Debates of Jan. 28th, 2008

Judges Act

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although our party supports Bill C-31 because we understand that there is a need to deal with the backlog in the superior court system, I agree with my colleague that it is not an adequate solution. However, we still need to support it because we are dealing with a backlog. I agree with my hon. colleague that there are huge costs and implications and we are dealing with people's rights. Justice is never served when it is delayed.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on an issue that is of great importance to Canadians and that is the whole issue that the government seems to be attacking the judiciary. I think the judicial system needs to be defended by our parliamentary system because it is one of the cornerstones of our institution of democracy. Perhaps my hon. colleague could comment on the whole issue of judicial independence and the need to respect our judicial system in this country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the attitude of the government in the final week of the 2006 election when the now Prime Minister but then leader of the official opposition made the point that the judiciary from his perspective was an adversary to where he and his party stood ideologically; the positions that they had taken on a number of issues confronting the country. They did not see them as part of the structure so much as being an impediment to the structure of government, which is, quite frankly, frightful in a democracy.

The Conservatives have made allegations over patronage appointments, which have some validity. An analysis was done on the appointments made by the former Liberal government and it was found that a number of people had direct involvement with the Liberal Party prior to their appointment as a judge.

What that analysis always misses is that no matter which party appoints them and no matter what their affiliation may or may not have been, the vast majority of judges, because of the legal training and their experience in our courts and in our law schools, they take an independent stance once appointed. That is something that did not seem to fit into the vision that our current Prime Minister has of the judiciary.

We have an excellent judiciary. I would argue that there is no judiciary in the world that is superior to ours, although there may be a few that are on a peer level. We have an excellent judiciary but we do not have enough of them.

The other point I would make concerns the government's constant attempt to undermine the discretion of our judiciary in criminal law and in other areas where we would think it would want to undermine the amount of discretion, in particular in the interpretation of our Constitution and our Charter of Rights. In a democracy that is frightful.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by my hon. colleague's dissertation on the pressures that we are seeing in courts all across the country. I know that many families in my riding cannot access the kind of justice they need because of the stress.

However, it becomes exacerbated if we look at the issue of isolated first nations communities. We certainly have a double standard in health, in education and definitely in justice in first nations communities.

Just recently, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation brought forward a human rights complaint over the issue of policing in isolated communities. The Nishnawbe Aski police are working under conditions that no non-native police service would ever be expected to work. Communities are not being served with proper justice at that level. When cases finally go to court, there is a lack of judges and legal representation to help people in isolated communities.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if there is anything in the bill to address the woeful under-representation of resources for first nations law and justice in the isolated regions of the country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had thought of addressing my colleague's question in my opening remarks because he makes a valid point. I suppose the government could say that six of the twenty new judicial appointments will go to the specific claims tribunal which will, hopefully, dramatically increase the speed at which land claims are dealt with in Canada. That would be a very positive result for our first nations.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Or be much slower.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg makes the point that it may actually slow the process down. Maybe a different process would have been more useful. I think there is some merit to that.

However, beyond that there is nothing in the bill that would expand access by our first nations to our courts.

Getting back to the appointment process, maybe we should concentrate on getting more lawyers who come out of first nations and aboriginal communities onto the bench. In that regard, a little over two years ago an aboriginal lawyers' group that appeared before committee were quite proud of the fact that for the first time 100 lawyers had come out of first nations and Métis communities. That was a very negative comment with regard to recruitment from our law schools. In Ontario alone we have something like 30,000 lawyers and of those 30,000 only about 30 or 40 of them have come out of first nations.

Another thing concerns me about the bill. Two first nations communities in Yukon have approached me about expanding their methodology of dispensing justice. This is something we have not pursued. The prior Liberal government did not do it and the present Conservative government seems to be paying no attention to it whatsoever.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate more on his comments about the independence of the judiciary. As he outlined, the Prime Minister made some embarrassing comments about that when he was in opposition but when his party became government it actually did things to change the ridiculous roll back of judges' wages. The Conservatives also changed the appointment process, stacking it with government appointees even though they did not have to follow the appointments. They changed the qualification requirements so they could pick anyone out of the group.

I wonder if the member could comment on that total attack on judicial independence which was a hallmark of the justice system in Canada until the Conservatives took power.

I wonder if my colleague could also comment on whether the appointment of 14 more judges to deal with the backlog is an indictment of the government's failure to deal with crime. The Conservatives have identified crime as one of their high priorities. However, had they been dealing with crime in ways that we have both promoted, such as dealing with the cause, recidivism, et cetera, then less judges would be needed, not more. Is this not an indictment of the government's failure to deal properly with crime and to reduce crime in the country?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quickly on the points about the government not dealing with crime with a holistic viewpoint and with regard to its judicial appointments, one of the things that is of concern to a lot of trial lawyers in the country, in particular those on the prosecution side, is that we are going to get hit with another Askov type of decision by a superior court.

The backlog in the criminal area is increasing dramatically. A number of cases have been dismissed. The fear is that at some point there is going to be an overwhelming decision by one of our superior courts or appeal courts that is going to strike down a large number of criminal cases. It is not going to be an issue of dealing with them at all; they are just going to be out of the court system. When it happened in Ontario back in the early 1990s, it included a number of serious criminal cases that were dismissed at that point because they had not been dealt with in a proper fashion.

To deal with the issue of the government's attitude toward our judiciary and in particular its trying to interfere with the independence of the judiciary, probably the classic example of this is the former justice minister, not the present one, who sat with us on our review of judicial appointments. The position that he consistently took was that of wanting to create a less partisan appointment process, which was the case under the Liberals in a number of cases, one where the person being appointed is the absolute best choice in the country or in that region, without caring about his or her political affiliation one way or the other, not as a positive or a negative. It would be that we simply went on merit and took the very best candidate.

I remember how hard he pushed for that when he was the justice critic for the Conservatives. Now that they are in power we see what they are in fact doing, which again is to very much move away from the complete independence of the judiciary, as our Constitution requires, and toward a very clear, focused attempt to ideologically affect the appointment process, which would then ideologically affect the judiciary at all levels all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with the theme that the problem is not the number of judges, although I think everyone agrees with regard to the backlog and the specific claims process, which we are all supporting. The problem is in the way judges are appointed. If the way judges are appointed is such a disaster, which it has been as handled by the government, of course if we have more judges the problem is just going to increase.

When the Conservatives came to power they went around the process of the judges' salaries and put the iron fist on that. Once again, they inhibited the independence of the process and the judiciary by interfering in that process. Then they rejigged the whole judicial appointment process in ways that were roundly criticized by most judicial system experts across the country. It was only a recommendation. They would stack the appointment of judges in favour of the government.

That is not a secret agenda. This was quite open because the Prime Minister himself made the point that they needed the judges not to be independent, but to implement government policy, to make their interpretation of the law so that it would affect government policy rather than be an independent, fair, just interpretation of whatever laws there are. Of course, then government can change the laws if it does not like how they are interpreted.

I of course want to support the point on specific claims. This is a very important procedure that will definitely support the judges who will be required to catch up on the horrific backlog of claims for aboriginal people in this country and get some of those longstanding claims finally dealt with.

The final point I want to make is on the failure of the government to deal with crime. Although crime is being reduced in Canada, the government chose this as a high priority, and if it had been successful during its mandate there would have been a reduction in crime and we would need fewer judges, not more.

What is the reason for this? There was a wonderful show on CBC's The Current, last Thursday I believe, in which Anna Maria Tremonti talked about the failures in the federal jails in Canada. If we are going to reduce crime and a majority of crime is repeat crime, how do we deal with that? We have debated this numerous times in the justice committee. We have heard the experts' solutions. We have heard police officers' solutions.

Those solutions deal with making sure those crimes do not occur in the first place. They deal with removing the root causes of crime. They deal with removing overcrowding and poverty. They deal with the lack of ability to gain meaningful employment, whatever the reason might be. They deal with removing the much lower achievement of aboriginal people, on average, and with getting their school system up to the same level of achievement and therefore the same opportunities for gainful employment.

As the CBC analyzed with great care last week, this also deals with the treatment of prisoners. There are the criminals, in jail, where we have access to them, and they are going to reoffend unless they are treated properly. The program showed repeated examples of insufficient treatment, educational opportunities and anger management. Quite often the inmates themselves were asking for these services, these things that would help them return to society.

At committee, the experts told us that longer jail terms in many cases actually increase crime because jail is like a university of crime and inmates who are away longer from a quickly evolving society do not then have the ability to easily integrate. However, if they have the skills, they come out to a whole different world. It just exacerbates the situation if they are not getting training in the institution.

There has been one great leap forward in training and rehabilitation. It relates to alternative sentencing and different types of treatment of criminals outside of simple incarceration. A few weeks ago at an Ottawa city committee that deals with this, the chief of police gave marvellous examples of how that system had much greater rehabilitation effects.

We have failed for probably a thousand years to rehabilitate and to succeed in stopping recidivism, but at least some of these group conferencing and other types of non-incarceration sentences are actually having an effect. That effect is 60% to 70% in stopping a person from repeating a crime, whereas traditional incarceration has an effect of roughly only 40%.

We have finally come upon a new system that is having some effect on certain levels of criminals, but the government tried to pass a bill that would eliminate this for the vast majority of crimes. Fortunately, that bill did not pass. It was stopped.

Another example is that of the aboriginal court justice workers. The program was renewed at the eleventh hour. Thank goodness the present justice minister is totally supportive of that program, thinks it is a good idea and ultimately did renew it, but the government pushed that program right to the brink. Instead of rehabilitating offenders in this way that has been so successful, those workers had to spend their time fighting the fact that their program was expiring and there would no longer be any funding. At the last moment, funding was put into the program. I hope this system is actually put in on a permanent basis so these workers do not have to keep applying for funds.

Our position on this is that of course we want the justice system to work effectively. Justice delayed can be justice denied, so we want sufficient justices in the system to deal with cases. We certainly want judges for the specific claims, but we would certainly like the government to take far more action to reduce crime in the ways suggested by members of all the opposition parties and all the experts who came before committee. That would actually reduce crime so we would not need to keep increasing the number of judges and have an act like this.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from December 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation), be read the third time and passed.

Canada Transportation Act

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am resuming a speech started on December 10, 2007. As a result of the interruption, I still have 10 minutes for the rest of my presentation.

This bill is currently in third reading. Its primary objective is to clarify the Canadian Transportation Act and strengthen the provisions that currently protect shippers against possible abuses of market power by the railway companies. It is aimed primarily at western Canada's farmers and grain transportation.

Bill C-8 tries, therefore, to strike a better balance of power between the railway companies and the people that produce and ship products, including grain producers, who do not own the rails but have to send their hopper cars all across Canada. These people feel oppressed by the railway companies.

The purpose of the bill is to strike a balance. The proposed changes respond to the concerns expressed by shippers, especially grain producers in western Canada, about railway prices and services, while ensuring that the railway companies continue to have a stable regulatory environment.

In addition to what I said last December, I would like to tell the House about a meeting I had with a francophone Albertan. In what is quite a rarity, we were treated to a fine presentation in French by the Alberta Canola Producers Commission—a commission that does not even have a French name. We were sympathetic to what it had to say because it represents 52,000 canola producers throughout western Canada.

What they want mostly from the bill—and this reflects the Bloc’s analysis as well—is the repeal of the requirement that the Canadian Transportation Agency must be satisfied that a shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm if relief is not granted. The provisions to be repealed prevent shippers from getting the relief currently provided by the act, such as the price of competing lines, which has not proved very effective.

The second point is to increase the amount of notice required for tariff changes to 30 days. Shippers will therefore have another 10 days to plan for increases, which is a more reasonable amount of time.

The third point would allow the Canadian Transportation Agency, by order, to establish new charges and associated terms and conditions on a railway company that wants to impose unreasonable charges or associated terms on shippers. Currently, shippers cannot challenge penalties or unreasonable charges for related services and associated terms and conditions when these costs are set out in a tariff. Demurrage charges are an example of penalties, while the weighing of loaded railway cars is an example of related service. Increasingly higher fuel surcharges that are arbitrarily imposed are also a concern.

The fourth point would establish criteria for the agency to determine the reasonableness of the conditions which, among other things, must be commercially fair to both the shipper and the railway company.

The fifth point seeks to set conditions for the return of railway lines to federally regulated railway companies.

The sixth point deals with the publication on the Internet of a list of available sidings where cars can be loaded.

The seventh point would add provisions to the arbitration clause, to allow parties to refer disputes to a mediator. The grain transportation sector must have a more balanced and equitable dispute settlement system.

The eighth point would authorize the shippers to join together to seek arbitration when they are not satisfied with the proposed tariff changes of a railway company. Broadening the scope of these provisions to allow shippers to file a joint complaint will help them spread arbitration costs. This is one issue that was raised, namely, that a shipper could not hold his own against railway companies when the time came to produce evidence before the Canadian Transportation Agency.

The ninth point, which is just as important, would institute an independent review of railway services.

A review is provided for and has to start within 30 days of the legislation taking effect. This review is vital to the canola industry, because it will be an opportunity to have service issues currently facing shippers subjected to an independent assessment and should produce recommendations that strike a balance between the responsibilities of shippers and those of carriers when service problems arise.

In a nutshell, we have also heard evidence from railway companies, which are totally in favour of a review that will promote a factual analysis of occasional and related costs incurred by grain carriers. These issues are not being addressed simply in terms of intentions or ideas. That is another important aspect of this bill.

I also wanted to point out that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill because it seeks to give powers under the Canada Transportation Act.

It is a good thing that we act on this because, in the past, we have seen railway lines abandoned. There is a need to regulate that to some extent now. Line owners operate them as they please, often hiking prices without notice.

One can understand from all these facts that the Bloc Québécois is very sensitive to the plight of grain producers from the Prairies and western Canada. We are also—there is no doubt about that—sensitive to the plight of Quebec producers. This is why we stand firmly in support of supply management in Quebec.

If the Conservative government defended the interests of Quebec producers with respect to supply management as strongly as it is currently defending those of grain carriers, that would make a great difference and would reassure our producers in Quebec.

I would like to remind the House of one thing: the Bloc Québécois makes no distinction between western producers and Quebec producers. Whenever we feel that the public in general is being taken advantage of by the private sector, we do not hesitate to step in and fully and constructively play our role as the opposition with the government.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will certainly be supporting this bill at third reading.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity, on behalf of the NDP caucus, to enter into the debate on Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act as it pertains to railways. We should note that it was known as Bill C-58 in the previous Parliament.

On behalf of my colleague from Windsor West, I would like to announce today that we are in support of Bill C-8. We will be supporting it at this stage of debate because we feel that it addresses many of the valid concerns that railway shippers have over the current conditions of the Canada Transportation Act which allow for the potential abuse of market powers by the railways.

We should point out that it is the view of the NDP at least that at the present time the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway have a virtual duopoly on shipping prices. It is a new word to me. It is not a monopoly but a duopoly. Their financial stranglehold, as it were, is choking Canadian shippers who rely on the rail system to transfer their products from the farm or the mine to the market. Currently, for those producers, transportation costs are their second or third largest cost for these bulk shippers. Under this duopolistic regime, these shippers have no alternative way to transport their products.

Our point is, even though there are more than 30 federally regulated railways in Canada, something I did not know until today, many rail shippers are in fact captive shippers. That is, only a single railway company offers direct service to their area. For these shippers, the rail transportation environment is not naturally competitive and in the absence of adequate legislative measures, a railway company could take advantage of its position as a monopolist in the region. That is why we are welcoming these legislative measures that will afford some protection to these captive shippers.

A monopolist railway would have the incentive to offer lower levels of service at higher prices, we believe, than it would under more competitive market conditions. We welcome this attention to the rail transportation system, if I might, because it brings to light perhaps a larger issue facing Canadians in that Canada as a nation made a strategic mistake 20 or perhaps 30 years ago when it chose to start dismantling our rail transportation system and putting the emphasis of freight on trucks.

If there is anything I have heard you, personally, Mr. Speaker, speak about in the House of Commons, it is the fact that for all kinds of good reasons, for the environment, for the cost factor, to save on fuel, we should all be trying to get the freight off the trucks and put it back on the rails to the largest extent possible so that most of its transportation, most of the distance that is shipped is shipped by rail. That will take a shift in mindset for Canadians. It will take an analysis of our whole transportation infrastructure in this country.

I welcome the opportunity to debate Bill C-8 today on the rail transportation system as it pertains to the Canada Transportation Act, but I also welcome and invite other members of Parliament to join in what could be a very exciting period and opportunity as we revisit the whole transportation infrastructure as an integrated network of transportation that will meet the needs of the 21st century.

In that light, in that context, I draw the attention of members of the House to a report that was very quietly released just a couple of days ago without much fanfare. Hardly anybody noticed, it would seem, and certainly the media did not notice. It is called the “Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative”, put out on behalf of or commissioned by the current Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway.

In terms of transportation, this is the most important piece of work that I have come across in my 11 years as a member of Parliament because it finally comes to grips with the notion that we made a policy mistake a number of years ago when we got away from railroads and started tearing up the tracks to smaller communities.

God knows that with the experience in western Canada, we have not been nation building. We have been tearing up the tracks. We have been abandoning communities in terms of access to rail transportation.

I should recognize and again credit the authors of this brief 40 page report, one of whom, Mr. Arthur Defehr, is from Winnipeg and the owner of Palliser Furniture, which I believe is in your riding, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jeff Burghardt and Mr. Richard Turner. This blue chip panel travelled the world and looked at efficient transportation networks, with an emphasis on Asia and on the revolution that occurred in transportation, shipping and freight, with the shipping containers and the new urgent need for Canada to get on board with handling these containers in a more effective, integrated approach.

The Asia-Pacific gateway is obviously looking at the ports and the terminals, but this report reminds us of the need and the potential for inland ports, for distribution terminals far away from the congestion of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Perhaps, and I put this to the House as a member of Parliament from Winnipeg, a place like Winnipeg would be the ideal location for a great inland port.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Or Timmins.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Or Timmins, Ontario, as it were, connected by rail, of course.

What we are saying is we have to think outside the box. Because of congestion, a terminal such as Vancouver is not going to be able to handle the millions and millions of containers that we anticipate flowing here from Asia and containers flowing out of here back across the Pacific Ocean full of Canadian commodities for export.

This is going to take a rethinking of monumental proportion. This is going to take some vision. The only vision we have seen in the transportation network in the last 30 years is how to tear up tracks, not how to build them.

The reason I raise this today is to serve notice to the House that there is a movement afoot in the city of Winnipeg to tear up the tracks in the inner city of Winnipeg and build a great inland port on the outskirts of Winnipeg that in fact will be a state of the art shipping container distribution terminal.

I have seen some humdingers. I have been to Shanghai. I have been to Indonesia and seen that state of the art container distribution terminal. I have been to Vietnam, and Fuzhou, China. Those terminals do not look anything like we have seen in this country. Those container terminals are like something we cannot even imagine. But this 40 page report shows us the way. It gives us a road map. It whets our appetite to investigate the enormous potential if we want to get with it and get into the 21st century in terms of an integrated shipping system.

As a member of Parliament representing the inner city of Winnipeg, I welcome this opportunity. If we do tear up the tracks that have divided historically the north end and the south end of Winnipeg with all the predictable social and economic consequences which flowed from that, and put those tracks outside the city where they belong, the opportunities would be enormous.

From an inner city point of view, the inner city of Winnipeg desperately needs new housing stock, new green space, new recreation facilities. This would be 250 acres, a subdivision in the heart of the city. If people would just dare to dream how wonderful it could be to meet these urgent needs and also to avail ourselves of this wonderful economic development opportunity of being the terminus, taking advantage of our geographic advantage as the very centre of North America, we could be the distribution hub for the continent.

Let me remind members that the full title of the Asia-Pacific gateway is the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. It contemplates the input of the shipping containers from Asia through Vancouver and Prince Rupert, from Europe and Russia through Churchill, from South America and Africa through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, all of it coming toward the true geographic centre of North America, which is Winnipeg, to be received, off-loaded and redistributed on a north-south corridor.

The Red River corridor goes north to south from Churchill through Winnipeg straight down to Texas, into Mexico, into South America. This is the vision of a great distribution network in which we could play a role and it starts right here. This is how these things begin, in the House of Commons with a little red report of 40 pages that was released without any fanfare. It is loaded with such potential that I can hardly convey it to you, Mr. Speaker.

Winnipeg has been a tale of two cities for many years. It is divided socially, economically and culturally by this great industrial scar right through the heart of our city. I am saying that we tear up the tracks, that we heal that scar, that we put in housing, green space, recreation. Let us get the tracks out of the city and rebuild a great distribution network, something that you as a railway man, Mr. Speaker, would be proud of.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am from Winnipeg North which is the other side of the tracks that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is talking about. He makes a very interesting proposal to this chamber and that is to try to deal with what is often considered an unsightly barrier in our city of Winnipeg, not unlike some other cities when there are rail yards smack dab in the middle of the city. It leads not only to questionable environmental and esthetically unpleasing sights but it also divides the city into the north and the south and leads to all the stigma that is attached to it.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been very vocal on this issue. He has had the courage to dream about a project that does not seem to be on anyone's radar screen or on the minds of our city, provincial or federal governments at present. However, it often takes a seed that is planted in a place like this for something to come to fruition.

From where does my colleague from Winnipeg see the support for this project coming? Could he tell us a bit about this recent report on the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor that he has talked about? Was this a report commissioned by the federal government? Is there some obligation on the part of the federal government to ensure that its dollars are spent wisely and that it sees through to the end the proposals recommended in the report?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for her interest and concern in this issue. I was looking at a play that was written recently by a friend of mine. Bruce McManus wrote Selkirk Avenue, a quite well-known work. Two babushka-wearing Polish grandmas are talking on Selkirk Avenue in the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg North. One asks, “What are you doing today?” The other points at the Arlington Street Bridge and says, “I go to Canada. I go over the bridge to Eaton's today. I am going to Canada”. That is how dramatic the divide is that has developed in my city of Winnipeg, because in 1882 it was decided to run the tracks right down the centre of Winnipeg and cause that great social and cultural divide.

From an urban planning point of view, my colleague is exactly right. There is a host of good reasons to tear up the tracks. There have been spills, derailments and explosions many times over the years. There has been contamination and environmental degradation. It has been an ongoing challenge to build and maintain bridges, overpasses and underpasses to go over and around these huge yards. And they are huge, we are talking hundreds and hundreds of acres of rail yards.

Finally, we desperately need the land for new housing, more green space, more recreation space. We want to use that land in the inner city of Winnipeg properly and not have it as an industrial blight. I have no objection to industry or development, but there are appropriate places for that kind of development, and the heart and soul, the core of our city is not the place.

The report that my colleague made reference to, commissioned by the Minister of International Trade, opens the door. It was finished in May 2007. I am wondering why it was only released a couple of days ago. I personally have approached the minister twice asking him for copies of it because we are all waiting for it. It is what opens the door for us and contemplates clearly a series of inland ports to accommodate this massive flow that we contemplate of shipping containers from all around the world converging, I hope, at the hub of North America, the very heart and soul of the continent, which is Winnipeg, Manitoba.

These container terminals are an awesome thing to see when they are well designed. If someone is trying to find a container with furniture from his factory, it might be 200 rows down and 100 rows over and up high. A computerized gantry will go and find it, pick it out and deliver it to him, so that no train and no ship is waiting more than 24 hours to offload or to reload.

That is the kind of vision we have to have if we are serious about attracting attention and being this distribution network. The railways will pick up freight and drop off freight if they do not get bottlenecked in a downtown core. If they can get in and out in 24 hours and pick up revenue, then they will come. Build it and they will come.

It is just a dream. It is just a vision. But it is exciting people because we are talking about the revitalization of the inner city on a scale--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The Chair hesitates to bring any debate about Winnipeg to an end, but the hon. member's time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation), on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I would say at the outset that our party will be supporting this bill. Why? Because this bill, which has been discussed, amended, reworked and adjusted in committee, will provide a way to resolve a dispute that has been going on for a number of years between shippers and the railway companies—or at least, so we hope.

In recent years a whole series of tariffs has developed to counteract the Canada Transportation Act, which allowed for an arbitration system for disputes about the costs of railway transportation. That was permitted by the Act. Over the years, however, the railway companies have added what they called related charges to the shipping bill, charges that included parking, transshipment, fuel price increases and customs clearance. In other words, there is a whole list of charges that shippers had no say about; they had to pay.

Obviously, with respect to this dispute, Transport Canada had asked both the shipping industry and the railway industry to come to an agreement. For several years, talks were held, but no agreement between the shippers and the railway companies was possible.

It is important to say this. The railway lobby has been much in evidence throughout this lengthy process. They have lobbied based on the claim that this would destabilize the entire market. It is time for this situation to end, given that shippers are having to deal with only one transporter, as is the case for a number of companies located in remote regions, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, where the only really decent and safe way to ship goods is still the railways.

The Bloc Québécois has always come to the defence of railways. With globalization moving increasingly toward combating greenhouse gases, this mode of transportation is a good way of contributing to not polluting the way road transportation would do, for example. So the more preference we give to railways, the better it will be for the environment.

That is why, in our view, it is important for this dispute to be resolved. But will this settle the entire matter? Let us look at clause 3 of this bill, which will amend subsection 120.1(1) of the Act to read as follows:

If, on complaint in writing to the Agency by a shipper who is subject to any charges and associated terms and conditions for the movement of traffic or for the provision of incidental services that are found in a tariff that applies to more than one shipper other than a tariff referred to in subsection 165(3), the Agency finds that the charges or associated terms and conditions are unreasonable, the Agency may, by order, establish new charges or associated terms and conditions.

This is exactly what I said before. It would be possible to apply the agency’s decisions to any related tariff that did not directly impose transportation charges. The issue here is therefore the railway industry’s bad habit of billing for all the other charges so that they were not applied to transportation charges, which were subject to arbitration by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Second, this bill will allow several shippers to file a joint appeal of charges. That is the objective. This bill will affect our forestry and manufacturing industries primarily in their role as shippers. These sectors are experiencing very difficult times. The Bloc Québécois is the only real party in this House to defend the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Conservative government did not come to their defence. Rather it presented an assistance plan contingent on the adoption of a budget, without taking into account the gloom that persists in Quebec regions. This government pays no attention to the interests of citizens or of the real public, but focuses on being elected.

The Conservative members from Quebec prefer to rise and defend the Conservative Party rather than the interests of their citizens. That is the choice of the Conservative members from Quebec, but not of the Bloc Québécois members. We will never hesitate to stand up in this House to defend the interests of citizens who are losing their jobs. It is not right to invest in the military, nuclear and oil sectors and to not help those losing their jobs, especially in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. That is why, once again, we will rise today to defend the interests of the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

This is not going to solve their problems. Bill C-8 will not solve all the problems today. However, these industries have been afflicted by this irritant for many years. For too long, Transport Canada allowed businesses to do what they wanted. It is time to put an end to all tariff systems other than the one tied to transportation costs. That is what we are trying to do today by permitting the arbitration by the Canadian Transportation Agency of disputes concerning all these other charges. It is important.

No bill has ever had such universal support from the shipping industry. Quebec businesses were invited to appear before the committee, and they were represented by national associations, because there truly was unanimous agreement. The request was not to touch the bill as tabled, apart from a few amendments made in committee following debate.

So this bill represents a request from the entire shipping industry in Quebec and Canada. Obviously, part of this bill directly affects western Canada and railway transportation.

The Bloc Québécois will agree that disputes should be settled on a national scale. We are pleased to support this bill.

Once again, it is often the small details that steadily move things along. Once we have passed the bill at third reading, as we are in the process of doing, and it receives royal assent—soon, we hope—this little dispute over the other charges can be settled.

I repeat that this bill also addresses another issue. Several shippers will be able to submit a matter jointly to save money. Obviously, as a result, in issuing the order in accordance with the bill, the agency must take into account the following factors: the objective of the charges or associated terms and conditions; the industry practice in setting the charges or associated terms and conditions; in the case of a complaint relating to the provision of any incidental service, the existence of an effective, adequate and competitive alternative to the provision of that service; and any other factor that the agency considers relevant.

The agency has full latitude to take whatever measures it may deem necessary in order to settle the dispute.

For the railway companies, the bill aims to strike a balance. The proposed paragraph 120.1(4) provides that:

Any charges or associated terms and conditions established by the Agency shall be commercially fair and reasonable to the shippers who are subject to them as well as to the railway company that issued the tariff containing them.

Once the agency hands down its decision, the railway company shall vary its tariff accordingly. This is an obligation of result. It is very important that this be done as soon as the agency reaches its decision.

Why this dispute resolution? It is important that the railway companies also understand that the forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec and Ontario are on the verge of economic disaster. In the finance minister's economic statement, the picture of the forestry and manufacturing industries showed that they had been in a recession in Quebec and Ontario for two quarters.

Naturally, economists agree on this. When the situation facing the forestry and manufacturing industry is blurred by adding natural resources, which then includes oil company revenues, the problem is concealed.

That is what the Conservative government ultimately did. It did so in such a terrible way, by trying to suggest that the problem facing the forestry and manufacturing industry in Canada and Quebec was ultimately the same everywhere.

In distributing its billion dollars, the government did so per capita, that is, of course, per resident. With a minimum of $10 million per resident from the outset, Alberta has more money than Quebec to resolve the forestry and manufacturing crisis.

Once again, we denounce this Conservative approach, this manner of always acting in the interests of a few, rather than in the interests of the voters and citizens of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the remarks of the member from Quebec, who addressed the economic situation of Ontario from a particular angle. This is important to us as we are facing an economic crisis. I agree with him that the government should be doing even more. He discussed how members from both sides of this House could work together to resolve the problem. While this problem is really a western Canadian one, it does impact the economy of our country as a whole.

I also appreciated that the member spoke, not as a Quebecker, but as a Canadian who cares about Quebec and Ontario as well. I am originally from Ontario. I am very aware of the challenges it is facing today. It is important that pressure be brought to bear on the government and the members of this House regarding the economic situation of Ontario.

It is the engine of Canada from the point of view of manufacturing. It is a very important generator of lumber, lumber industries and secondary products, perhaps not as large as Quebec and British Columbia but these sectors are very important for Ontario.

I share with him the concern he has expressed on our behalf, that the government needs to be much more implicated in the economic crisis of the day being faced by industries in the manufacturing sector, in the lumber sector and in other sectors as well, but I will only name those.

Has he tabulated for us some questions about specific themes that he thinks the government should present to the House, to Parliament and to all Canadians or does he want me to do it for him? If he does, I will be pleased to do it immediately after question period.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I drove the back roads of Yorkton—Melville during the Christmas break, I was concerned with the growing unrest within the grain farming community.

Many farmers are telling me they want to choose for themselves where they may market their grain. Being forced to turn their grain over to the Canadian Wheat Board is viewed as unfair. They point out to me that a recent Pool Return Outlook reveals that our western barley growers get about $2 per bushel less than North Dakota farmers just a stone's throw away. A huge differential in wheat prices also exists.

Grain producers ask me, “What kind of democracy forces farmers to sell their product back to a government agency for a discounted price?” Furthermore they ask, “Why must our western farmers sell to the Canadian Wheat Board while eastern farmers can sell their own product to the highest bidder?”

Farmers in Yorkton—Melville tell me that if they were free to market their own grain, many other government funding programs could become unnecessary.

Prairie farmers must contend with drought, flooding, wind and pests. They should not also have to battle with the Canadian Wheat Board.