. We want to do this for all the sectors of the economy--we're looking probably at 12 to 15 sectors--making sure that across the system we get a good measure of what's happening today and what we foresee in the future in terms of continued growth--can that service support the growth?

The issue of investment that you mentioned will come out of that discussion, because we will see whether or not the capacity that is in place today is sufficient capacity to address the needs of the future.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What has the department earmarked in terms of a budget for this?

[Helena Borges]

We will earmark whatever is necessary. We already have a preliminary budget for the study. Some of that will come into the next fiscal year. We will provide whatever is necessary for the review.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Minister, I guess what I worry about a little is that we get this bill passed and the study doesn't get launched. There's nothing mandating the study to happen. So I'd like your assurances that it's actually going to happen.

Second of all, do you envision a role for this committee with regard to that study?

And lastly, will there be a commitment to maybe engage municipalities with this study too, seeing that often their land use issues really affect the use of the rail operations, be it rail and road crossing conflicts, as well as other usages?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I'd say at the outset that there are provisions. The provisions in this piece of legislation clearly indicate that 30 days after the adoption of this piece of legislation, this kicks in—the level of service study will kick in. So that's quite clear.

We want to make quite sure that there are no loopholes that would prevent us from doing that. That's the commitment we've made to the shippers and to the railways.

Second of all, I think that we do have—I might be mistaken here, but I do believe that in the other pieces of legislation we've put forward.... I'm not talking about the one that deals with the bridges and tunnels, but Bill C-11 does indeed provide for municipal input in terms of how they can express their views and their concerns, particularly in areas where there's strong urbanization. I know that there have been long discussions between my friend Mr. Laframboise, who's a former mayor, and myself, who's a former town councillor and your predecessor in that position, on how I think it's extremely important that, yes, municipalities do have a buy-in to this. There are pieces at least in the legislation that was adopted more recently and sanctioned in the month of June to be able to enable that. That concern, I think, is addressed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Will this study as well include hazardous materials? I know that the United States has been doing some work on that and actually looking at even restricting some hazardous materials through larger municipalities, I believe Washington, Cleveland, and Dade County, where there's a series of issues especially with chlorine. Will there be assurances that hazardous materials will be well examined in this usage as well?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, that is the case. Also, on another front, as you know, there is a review that is underway. It will be concluding, if it has not already concluded, and formalizing the final recommendations to me in a very short while regarding all the regulations that should govern the industry. Certainly what we wanted to do here is to modernize, literally, our regulations in terms of safety and security, so that is another opportunity where this committee will be able to express its opinion on that issue.

This is my sixth visit to this committee, I believe, Chairman, and I certainly have no problems coming back when we've done the level of service review to be able to discuss with parliamentarians and members from all parties where we want to go from here.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.