House of Commons Hansard #203 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was service.
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ahuntsic, Aviation Safety; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-52 today. The railway, or shipping by rail, is very important in my riding. As I often say in my speeches in this House, the river divides my riding in two, but the railway also does the same thing. This is not just a legacy; it is also a very important economic asset for us.
To begin, I would like to say a little about my experience since 2011 when I was elected, and even before that time, from what I hear from my constituents and other elected representatives in the region, in particular the mayors, concerning relations with CN and CP. This is very important in connection with the subject we are addressing today.
We need to look at the role these companies are called on to play in our communities and see what a key role the railway has played in the history of Quebec and of Canada. In any history course, even at the university level, we still talk about the railway as a core element of our country's collective history. When we look at it that way, there is a duty to work with the various stakeholders. Today, we are talking about the stakeholders that ship various products, in the farming sector in particular.
In my riding, I am in an odd situation when it comes to this subject. On the south shore, Montérégie is located right in the middle between Montreal and the more urban part of the south shore, but also in a somewhat more agricultural and rural area. Let us not forget that there are also farmers in my riding. I can think of neighbouring ridings, like Shefford or Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, where there are people in the farming community who use the railway. We can really see how much the railway connects those regions to Montreal, and beyond there to other destinations, including Quebec City, Ottawa, or the other end of the country.
When we consider these facts, we feel we must take action to support our farmers, but we also want to protect the communities living alongside the railways. We therefore need CN to work with us. That is why this bill is important. We are talking about agreements with shippers, but this is also an indication of the need to go beyond that and call on CN to co-operate more on other issues. Those issues all involve the same objective: improving and making better use of the infrastructure we have had for over 100 years now.
Getting back to my previous point, when I was talking about the work I had to do with CN, I have to say that it is not always an easy company to work with, quite frankly. I say that with all due respect because good things have been accomplished. I would not want anyone to think otherwise, and I am definitely ready to work with them. However, the fact that we needed a bill to make CN co-operate on one particular issue shows that the company could do with an attitude adjustment and a little more flexibility given that it has a monopoly or a virtual monopoly on rail services in my region and across Canada.
I have seen this problem on two particular files, including the rail electrification one. This AMT proposal would modernize and improve rail services. It would reduce costs for producers using the services and for public transit users. Yes, it would be expensive in the short term, but in the long term, it would provide economic, environmental and other benefits.
We have had to deal with a lot of problems on this file. CN categorically refused without offering any explanations or agreeing to talk about it. This is another very important aspect of the bill before us today even though it is about a different issue with CN.
As for the other file, I heard a comment on the other side of the House about increasing train traffic. That is interesting, because that is exactly the kind of thing we want to see. That obviously means that the economy is doing well, including the local economy.
However, this increase is combined with the phenomenon of urban sprawl, which we are seeing more and more in Montérégie, particularly on the south shore. People are leaving the Island of Montreal to move to the suburbs, including our region. They are building homes around train stations to be able to use public transportation. II am talking about commuter trains. So these homes are seeing an increase in vibrations.
My riding office in Saint-Basile-le-Grand is in an old train station. It is no longer in use, but, obviously, since it is an old train station, we are close to the tracks and we feel the vibrations. It is not a big deal to us. It does not happen too often when employees work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 6 p.m., for example. However, I think everyone can agree that it can be more difficult for someone who lives close by.
Speaking about the importance of the railway calls to mind some comments made by one of the mayors in my riding. Gilles Plante, the mayor of MacMasterville, told me as well as CN officials that while he did not want to hinder CN’s work or impede rail traffic, he did hope that a happy medium could be found.
Co-operation with CN on this front is necessary, but not always easy to get. We are still waiting for answers to requests made by citizens regarding rail traffic.
There is a reason why I bring this up and relate these stories of issues that I have been focusing on since being elected to represent my riding. As I have said before, the aim of the bill is to compel CN to negotiate agreements with shippers to prevent the company from unfairly benefiting from the monopoly it holds over our producers, in particular farmers.
If I might digress for a moment, I would especially like to congratulate the member for Trinity—Spadina for her work, for the bill she introduced, which made the minister realize that the time had come to act on this issue.
This bill is seen as a step in the right direction. However, hard work is needed to sustain this momentum. I am hearing from the farmers in my region and I know that some colleagues represent ridings where farming is even more prevalent. The message is always the same when the topic of public transportation or the railway system comes up. They acknowledge that this is a very important industry, one that needs to be modernized.
We lag far behind Europe in this area. Of course I am not saying that everything is wrong. I am sure that a government member is prepared to rise and say that everything is going well. I am not saying that things are going badly, but simply because things are not going badly does not mean that things cannot be greatly improved. This is true of the railway system. Things are going very well back home. People benefit from the service, but much more could be done. If improvements were made to the rail infrastructure, the costs in the short term would be great, but in the long term, as I said, users and shippers could enjoy lower prices.
As far as urban sprawl is concerned, as I said earlier, this is a positive phenomenon. It means that people are settling in our region, that the population is increasing, that more families are moving into the area and that our local economy is thriving. These are things that I am very proud of and very pleased to see. Mainly it drives many of the issues I champion in the House and in my work as a member of Parliament.
However, that makes life tough for farmers because municipal elected officials, regional conferences of elected officials, RCMs, members of the National Assembly and so on all wind up facing the same challenges: finding a way to promote urban sprawl and growth back home, but also ensuring that our farmers still have an environment conducive to their production.
There are a lot of local products in the Richelieu valley, where my constituency is located, and they are the pride of our region. Tourisme Montérégie has done a lot of work, and even in the surrounding areas, in Rougemont near Marieville in my riding or elsewhere, local products are of outstanding quality. People attending the Chambly Bières et Saveurs festival in the summer can enjoy beer—it is very good—as well as superior-quality food products. We want to continue producing those products. They are healthful and good for the economy, and they are also good for our heritage, even though that may seem like a cliché. That, in a way, is our physical and environmental heritage.
The work we are doing with CN is extremely important: we are looking for a way to juggle the reality of modernization with that of agricultural tradition, which is very important in my riding. That is why I am very pleased to support this bill at second reading. It is a step in the right direction, as a number of my colleagues and I have said.
However, I believe that the committee work will be very important, and the work to be done over the next few months and years even more so. As I emphasized earlier, we have to prod CN on other issues as well. We have to demand even more from those people and from all stakeholders involved in railway issues, who will show us the way because we find it hard to move CN on these issues.
I would like to go back to the vibrations issue. This is fundamentally important for this bill because, once again, we are talking about shippers. Freight trains are increasingly long and that is very good. However, we wonder, and we have also put the question to CN, how it is possible to reconcile these two realities. My office is located beside the railway, and I also live near it. Sometimes drivers want to cross the tracks, and it is nearly rush hour and along comes a train transporting freight from elsewhere in Canada. Then they realize that the train is nearly 200 cars long. Sometimes people wait a long time at the stoplight. We realize that some work still has to be done to reconcile this urbanization reality with the fact that these trains have to pass through.
I am not saying that this is not important. I am referring to the situation facing my colleague, the mayor of McMasterville. We want to keep this in our municipalities. We do not want to tear up the railway. It is part of our heritage and we know how much it benefits our communities. No one would ever say otherwise. However, I think we need to do some work on it. This bill urges CN to do something for farmers. We could also urge it to do more for Canadians in the regions.
The railway is such an important part of our heritage. I recall a Knights of Columbus dinner that was held in November. One of the members, Gilbert Desrosiers, who is very well known in my riding, received a painting done by a local artist whose name escapes me at the moment unfortunately. It was a picture of what we, back home, call the black bridge. There is a large CN logo on the bridge. It is hard to miss. Whether you are on the Richelieu highway, on the shore or in a boat on the Richelieu River, you can see this railway bridge. It is practically an institution in our riding. It is part of our heritage.
I say that half-jokingly, but I am also serious. It illustrates people's sense of belonging. We want to make this infrastructure work in our region because we know what a remarkable asset it is.
I know that I am revisiting issues that I have already raised. However, since I have the time, I will again address the issue of the electrification of the rail line. It is very important, and CN’s attitude to this issue poses a problem.
I often have conversations with my colleagues, who are ministers and members of the National Assembly. We all more or less have the same vision as far as objectives for public transportation are concerned. A common vision in the region is a good thing, and helps steer progress.
On the other hand, it is understandable that the AMT has projects and that CN is a source of friction. Indeed, they have differing interests and their situations are not the same. Yet, what has been most disturbing in this issue is the lack of dialogue. When this decision was made, the AMT did not seem to know why; CN simply said that it was too expensive, that that was that, and that it was no longer in the cards.
Had the original developers of the railway, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, said that building the railway was too expensive, little progress would have been made. That is precisely the kind of mentality that CN and CP need to do away with. We do not deal with CN and CP as much back home, but these companies still have a role to play, and some of my colleagues do deal with them. That kind of mentality cannot be allowed. We know that it is expensive. We know that it is an investment. I believe that, in the long term, it is going to help reduce costs and promote the kind of environment that is so important for our farmers.
For example, the closer one gets to the Cities of Richelieu and Chambly—which are in my riding and are adjacent to the municipality of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, in the riding of Saint-Jean—the more railways there are. However, they are mostly outdated and no longer in use. The municipality would really like to use this infrastructure and space. However, CP is dragging its feet, at least I believe that it is CP that is doing so.
All of this to say that when a municipality wants to use infrastructure and cannot do so, it is extremely problematic. When municipalities ask for answers, there needs to be an immediate dialogue. CN and CP have everything to gain by engaging in such a dialogue. It can only help them to do their job.
A CN representative, who I will not name out of respect, told me that if Canadians were to communicate directly with CN and tell them about their problems, CN would be in a better position to respond. However, that might not be so easy since these issues are localized. That is no secret. Residents in the region communicate with their elected representatives. Residents with those kinds of concerns call their mayor, municipal councillor or member of Parliament.
When citizens call elected officials and the elected officials contact CN, I think that this corporation should understand that it is time for action. The fact that it does not come directly from a citizen is no excuse not to act. We are very ready to act.
I appear to be very critical toward CN and CP, but it bears repeating. We understand they have had great success and that they are still successful. However, in certain respects, they must be more open and engage in more dialogue.
This is why I am pleased that this bill was introduced. The government has decided that these corporations must speak and work with people. There are certain standards to be met.
If this is representative of things to come in terms of the railway, in my riding in particular, then I will be quite pleased to continue supporting them and engaging in a dialogue with them.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am keenly interested in this issue. I have asked various colleagues this question. I would also like to ask my NDP colleague this question.
Does he believe that the Conservative government is taking Canada’s railway infrastructure seriously?
A little earlier, I mentioned that 70% of goods are shipped by rail. In order to move forward on the green economy, we must reduce road transportation and ship goods by rail more frequently. I hope the Canadian government will eventually agree to promote the green economy and play a leadership role.
Does he believe that the Conservative government is taking the issue seriously and that it is putting money and energy in the right places?
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
Because I come from the region where the railway plays such an important role, I feel bound to say that, for this day and age, the money invested and spending priorities are inadequate. What we are pleased about in this bill is that when we take a step in the right direction, it allows us to believe, to hope—we are optimists—that it will be the foundation of some good work on this issue, something that has unfortunately not been seen yet.
In my colleague’s riding of Saint-Lambert, which is just about next to mine, there have been cuts at the VIA Rail station which have had a negative impact on the services provided. Even if this is not exactly what we are discussing today, we have to consider the issue of infrastructure as a whole, as my colleague mentioned. These cuts cannot very well be something that is positive.
At the moment, there is a lack of determination and a lack of participation by those working in the field. I would hope that this bill is a sign that more attention, positive attention, will be paid to this issue, primarily for the people from Vallée-du-Richelieu and the people in my riding. If this were the case, I would be very happy to continue the discussion in a positive way.
Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the member made a number of good points in his intervention. One of the things he indicated, which I happen to agree with quite strongly, is that it is important that we hold to account companies like CN and CP and others, which are large, private companies that are very profitable, and that we set specific expectations for them. That is why, for example, we brought forward the railway safety bill in the previous Parliament. It was a bill we worked on with other parties to come to an agreement on; then it had to be brought back in this Parliament as well.
The bottom line is that these are private companies, and sometimes when we are making an assessment of whether the money is being put in the right spot, we have to understand the railway system as a network. The member who spoke previously talked about how his freight rail service is now down to a class 2, which limits the speed to 25 miles per hour for freight. That is actually quite serviceable for freight, although not perfect. He spoke about having a derailment. Obviously, that is something we want to avoid. That is why we brought in the railway safety bill.
However, when we are talking about investments into rail, as an example, perhaps the greatest investment we could make to improve the efficiency of the Port of Montreal would be to improve the railway tunnel in the city of Windsor. Most people would not think of that, but it would actually improve the efficiency of the port services in Montreal.
I would like the member to expand a little on where he thinks we could better hold the railways to account. I think he is on the right track with that, and I think the bill is going in that direction.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
With “on the right track”, I will assume no pun was intended there
I agree with some of the points made by my colleague. I thank him for the question. This is a network and that is why we would like to see, as we are in fact proposing, a Canada-wide strategy that would enable us to make the appropriate investments at all levels, because what he said is entirely true.
The reason why the railway has a positive impact for farmers in my riding is precisely because the service goes to Windsor and farther beyond. That is a fact.
In terms of the fact that CN and CP are private enterprises, that is a difficult question. We agree on that, but when we consider the fact that the infrastructure was built by people from our region and elsewhere and that a lot of money has been invested in it, and also the government’s responsibility to ensure that we have a proper rail network, there is good reason for more dialogue between the government and CN and CP.
With this bill, certain obligations will be instituted, but this is the kind of dialogue that will happen more often. I realize that it is never easy to deal with that reality.
Lastly, with respect to Bill S-4 on railway safety, there were many points on which the parties agreed. I venture to hope this is an indication that we will be able to get along better, because it can only be a positive thing for my region if we continue to do that. I venture to hope.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I believe there are many different individuals and stakeholders who are following this debate because it is of critical importance. Issues have really been outstanding since 2007, because that is when industry, in particular individuals who rely heavily on shipping, said they needed to have some sort of legislative manner to start dealing with levels of service. There is a sense of optimism that finally we might see some sort of a bona fide service level agreement put into place, where ultimately there is a consequence or a potential for penalties and so forth. However, it is important that they be enforceable.
I wonder if the member would provide comment in terms of that aspect of the legislation, which seems to suggest that we would have some form of service level agreements that would appease a great number of the different stakeholders, on the condition that it is enforceable, that there are penalties, that it would provide for a better quality of service. That is one of the driving forces behind this debate. Shippers want to see better quality shipping being conducted, better service levels so when they want, need and have paid for a car that it will be there for the shipping of their product. Would the member want to comment on the service level agreement concept?
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This is certainly something positive. However, there are obviously consequences associated with passing a bill like this one. It is somewhat pointless to have agreements between the stakeholders—the producers, the shippers and the railway companies, like CN, in this case—if they do not have the tools to enforce those agreements.
That said, this is to some extent the approach my colleagues will take when they examine the bill in committee and also look at the question of arbitration. We do want shippers to have the tools they need in order to take full advantage of this legislation. It is quite important that CN and CP be called on to make better agreements with shippers. But that may still pose a problem if the legislation and the legal situation tilt too heavily in favour of the railway companies.
My colleague and I have raised two very important points relating to arbitration, to ensure that we enact legislation that has teeth. Once the bill is passed, we are really going to have to make sure that the agreements made are complied with.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss the bill, Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.
As the previous transport critic for this party during the 2008 to 2011 era, through that time I recognized that there was a great demand across the country for changes that would assist shippers in dealing with the duopoly of the rail system in Canada and the conditions that occurred.
Quite clearly, the concerns were greater among the smaller shippers than among the larger shippers. Therefore, the ones that could command the greatest use of the railway had greater opportunities to strike better deals. The problems lay in a stronger fashion with those that did not have the quantity and the continuity of freighting that would attract the rail systems.
I remember meeting with the pulse association, people who provide agricultural products that are not grain but beans, soy, peas and that measure of agricultural product, which is growing considerably in Canada but in smaller batches in different areas across the country. Their problems with getting their product through the rail system were paramount to them. They said they could not deal with the system as it is right now. The types of producers, the locations of those producers across the country and the nature of the product meant that the rail companies were not attracted to them as customers as much as they were to larger producers.
I will be very interested to see how it will play out across western Canada now with the loss of the single desk for grain, how that will play out with small producers, smaller aggregations of those who are moving grain.
The Conservatives sold the idea of getting rid of the single desk on the basis of enabling grain to be moved to different places by the producers in a fashion that would allow them to value-add to their product. Let us see what happens when this occurs in a system where the need for freight is paramount, where we have to move the product and where farmers are not protected by the larger system that existed under the single desk. We will see what that does and how it works. I am sure the committee will hear representation on that matter as well, as it moves forward.
In looking at the rail system, we have heard a lot of talk about infrastructure. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the great investments that the government has made in the rail system. I would raise, for instance, the investment the government is making in one of the big problems with our rail system, the level crossings. There are some 1,400 level crossings in this country. They are being added to incrementally by municipalities all across the country. The Conservatives identified $27 million a year over five years to invest in level crossings.
When we do the math, that does not turn out to be something that will really solve the problem we have with level crossings. Some level crossings can cost between $30 million and $40 million to fix. These are major requirements in the rail system.
If we take a good look at it, the rail companies are not primarily responsible for what has happened with level crossings. This is a co-operative effort that extends across governments, provincial highway authorities and municipal governments. Everyone has a hand in level crossings. Why does the federal government have to play a role? The federal government can be the final arbitrator there. With the profits rail companies are making, they should be a big part of this as well.
Of course, the government does not collect taxes in a decent fashion from corporations that actually make profits, and cannot reinvest for the public good and the good of those corporations. The chances of the infrastructure issues, that is, of rail being fixed across this country, are very remote if the present spending level of the federal government continues.
I am glad that the NDP has such a strong transport critic today, one who has pushed very hard on these issues.
The service agreement review went through and finished in 2011. Members are now seeing an act in front of Parliament, Bill C-52.
The first part of the bill sets up terms and conditions for contracts for railways and shippers. If a shipper wants to enter into a contract with a rail company, it can describe the traffic to which it relates, the services requested by the shipper in respect to the traffic, and the undertaking the shipper is prepared to give to the rail company with respect to traffic for services. How will one make sure that the rail companies will be well served when their cars arrive? How will all of this fit together?
Contracts, of course, do not apply to written agreements already in place. A company that has already established a written contract with a rail company is not available to deal with this under this legislation. They are locked in.
In the case of many of the larger producers, that may be to their advantage. They do not have to renegotiate anything. The ones that provide a lot of freight movement have a deal set up.
Seeing what is happening in the industry here with the failure of the pipelines that have been proposed for Canada, I would say that we are going to see greater rail traffic carrying oil and gas products across this country. That may change the dynamics of the rail system as well. The larger producers may find themselves competing with other very large producers as well. We will see how that plays out.
The second part of the bill deals with arbitration. Once one has established a contract or is unable to agree on a contract, there is a process of arbitration. That is good because, of course, it is sometimes very difficult to come to agreements.
Small producers in a remote location are looking for the rail company to arrive in a good fashion with the cars. They are going to leave them there. The cars are going to be in good shape. They are going to take the cars away after they have them filled.
There are many variations that have to be examined in a contract between two parties that carry out this kind of work. Is the shipper going to be ready to provide the product to fill all those cars when they are delivered at the site? If they are not, is there some measure of compensation to the company for leaving the cars there longer? If the company does not supply the cars in a good fashion, is there a way to compensate the shipper, who may be backlogged at the receiving area with the other mode of transportation that caused them to bring it to the railway? These are complex, detailed issues that have to be worked out between shippers and the rail company. Of course they will require some arbitration.
What is the hammer that the company keeps under this legislation when it comes to negotiating or dealing with arbitration? Under proposed subsection 169.31(4), the following applies:
For greater certainty, neither a rate for the movement of the traffic nor the amount of a charge for that movement or for the provision of incidental services is to be subject to arbitration.
There is the hammer for the company. It can set the rate for the cars sitting in the dock. It can set the rate for the movement of the material out of the area. It can decide the nature of the movement, the volume of the movement taking place, and how cost effective that is with its service charges that fit over top of that. All of those issues are not going to be subject to arbitration.
The company holds a very strong hand there when it comes to exactly what it is going to cost to do the work. Still, the arbitration should take into account the rates. In any business arrangement, the rates are very important. They cannot simply say “We are going to have a service contract, and you do not get to talk about the rates. The only thing you can talk about is what is going to happen”. Those two things have to work together.
The government, by excluding that from arbitration, has given the rail companies a very strong position in Bill C-52. I hope that it will be seen in committee as something that needs to be worked on. There needs to be some work done to make this fairer, more equitable to all of those concerned, especially the small producers across this country who do not have the leverage to make the deals, as was the case even before this bill.
After this bill there should be some leverage for those small companies so they can make sure that services are being provided to them in a good fashion at a reasonable rate. That is what we should be doing in government, being fair to both sides. The basis of government is trying to come up with solutions that work for all parties.
Some of the other concerns here also fit with small companies, the small shippers, such as the degree of difficulty they may have in working in arbitration, the timeframes that are outlined, the process that is outlined, all of which are very complex and very expensive. The costs will have to be borne by the shipper. The cost of the arbitration is to be split equally between the shipper and the rail company in all cases, according to this legislation.
How does that work? If the arbitration is in favour of the small shipper, they still have to pay the piper for the work they have done.
What I would like to see in this is some means of establishing rates and conditions that would apply across the country, so that some kind of equivalency develops among the arbitration systems and that, across the country, what is decided in one place has some relevance to what is going on in another, so that we have some fairness in the system.
I do not see that yet. Perhaps some of my Conservative colleagues who may have some ideas about that may want to express them. I think it is more likely to be taken up in committee, however. This bill needs a lot of work.
What is the record of this majority Conservative government in offering up amendments? I have to say it is abysmal. It is totally abysmal. These people do not believe in amendments. The Conservatives believe that what they put forward is good enough for the country. They are in charge and they know what is right. This is what has happened with almost every single piece of legislation that has gone through the House to date.
Where are the amendments? When I worked in the transport committee, when there was not a Conservative majority, we worked together, we looked at the issues and we came up with solutions that were mutually agreeable. Then we created amendments that we all agreed with.
Transportation is a fundamental and vital service to this country. It is not something that should be dealt with by parties working against each other. I was always very pleased with the previous transport committee chair, the member for Brandon—Souris, who was very fair and understood that transportation was a vital and important part of this country, which needed to be expressed as such.
This bill should be amended. It should be considered very carefully for what it actually accomplishes and what it should accomplish.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the Western Arctic for his comments, particularly toward the end of his speech, where I think he made one of the most important points in this debate.
There has been great frustration among the Canadian public on their lack of voice in the enactment of legislation by the government. Certainly, we have heard it in the Idle No More movement.
As the hon. member said, what could be a more important service than transportation for all Canadians?
Of course, our critic for transportation has done a great job in trying to push through a national transportation strategy.
I wonder if the member would speak about who he thinks should be able to come forward to the committee to express what additional needs they have, what changes should be made in the legislation and what kind of process should occur to ensure that the legislation does reflect the needs and interests of all users of the rail lines.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, I think the committee could perhaps start with the witnesses who could talk about equality and fairness within the system. We might actually want to look at economists, perhaps some people who study these issues around the world, how rail companies work in this fashion, so that we could see clearly what is fair, what is likely to be fair, and how to present that in committee in a good fashion. I would say that would be a first step for this bill: to examine the ethics of the bill and how it would apply to the different parties who would be affected by this.
Then we would want to take that understanding and go to the actual shippers and make sure that we cover the wide variety of shippers in this country, geographically and by the type and size of material they are moving through the country, because they are all very significant players.
I would say that would be an interesting formation of the committee. However, whether the committee is ready to put that kind of effort into this remains with that committee to decide.
Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I know that the member made a couple of points, including a couple I took issue with, not the least of which were his comments on corporate taxes and corporate tax rates. Of course, railways, CP and CN, are among the most heavily invested in by funds that are seeking solid, stable investments, such as OMERS pension fund and the Ontario teachers' pension fund and Canada pension plan and, of course, a wide range of private sector pension funds that look after members like the Canadian Auto Workers and so forth.
When the government takes less from those companies, it actually builds up their investments and pension portfolios, which is important, because we all have a stake in that, each and every Canadian in this country. Therefore, it is important that we do that.
He also mentioned that the bill would not get into rates. One of the reasons the bill does not get into rates is that the sector is already regulated in that regard. The industry actually has North American standards with respect to freight rates. These are put onto charts and railways actually work off those charts, and rates can be determined very easily as a result.
It is important that we have that because what we really have in many cases is a virtual monopoly. However, it is competitive from the standpoint that it is regulated and the government already looks at standardized rates for all North American railways.
One of the things that is really important to recognize, which I think the member does have an interest in, is that when we are looking at new development and how we are going to encourage investment in, for example, plan nord in Quebec or the Ring of Fire in Ontario or all of the natural resource wealth that extends into the territory the member represents, how are we going to ensure that these companies are prepared to make the investments, and the service requirements are met by these companies in those areas so that we can in fact explore these resources for the benefit of all Canadians?
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, there were two questions. I will attempt to deal with the first one.
Of course, without government raising money, we cannot reinvest in things that require investment to increase productivity. If we increased productivity in the rail lines, we would then increase the profits of those rail lines. They could provide that to their shareholders.
There is a symbiotic relationship among all the things we do in this country. There is no separation into hard and fast units. Rail, and the way it has developed in Canada, has engaged most segments of our society. That is why government has a very important role. However, if government does not collect the money, it cannot invest. It is pretty straightforward.
There may be North American rates. However, quite clearly, there is also the provision of incidental services. I am sure that there is a lot of fudge room within those rates. Nothing can be delivered at the same price in the same time. Volume counts. The type of delivery and the conditions make a difference. All these things add to cost or take away from cost. To not have them in arbitration, to not have the finesse of the system available for arbitration, I think is something that will inevitably lead to abuse.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, to follow up, the member said that the freight rates should be going to arbitration. The first thing that comes to my mind is the importance of the arbitrator and how that arbitrator might be selected. I wonder if he could further expand on that point. How would he like to see an arbitrator, who would deal with issues that come out of Bill C-52, selected or appointed? How would he envision that working?
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, I think arbitration, by its nature, means that we want someone who understands the nature of fairness within the system. To have that, it has to be someone who fully understands the system but is not engaged in one interest or the other. There must be continuity, with the same logic applied to different areas of the country and the same methodology, which comes from continuity, in arbitration. I would say that if this system is going to be successful, it needs those qualities within the arbitration system. One is a dedication to fairness and the second is continuity.
Marie-Claude Morin NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-52. I will be sharing my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.
Rail transportation is of particular interest in my riding. First of all, I would like to say that my party and I support this bill at second reading.
Marie-Claude Morin NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to take their conversations outside, as it is very distracting. That is all right, I will continue even though I have lost my concentration.
We know that—
Fair Rail Freight Service ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Order, please.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.
Marie-Claude Morin NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I am influential, as my colleague opposite stated. I will start again from the very beginning because I lost my concentration somewhat.
As I was saying, transportation is an issue I am interested in and something that is also important in my riding. I will talk about agriculture a little later. I talk about it often because it is important to me and it plays a large role in my riding.
First, it is important to state that my party and I support the bill at second reading. We know that 80% of railway users are dissatisfied with the service provided.
It is important to say that some amendments will have to be made in committee. The bill must be improved so that rail transportation really improves in Canada.
After years of discussions, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill in response to a number of complaints from rail customers that received inferior service from the major railway companies for a very long time.
I would like to go back to the speech by my colleague, the member for Chambly—Borduas. Earlier he referred to the railway as part of Canada's heritage and to the sense of belonging that people attach to the railway in Canada. In my opinion and that of the member for Chambly—Borduas, that makes it more important to invest properly in this mode of transport, a fundamentally important one in a country such as Canada, which is very large and sparsely populated.
It is also important to say that everyone must come out a winner: the railways but also rail transport service customers, such as farmers and mining companies, which are often victims of the railways' virtual monopolies. We are talking about service disruptions, delays and disturbances that hurt the agriculture, forest products, mining and manufacturing sectors, which are not compensated for the losses.
A large portion of those goods is intended for export, which is very important for Canada's economy. Those sectors must be able to rely on effective transport in order to export their goods, not to mention the fact that many goods, as in the agricultural sector, are perishable. Producers therefore cannot afford major delays or service disruptions. Their products must be exported immediately.
Shippers have difficulty obtaining fair, reliable rail transport services. Some are not even able to secure contracts with major railway companies, and those that have contracts often suffer long delays or simply do not have enough cars at their disposal.
This entire situation undermines the ability of Canadian exporters to remain competitive in international markets, particularly agricultural products markets, as I said earlier. Farmers already face numerous uncontrollable challenges. Consider weather issues, for example, such as early frosts, excessive rain or too much sun. Farmers already deal with situations that are not easy to handle. That is the case with all farmers in my riding: we never know what will happen with the harvests, whether we will manage to make it to the end or whether everything will go well. The government thus has some responsibility toward these people, who feed Canada's population, and it must assist them, in particular by guaranteeing that their goods are efficiently transported. That is already a first step.
Following years of discussion, expert panels, an attempt at mediation and consultations with stakeholders, the Conservatives ultimately had no choice but to introduce a bill in late 2012, not very long ago.
One reason this bill was introduced was pressure from the official opposition NDP transportation critic, the member for Trinity—Spadina, who does an excellent job on the transportation file. My colleague presented a private member's bill, the Rail Customer Protection Act. The government then finally moved forward with Bill C-52.
For too many years now, farmers and other business owners have been subjected to bad rail service, and Ottawa has not taken action. Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction, but it is far from being perfect, since it does not include some major demands from shippers. I think that its wording is a bit ambiguous, which could create some loopholes. That will have to be considered in committee.
The committee will also have to consider the stakeholders affected by the problems, so it will have to consult farmers, for example, as well as stakeholders from the forestry and mining industries. That would be worthwhile. As I said earlier, 80% of customers are not satisfied with the services. That is a big number. If I had a business and 80% of my customers were not satisfied, I would be on the brink of bankruptcy.
Canadian shippers deserve fair and reliable service. They also deserve to be protected.
Every year, this situation costs the Canadian economy millions of dollars. We are talking about jobs and about goods that are lost or do not make it to the right place. Every day, many industries have to deal with rotting crops, work interruptions in plants and mines, and missing cargo. This is a real problem. Clearly, it hurts shippers and, as I was saying earlier, it hurts our global competitiveness. It costs us jobs.
The current bill is a bit weak.
I have only one minute left. I always get carried away and I did not even get to half of what I wanted to say. That is okay. I will continue quickly.
I find that the bill is a bit weak. It does not necessarily cover existing contracts. That could be something to look at in committee.
I would like to close by saying that 70% of our goods are shipped by rail. That is a good reason to invest properly in this means of transportation and to protect the shippers who use this service so that they have a fair and reliable way of transporting their goods.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, we know that trucking is expensive. We need to rebuild and improve our roads. In the spring, there is freezing and thawing; it's a never-ending cycle. And so, in terms of bulk shipping, the railway really seems to be an ideal solution for the future and for the economic development of a country such as ours.
Does the hon. member not believe that a solution for the future could be a modern and efficient means of transportation, such as a modern and efficient railway that could be rebuilt from one end of the country to the other if we would choose what mode of transportation we want to focus on in this country?
Marie-Claude Morin NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very relevant question. I wanted to touch on that point in my speech, but I did not have time.
At times, companies get frustrated and have no desire to use rail transportation because it is so inefficient. These companies turn to trucking. That is not ideal for infrastructure, namely roads. Roads degrade more quickly when trucks use them over and over again.
Investing in rail transportation infrastructure is a good thing; it is also good for the environment. The number of trucks on the roads will decrease significantly if the rail system is used properly. And, consequently, greenhouse gas emissions will be significantly reduced.
The environment is an essential part of quality of life for Canadians from a sustainable development perspective. It is simple: a reliable rail system is part of a sustainable development plan.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I still have many questions to ask. If you give me the opportunity, I will ask others.
I would like to talk about local and regional development, as well as attractiveness. There are significant economies of scale when services are pooled. A transcontinental railway was built as our country was being shaped. There were far fewer people in the country then and there was not enough money to pay for such a project. It was achieved by investing in the country's development over many years.
Can the member talk about the possible economies of scale for our small businesses and about their development if they were to use intermodal transportation, such as the train, instead of trucking?