Debates of Feb. 8th, 2013

The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings about Bill C-52. This is difficult because I want to encourage our rail services and I support the bill. However, there are significant gaps not addressed by the legislation that absolutely need to be brought forward. In committee we will try to make some needed improvements to the bill.

My colleague from Trinity—Spadina consulted several experts, including exporters, and many of them brought up the issue of price. Absent from Bill C-52 is the important and unregulated discrepancy in rail fees, for example, between CP and CN. Why are existing discrepancies not addressed in the bill? Rail freight transportation must be more efficient and effective. It needs to provide reliable and sustainable services. Unregulated rail fees are another aspect to look into and this can be done at committee.

Trains move goods and people. Trains are a key mode of transportation for Canadians in the 21st century. I myself try to travel between my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Ottawa by train as much as possible.

Rail freight transportation provides a service to our Canadian farmers and producers who ship their goods to market by train. This mode of transportation is essential to Canada's economic development, but does it currently benefit our farmers, producers and our Canadian shippers' associations as much as it benefits CN and CP? Does it benefit public transportation as much as it supports commercial interests?

A look at balance sheets and recent decisions at CP and CN show that these companies are run for their shareholders, not for the users of public transportation or small family businesses that rely on rail freight transportation. This decision was a choice, a choice made to serve shareholders and profits over customers. We have seen this before and we know this leads to poor quality services.

The Coalition of Rail Shippers has been stating for years that it receives poor quality services from CN and CP because of this pricing issue, and they are priority clients. Listen to the private shippers. They tell us that CN dictates the market. CN is the largest player in Canadian rail freight transportation. According to a report by the Coalition of Rail Shippers presented at the Canadian maritime conference in 2010, “CN and CPR together control 94% of the market by revenue”.

This market lacks competition, innovation and regulation. This is not the way to support Canada's economy or to encourage Canadian success. It is important that Bill C-52 gives freight shippers the right to enter into service agreements with railway companies and establish an arbitration process in the event of a dispute. This is what freight shippers told us they needed.

Rail shipping is the backbone of the Canadian economy. Transport Canada estimates that over 70% of all goods shipped over land go by train. The reason is easy to understand. In our very big country, rail shipping is often in bulk and it would be difficult to ship these large quantities by truck. Shipping by boat, which is sometimes more economical, is not available everywhere for obvious reasons.

Canada was built by train and the railway is a vital link between faraway communities on a vast land.

I would like to talk about an activity that I did in my riding. I organized a screening of a movie called Rocky Mountain Express. Its filmmaker is based in my riding. About 100 of us watched this wonderful movie, which talks about the history of the train in Canada and how it built the west of Canada. It was amazing. It really showed us how our country was based on rail.

We might be surprised by the poor quality of rail shipping services in Canada right now. The Conservative government is not the only one responsible for this situation, but it is guilty of inaction on this file. Day in and day out the Conservative government claims to work for the Canadian economy, but Canadian businesses are suffering from this unreliable service, the result of which is hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses every year. This affects a broad range of industries, especially agriculture, forestry and mining.

The rail freight service review found that 80% of rail shippers are dissatisfied with the services provided by rail carriers. This is 80% of loyal customers. Unreliable service and high prices continue to hurt rail customers. This issue is not addressed in Bill C-52. We, the official opposition, will continue to push for fair pricing for all shippers, prices that are in line with the services received from carriers.

That is something we do not see in Bill C-52, which says that agreements governed by the new law would be made only with new customers and new contracts. Therefore, anyone who has been using the services for years, and who is a long-standing loyal customer, would not have access to the rules that Bill C-52 seeks to put in place. Clearly, there is room for improvement. We could make these improvements in committee if the government would be open enough to come to the table and participate in meaningful discussions and listen to the best suggestions to get the best bill possible.

I would like to come back to the fact that 80% of customers are dissatisfied. Something had to be done and something still urgently needs to be done, but the Conservatives' inaction has been going on for years. Why have the Conservatives taken so long to do something?

Here is what I think may be happening. First, rail freight customers are often farmers or mining companies. These customers have to deal with large railways that have a virtual monopoly over rail transport. In most regions of the country, shippers cannot choose a rail transportation company because they have access to only one or the other. Even in cases where the two railway companies are present, the competition struggles to play the role it should and to influence the basic economic principle of supply and demand.

Why do we need to intervene now and legislate? Why can the parties involved not come to an agreement themselves? In all likelihood, CN and CP benefit from the tacit support of the Conservative government and, in that context, they are not at all prepared to make real concessions. The result is that rail freight customers, the shippers, are not satisfied with rail freight services. Therefore, they have asked the government to take action and to introduce legislation that would require CN and CP to reach agreements on the level of service provided to shippers. After years of empty words, the Conservatives are now being forced to act as a result of pressure from the shipping community and the NDP.

Under duress, the Conservatives finally introduced a bill designed to solve some of these problems after the NDP critic's bill was introduced last spring. That bill, which was entitled the rail customer protection act, was much clearer and covered all customers.

The government is using half measures and here are some examples. The protective measures do not cover existing contracts between shippers and rail transport companies. The bill offers only a limited arbitration process for unsuccessful negotiations of new contracts. The arbitration is available only for shippers who are negotiating new contracts, instead of providing fast and reliable help for all shippers. Bill C-52 would cover only new service level agreements, not those that already exist. Furthermore, the fines mentioned in Bill C-52 would go to the government and not to the shippers.

We could talk all day about the amount of these fines, which seem a bit weak to me for such big companies. The ability to interact, discuss and negotiate is undermined when the fines go into the government's pocket, which supports what I said earlier, that CN and CP probably feel as if the Conservative government is in their corner. The Conservatives simply do not give Canada's rail network the attention it deserves.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech and for having the courage to give it in the language of Shakespeare, which is not her mother tongue.

Arbitration is not an option in every situation. While this bill is a step in the right direction, arbitration should be more flexible, but still have rules. Rules are needed to provide a framework for arbitration and negotiation.

Would it not have been easier to insist that arbitration be used in every dispute?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and his comment.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we will support this bill, which is based on the bill introduced by the member for Trinity—Spadina last spring.

But I will say again that it is lacking many elements, and arbitration is one. That is why the bill needs to be studied in committee, as soon as it gets there.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech.

An NDP member worked very hard on this bill. For some time now, the NDP has been calling for improved rail freight and rail transit contracts. This is very important, especially for the forestry industry. People in Chapleau, Kapuskasing and Espanola count on this service and appreciate that the train still runs through their communities.

Could she explain how the bill could be of more help to industries, specifically the forestry industry?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Canada's railways are essential to the forestry, mining and agriculture industries. This bill will help those sectors manage supply and demand.

Canada is one of the only countries that has decided to put moving goods ahead of moving people. And we should continue to do so, because our country is so vast. There are some places we simply cannot get to by truck. In northern Ontario, for instance, sometimes the train is the only reliable mode of transportation.

This bill will improve things in that regard. It will give shippers that sign transportation contracts a more level playing field for negotiations with CN and CP, which together earn 94% of train revenues in Canada.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I share her disappointment, especially considering that, as she said in her speech, the railway has been so fundamental to the history of this country. As a method of transportation, it has really lost its lustre.

I wonder if the member could describe how she sees railway transportation in the 21st century. What would it look like? What direction should it take? At the same time, this will illustrate how this bill does not meet the expectations.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned, I take the train. Unfortunately, I do not take it every week because sometimes I need my car. However, I try to take the train as often as I can when travelling between my riding and Ottawa. The train takes 15 minutes less than driving.

In my opinion, the 21st century train is not like that. It is much more user friendly and attracts clients. When I get on the train, I can take up four seats because unfortunately there is no one around me.

We have been talking about high-speed trains for a long time. There is a lot to do. But what stands out is how expensive it is to take the train right now. Two companies have a monopoly. The intent of the bill is to improve service for everyone.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in today's context of a free trade environment and a free and highly competitive global market—hardly anybody talks about globalization anymore these days, by the way—the key is to develop a healthy trade environment that is conducive to the development a modern, flexible, solid and reliable infrastructure.

Rail transportation in Canada represents a significant share of the economy. It contributes approximately 70%. In Quebec, the figure is slightly lower, and in the rest of Canada, slightly higher. This creates another problem too: more trucks on our roads are a threat to another infrastructure. Nevertheless, approximately 70% of all freight in Canada is shipped by rail.

It is consequently essential for these freight services to be profitable not only to the rail transport companies, but to shippers as well. The cost of rail freight services is a problem for Canadian shippers.

By failing to address some of the issues surrounding fees, the bill disregards the demands being made by some groups from the shipping community. As I mentioned in my preamble, in establishing a free, highly competitive market, the freight transport link in the chain is extremely important to the development of our economic strategy, and in particular for the prosperity of some regions in Canada and Quebec.

We are nevertheless going to support the bill at second reading today. The wording of the bill amends the Canada Transportation Act to require railway companies, when asked to do so by a shipper, to prepare an offer to enter into a contract that sets out the steps it must take to discharge its obligations to the shipper. It also establishes an admittedly rather rigorous process to set out the stipulations in such a contract if the shipper and the railway company are unable to reach agreement.

That was the gist of the question I asked my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine a short while ago, and it may not have been particularly clear. What I wanted to say was that when you end up in arbitration in a negotiation, it is because something has not functioned properly in the prior discussions. This leads to legal proceedings in which there is often a winner and a loser. It is of course difficult to find a formula for dealings between a SME shipper and a multinational that would make everyone a winner, and this will not change. It would also have been useful to look into other options through which negotiation between the parties may have been facilitated.

The bill would also amend provisions concerning air transportation, with a view to rationalizing internal procedures, as well as a number of other provisions concerning the administration of the act, which are still, I might add, exceedingly complex. When the goal is to improve the situation and enhance a sector of the economy, it is important to make things easier.

However, given that the short title of the bill is the “Fair Rail Freight Service Act”, I am skeptical about its purpose. The ambiguous wording implies possible loopholes, as I mentioned, particularly in view of this government sense of equity, which is to give more to the big fish and less to the small fry.

Let us not forget that the Canada Transportation Act is an umbrella statute that governs a number of air and rail transportation markets, and that dates from 1996. Among other things, it bases the national transportation policy on establishing free competition between carriers and different modes of transportation. When a shipper in a remote part of Canada has to deal with a specific transportation company, that shipper has no choice but to find a way to negotiate a deal with Canadian National or Canadian Pacific.

An update was therefore both desirable and justified, because the players in this economic sector have been complaining for many years about chronic problems of service inefficiency and reliability from the rail network owners.

The fact is that 80% of clients and shippers say they are not satisfied with rail transport services in Canada. It is partly for that reason that they have asked the government to act, and introduce legislation requiring the main carriers, CN and CP, to reach agreements with shippers on the level and quality of services.

In reality, shippers have difficulty in obtaining fair, reliable and punctual rail transport services. Some of them cannot even get contracts with the large rail carriers, and those that do have contracts experience significant delays more often than not, only to be told that they do not have enough cars available to ship their goods and meet demands for service at the same time.

The level of dissatisfaction is high enough to prompt important questions about respect for business on the part of the major carriers, and here I am once again talking obviously about Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. As I have said, freight transport is a vital link. In remote areas and in the regions, it is important for rail transport to operate as a means of support for a number of sectors of activity, such as agriculture and forestry. In times gone by, in a neighbouring riding in the Eastern Townships, the municipality of Richmond had a port that was one of the most important transshipment points for freight in Eastern Canada. When market forces were allowed to operate without hindrance, Richmond suffered greatly from a limited choice of carriers and inferior infrastructure—it has to be said—and there was a striking decrease in population and, inevitably, a rise in the unemployment rate.

Nor should we forget that in some remote points in our great country, and now I am talking about my part of Quebec, we are often dealing with small carriers as well as American transport firms that move freight through border areas, as is the case in my riding. Some stretches of railroad have even been sold to American companies, which ship freight by rail as far as the Canadian border.

We therefore have to admit that we definitely need legislation to regulate and consolidate an economic sector that is not just important, but often vital in many rural regions of Canada. I am referring once again to remote regions. Since I became a member of this House, I have always defended the rural regions. It is those regions that give our country its identity. When they are vibrant and prosperous, they represent the very identity of Canada. I see no problem in letting market forces operate, but we must nevertheless help small companies, small carriers and small shippers, because they generate a large portion of the total freight volume in the regions.

The poor quality of rail transport services for freight thus costs the Canadian economy, particularly our many rural communities—as I have repeatedly said—that are already seriously threatened by the downturn in manufacturing and forestry, hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Many industries in Canada have to deal day after day with losses caused by deteriorating crops that have languished too long in poor conditions waiting for transport services, with work interruptions in plants and mines for lack of parts, or with shipments that are missing or lost somewhere in the transport network.

Poor rail service hurts Canadian shippers who must meet the just-in-time standard. I do not know if my colleagues know what that means. It means that if I order it today, I want it yesterday. That is how it works in goods production and business in general. Poor service also hurts our global competitiveness and costs us hundreds of thousands of jobs. It can even cause corporations and SMEs to close their doors. It has also resulted in the rural exodus, which truly saddens me.

Having said that, a large part of the supply chain of our industrial, agricultural and forestry economy relies on a transportation system that must be effective and efficient if these economic sectors are to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

That is why shippers need measures that will reassure clients that this country's carriers will deliver on rates, fulfill their contracts and have the infrastructure needed for smooth operations.

In closing, I would say that the bill clearly does not go far enough. The government seems to believe that good faith will carry negotiations. However, I would like to point out that experience has shown that, when big business holds the upper hand, the small entrepreneur must be vigilant. That is not the right approach in some economic sectors.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for sharing his passion. He noted in his speech that there was a particular situation in his riding. He mentioned that some railway segments belong to American companies. We talked about that.

I think it is important for my colleague to say how this bill will affect the situation in his riding, how it is good for his riding and what could be done to improve the situation further. If my understanding is correct, the railway lines that belong to the United States are causing some problems in the municipality. I would like my colleague to discuss that point.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. The problem is that we are no longer dealing with one carrier, but rather with two or perhaps three. So we are negotiating at several levels. These are small shippers in a remote region.

If, after taking the time to negotiate contracts with the big companies, you then have to go to the American parent company that owns a rail segment to negotiate—because they have no other choice but to negotiate with it as well—and if we have no standardized economic measures to assist these small entrepreneurs, they will once again lag behind the big companies, which negotiate as they see fit. The small entrepreneurs are being left to fend for themselves.

As I previously mentioned, some sectors, such as agriculture and forestry, have been left to their own devices.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent nine years working on the railway as a signal maintenance man. Prior to that, I grew up with my father working on the railway, one of the things that was crucially important and that we saw everywhere we went in our own travels.

I lived in a little town called Plaster Rock, New Brunswick. If I wanted to go to Moncton, I took a train. Today, in northern Ontario, the Ontario Northland Railway is shutting down. These smaller communities, such as the one I grew up in, rely upon that service, and the current government and the previous government have allowed that to slip away. It is not a luxury. In many instances, it is people's sole mode of transportation. We sometimes have to question where the oversight is. Where are the people who should be standing up for these workers?

I know the member for Timmins—James Bay, the member for Sudbury and others from that area have worked hard. Our northern Ontario folks have worked hard to try to keep that railway. However, where is the government on that?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. Unfortunately, the government is not around to protect those regions whose economies are hanging by a thread or, in some instances, by a railway.

A region has been abandoned in the riding of Richmond, next door to my constituency. Before Sherbrooke, Sawyerville was the biggest port for goods in my riding, the biggest freight station in eastern Canada, and it was abandoned as a result of decisions made by governments in the 1940s and 1950s, and even in the 1930s.

Regions are being abandoned, and people have no choice but to come to our offices and ask for help. They say that we have the power, that we can help them and keep their infrastructure. We should invest in that infrastructure in order to create employment. When infrastructure is reliable and viable, it creates employment. And it is viable, since we are talking about agriculture, forestry and manufacturing, industries that are extremely important to the survival of those regions.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments by my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Can my colleague talk about the fact that a lot of rails are being removed?

In Sault Ste. Marie, CAT has worked very hard to get rails and to upgrade the lines.

Considerable importance must be attached to rail freight, but rail transit must benefit from that as well.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because of a lack of investment in this infrastructure, there are sections of track that have been abandoned and can no longer be restored, unless millions of dollars are invested.

We must therefore continue to maintain the tracks we have left, and especially not make the provinces and municipalities, some of which have populations of only 500, bear the burden alone. They cannot carry the economic burden of restoring railway tracks.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join my colleagues in speaking to Bill C-52.

Because I represent a rural region, this issue is very important to me and my constituents. I thank my colleagues who spoke before me and who have done a good job of highlighting these very important aspects.

If the bill is enacted as it now stands, it will require a railway company, on a shipper’s request, to make the shipper an offer to enter into a contract respecting the manner in which the railway company must fulfill its service obligations to the shipper.

Bill C-52 also provides for the creation of an arbitration process to establish the terms of such a contract, if the railway company and the shipper are unable to agree on a fair and equitable agreement after lengthy negotiation.

The bill comes in response to numerous pleas from shippers all over Canada and the hard work and unflagging efforts of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, whom I would also like to congratulate.

After years of discussion, through both the panel of experts and consultations with stakeholders, and after my colleague’s bill was introduced last year, the Conservatives realized they had a duty to present this bill, at last. It is an attempt to respond to the complaints from rail shipping services customers who are being offered poor service by the biggest companies, which have a virtual monopoly over the market.

It is really high time that this government examined the problems in this situation, because the difficulties experienced by shippers everywhere in Canada are quite real and have a direct impact on the economy, particularly in rural regions.

In Canada, as several of my colleagues have said already, over 70% of freight is shipped by rail. However, a study of rail shipping services shows that 80% of shippers are dissatisfied with the services they receive. This is probably because 80% of the commitments the big companies made to them were not honoured. Clearly there is a problem and it is time for the government to take action.

Here we have the rough outline of a bill; there is still much to be done.

At present, the situation is hard on the shippers. Rail freight customers have trouble obtaining fair and reliable service. Some customers cannot even obtain contracts with a major railway. Some with contracts have other difficulties, such as serious delays, the insufficient number of railcars available to transport all the goods their industry requires, or the countless interruptions in service that decrease their profits and may eventually result in lost jobs.

The fact that shippers often do not have a choice of carrier is also a serious problem. They have access to CN or CP, but not always to both. Those who have a choice between the two companies still have to pay too much, especially small businesses in rural ridings. Such small businesses often are just getting by and then have to pay these fees. That makes it very hard for them.

The situation I have described affects many sectors of the economy, including natural resources, agriculture and forestry. To a large extent, these industries produce goods for export, but they are at a great disadvantage because of the poor quality of the rail services they depend on.

The cost of services, the major gaps in the rail network and the way the system operates are all detrimental to Canada's overall competitive position on the world's markets, in addition to causing job losses and costing our economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

The most seriously affected industries are found mainly in the rural areas of the Canadian west, and in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario. It is a widespread problem and will affect thousands of people across the country. They need the government to act quickly and they need legislation that goes further than Bill C-52 does currently.

I think of my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where a number of large businesses employ thousands of people all over the area. Although they are located far from the major urban centres, they are served by rail lines—for freight, at least.

I think of the many small and medium-sized businesses all across my riding, and some large firms as well, such as Alcoa in Deschambault-Grondines, Ciment Québec in Saint-Basile or Graymont in Saint-Marc-des-Carrières.

At one time, the Bowater plant in Donnacona was served by a rail freight line. Now, unfortunately, the business has shut down. It has declared bankruptcy and limited the former workers' access to pensions. That is another matter we can debate at another time, I hope.

As I said, these businesses represent a large part of my riding's economic activity. They need good-quality, reliable rail services in order to plan their freight shipments, to be efficient, to grow and to contribute to economic growth and development in the region.

I also think about the farmers who depend on railways to ship their produce all across the country. I think about the forestry industry. which has been such an important part of the economy throughout the region, particularly in Saint-Raymond de Portneuf, Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval, Lac Beauport and Stoneham-et-Tewkesbury. This industry has been neglected by the government and, on top of that, suffers from the problems affecting the railway network.

As I mentioned, Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction. It has some good elements in it. This is why I will be supporting it at second reading, so it will be sent to committee where it can be considered and improved.

Among other things, some consideration must be given to the safeguards that Bill C-52 sets out. These safeguards will not cover existing contracts between shippers and railways, which will leave many clients with no recourse. A few shippers will be able to benefit from certain safeguards when they negotiate their new contracts, but all the others that have already signed contracts with the big companies will have to endure the unfair treatment that already exists. They will have very few options, just the very limited ones available now.

In addition, the arbitration process set out in Bill C-52 must also be given further consideration. The process is very limited and is likely to be prohibitively expensive for the shippers. They will not necessarily be able to go all the way to the end of the process and defend themselves against big corporations, which often have many more resources. This aspect of the bill must therefore be re-examined.

Another troubling element is the fact that Bill C-52 totally ignores the issue of the high rates that shippers are charged by transportation companies. This has been one of the most important demands by shippers for years now. As I mentioned, they have to deal with a virtual monopoly, and sometimes even with a real monopoly because they have no options, aside from one of the two main railway companies in their area. Small shippers and small companies that need railway services have practically no bargaining power. They have to accept the rates they are charged without being able to fight back against the railways. This issue has been ignored by this government for many years now. It is still ignored in the bill that is before us today at second reading. I hope the Conservatives will support the amendments that the NDP will be putting forward, because it is high time that action was taken.

Canada’s trade deficit is increasing. If I am not mistaken, it was $2 billion in November. We are losing ground on international markets, but the Conservatives continue to drag their feet when it comes to rail transportation. We need to go beyond Bill C-52. We need to protect our shippers, and we must also provide our country with a genuine nation-wide strategy for rail transportation, both for passenger and for freight transportation.

In my riding, only one municipality has rail service: the municipality of Rivière-à-Pierre. It is located in the northwestern corner of the riding, on the rail line that goes to Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. These trains provide services primarily to hunters who go out into the wild and enjoy nature up there. There are very few passengers. The government must take action.

Let us start with Bill C-52, but let us go further and develop a real strategy for the railways.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

She mentioned that it is sometimes difficult to provide adequate service to small communities. She mentioned Saint-Basile. People often confuse the names because there is municipality called Saint-Basile-le-Grand in my riding. It is important to note the name of the municipality. Otherwise one would be talking about her region, the Quebec City region.

A similar situation exists in ridings like mine and hers, where we are close to a large city, but not really part of it. We try to co-operate with CN and act as an intermediary to help these businesses. In my experience, as I said in my speech on this bill, it can be difficult to work with CN or CP. These companies are sometimes indifferent, since they have their monopoly, and they can be a bit stubborn. We are quite willing to work with them to improve the lives of the people affected by rail services.

I wonder if she could tell us a bit about her own experience and if she has found the same thing. Or perhaps she could use this opportunity to remind the House why it is important to encourage CN to have agreements like the ones proposed in this bill.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his anecdote about Saint-Basile. I agree that this can cause problems. However, to give hon. members a better idea of where to find Saint-Basile, it is located in Portneuf, not in Quebec City. Perhaps that will help a little the next time.

It is of the utmost importance that we continue to try to work with CN and CP to improve rail service across the country. I cannot stress this enough. In my speech, I mentioned that there are several large companies in my riding that depend on the rail system in the region to ship and receive the materials they need for production.

I am thinking about Alcoa, among others. The manufacturing of aluminum requires the transportation of a huge amount of raw and other materials. Every shipment that arrives late or not at all harms our companies' productivity and Canada's competitiveness on world markets.

This problem must be resolved quickly so that our rural communities, such as those in my riding and in the ridings of many of my colleagues from all parties, can continue to grow, develop and retain jobs. These jobs are extremely important for our rural regions.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my dear colleague on her speech and on the work she does to represent the people of her riding. I know that she is very active and that she does excellent work.

In my riding, a little investment in the rail system is vital because I represent a rural riding. I find it upsetting that people cannot get into town. This would be a wonderful solution to ensure affordable and environmentally-friendly public transportation.

I am wondering whether the situation is somewhat similar in my colleague's riding.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and would like to return the compliment. I know that he works hard in his riding and it is very much appreciated by his constituents.

Indeed, investment in passenger transportation in rural regions is one aspect of this issue that is unfortunately too often ignored and that should be put at the forefront. As for access to public transportation, my region is comparable to Pontiac. The only public transportation that exists is the bus. The people in this region set it up themselves. They arranged for access to these services, which they did not have before.

There used to be passenger rail service, but that was many years ago. The train goes to one community, which is at least an hour from Quebec City by car. The train is the only way to get to Saguenay. We really need a plan so we can ensure that our rural regions will have access to the same public transportation services available in other areas of the country.

It is similar to the commuter train principle in Montreal. It could be developed in the regions. This would benefit everyone and would revitalize our rural communities, where this is desperately needed. We need to provide this access to the major urban centres. It is environmentally friendly and will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Families will be able to move back to the regions, communities will be rejuvenated and there will be economic growth and development. This measure would benefit the ridings of Pontiac, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and others across the country.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about a bill to improve the rail transportation system.

On this beautiful snowy day, we are getting back to rail transportation. It is probably the means of transportation that is least affected by the bad weather we are having today.

As I said, I am pleased to speak today about a bill to improve our rail transportation system. I will be clear from the outset: we will support this bill in order to send it to committee.

We will also support it because the majority of shippers are mostly or partially satisfied with it. We are going to respect their position and support this bill.

There is something that sets us apart from the other parties recognized in this House: we listen carefully to the opinions and needs of Canadians and our country's businesses.

We consult them because we want to know what their needs are. That way, we can develop good public policies. We are not jamming measures down the throats of Canadians and businesses. At times, the party in power takes steps and imposes measures that no one wants.

However, my colleagues and I strongly believe that this bill must be amended since it does not fully meet its objective. The best that can be said for this bill is that it is only a half measure.

Many of the demands of shippers were not included in the bill. What is more, the wording is very ambiguous. Some provisions must be examined more thoroughly in committee because they could potentially create loopholes.

The scope of Bill C-52 is also limited since it will cover only new agreements and, unfortunately, will not apply to existing agreements. That is a bit ridiculous. The bill is supposed to help shippers but, in reality, it applies to only a small number of them. Those who already have an agreement will be left to fend for themselves and will be at the mercy of the large CP and CN rail companies.

Shippers will have to make do with low quality services until their contract ends.

How can the Minister of Transport believe that this is a good bill that meets the needs of all shippers if it targets only a small fraction of existing agreements?

Certain shippers wanted to tackle the issue of tariffs during the legislative process, but the Conservatives made it clear that they would not address that issue until the next legislative review of the Canada Transportation Act in 2014-15.

In most regions of the country, shippers have no other choice than to use CN and CP. Canada's rail transportation market is basically a quasi-monopoly. Having the dominant position in the market allows the rail companies to charge often exorbitant prices, and shippers are put in a position where they have no choice but to accept the price charged by the rail company. That is what happens when this type of market is not regulated enough.

The goal in committee will be to seek amendments that prevent potential abuse of power by requiring service level agreements between shippers and rail companies.

We also need to establish dispute resolution processes. This bill offers only a limited arbitration process. It is available only for shippers who are in the midst of negotiating new contracts. It will not apply to existing agreements.

Instead of offering fast, reliable dispute resolution for all shippers, as we are asking for, the bill is limited to a small group of shippers. The proposed arbitration process may be too costly for many shippers. The burden of proof may be unfair if they have to prove that they are in need of services from the railway.

We would also like to see tougher penalties included in the agreements in relation to service levels, in order to compensate shippers for service disruptions, damage and loss of productivity.

As it stands now, the bill provides for penalties of up to $100,000, which would be paid to the federal government rather than to shippers. Since shippers must cover their losses, this would obviously impact the price they charge consumers. We lose on two fronts, because it hurts consumer prices, and it makes Canadian businesses less competitive and less productive in international markets. Considering that CN made about $2.7 billion in profit in 2012, penalties need to be higher to really act as a deterrent.

Let us be very clear: 80% of rail freight customers are currently unhappy with the rail service. They are victims of the near monopoly held by railway companies.

That near monopoly impacts sectors like agriculture, mining, forestry and auto manufacturing. Missing rail cars and other disruptive events result in rotting crops, service disruptions and delays. There is no compensation for all the forest, mining and manufacturing products that are wasted this way, many of which are actually intended for export.

A number of factors disrupt economic activity in these sectors and impede Canada's economic prosperity. These resources and products are largely intended for export. Unfortunately for these industries, those who cause disruptions pay no compensation.

I will continue...

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order.

I have to interrupt the hon. member, as we must now proceed to statements by members.

After question period, the hon. member will have three minutes left for his remarks.

Black History Month

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Black History Month in Don Valley West and Toronto.

The African-Canadian community dates back to the underground railway from 1840 to 1860. True to our history of diversity and inclusivity, Canada was the destination to freedom.

I especially want to recognize a friend and leader within the African-Canadian community, the late Lincoln Alexander. Mr. Alexander was an incredible Torontonian, Ontarian and Canadian. Community service and leadership were fundamental and core themes in his life. In 1968, he became the first African-Canadian member of Parliament and Conservative, serving for over 15 years. He later became the first African-Canadian Lieutenant Governor, and focused on education, racism and youth issues in Ontario. His remarkable life and tireless dedication serve to inspire future generations.

I look forward to participating in events throughout my riding of Don Valley West to commemorate Black History Month.

Human Rights

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with a delegation of the Canadian's Christian community and representatives of the Canadian Tibetan and Chinese Uyghur communities, along with officials from the Federation for a Democratic China. This diverse delegation shared one major concern, the Conservative government's new-found relationship with China.

Canadians were not only concerned when the Prime Minister gave the go-ahead for the Chinese state-owned company, CNOOC, basically a corporate extension of the Chinese Communist Party, to purchase Canadian oil and gas giant Nexen, but they were equally concerned about the secretive Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement.

As the NDP's critic for human rights, I am troubled by the human rights record of China but also of CNOOC itself. CNOOC has been implicated in a number of very concerning human rights violations of Tibetans and Uyghur, of supporting torture and imprisonment of Falun Gong members, as well as directly abusing workers in Burma.

Just how repressive must a regime be before the government will refuse to do business with it?

Elementary Student Petition

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before the House today to share a rather touching story of the marked maturity of young students in my riding.

In November, I received a package containing a petition from Ms. Makarewicz's grade 6 class from Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Elementary School in Grimsby. This class had been focused on social justice issues, specifically the story of Malala, the brave Pakistani girl who was brutally attacked for speaking out for young girls' rights to a proper education.

The students were truly moved by her story and were shocked that 32 million girls worldwide are not in school today. They created and circulated a petition to staff and students in the school, bringing attention to Malala's story and the fundamental right to education for girls all around the world. Although this petition does not meet the guidelines for a petition to be certified, their efforts should still be recognized.

With children like those in Ms. Makarewicz's class being the future leaders of Canada, I am confident that our country's future is secure.