Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the environment minister would give me an opportunity to speak. Actually, he had a lot of fun with the transportation critic yesterday. He is not here today. I am sure he will give me due consideration to address the House. When the environment minister speaks here, I never interrupt. I listen to him. When it is my opportunity, I expect the same.
In fact, the environment minister and the chief government whip of the governing party, if they really want to yell, they should be yelling at the members who are leaving their desks, rather than yelling at me. I appreciate the members giving me an opportunity to address the House.
I already mentioned that the bill is in fact a reintroduction of the Liberal Bill C-44 from the last Parliament which contained a number of provisions in Division IV entitled “Rates, Tariffs and Services”.
We are used to this government's reintroduction of our bills and funding whether we talk about the Pacific gateway or whether we talk about bills on immigration and industry, or even the EnerGuide program that the government cancelled and reintroduced later on.
We are supporting this bill because of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments remove the barriers on the Canadian Transportation Agency. Before, there had to be proof of commercial harm before remedies would be provided. This is too much red tape.
We know the Conservatives love red tape. If they were to change their website from red to blue, I could call it blue tape. There is as well the Federal Accountability Act, but I am very happy when I see that this bill removes that blue tape that we are talking about.
The second amendment to the bill would extend the final arbitration to shippers on matters relating to rates. Again, we are putting the private sector back in the driver's seat. It knows best, given all things considered.
I come from a private business background and I know how important it is to have input into the everyday governing of a business.
The other amendment that was made to the bill would allow the suspension of the final arbitration process if both parties agree. Again, let us get rid of that blue tape. Let us allow businesses to come to the table in good faith. Transportation needs to be a priority.
If we are to have goods moving, the first and foremost priority has to be infrastructure. That is why if we look at the previous Liberal government's initiative to bring in the Pacific gateway project, that project had environmental sustainability for the quality of life of my neighbours and my constituents.
The next amendment that this bill provides would permit the agency, upon complaint, to investigate charges related to the movement of traffic contained in a tariff. We want to make sure the agency is more effective and give it the real power that it needs and deserves.
We believe the government can actually be a force of good. Less government only means more when it is effective. This government does not understand that but this is exactly what the private sector is looking for.
The next amendment that we made to this bill is that the shippers have to receive a real notice of rate increases. This bill provides for that. We have to help businesses out. We have to be a real partner, not a blue tape provider when it comes to businesses. As I have mentioned, in my riding of Newton--North Delta, 95% of the people who contribute to this economy own small businesses and many of them are affected by this bill because they count on the transportation sector to move their goods.
The next amendment we made requires the railway to publish a list of rail sidings. In today's competitive business environment, information is key. Let us give the stakeholders a hand rather than put roadblocks in their way.
The next and final amendment would ensure that the abandonment of provisions apply to lines that are called provincial short lines. We want to revert them to a federal railway line because we want to ensure the regions in this country are not shortchanged by downsizing.
The Atlantic accord is a perfect example. We know there might be other provinces that might not have a big enough voice but we need to ensure those reasons are taken care of, whether it is Saskatchewan, British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces.
We believe that the federal government has a leadership role to play and we do not think it can refuse time and time again to listen to the economic concerns of our less populated regions, as I mentioned earlier.
The good thing is that when we look at this legislation, the stakeholders provided real input. I would like to thank them and congratulate them for their input into this project. Some of them included the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canadian Dehydrators Association, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Forest Products Association, the Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and many more.
When we look at the importance of stakeholders, it is similar to the Pacific Gateway project. When we brought in that project, we put in a Gateway council to deal with the local stakeholders and get their input. When the government came in, it abolished that.
That is how the real world works. If we are to be successful in this globalization, we need input from the real stakeholders who deal with the situation day in and day out.
The bill has two main parts. The bill works to make stakeholders a real partner with the Canadian Transportation Agency. The bill wants the agency to be more effective, to give it power and to give the federal government a leadership role.
The second part to this is that transportation is too important of an issue for us to drop the ball and leave it to the regional differences and interests get more fractious, as this government has done with the Atlantic accord and with Saskatchewan. I know it comes to my province of British Columbia as well, when we are getting $300 million less this year with this new equalization formula.
I thank the Minister of the Environment who has listened to me when I was speaking. That is very kind of him, and if we could all follow the example of the environment minister, then we could have a sense of real professionalism in this House.