Debates of Feb. 8th, 2013

The House resumed 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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant has three minutes left.

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

Mr. Speaker, before being interrupted by question period, I was talking about elements that destabilize economic activity in certain industries.

Unfortunately for the industries, they are not compensated by the parties responsible for these disturbances. We are talking here about hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Seventy per cent of our goods are shipped by rail. Considering the $2 billion trade deficit and fierce international competition, we cannot afford to opt for the status quo or for a half measure like the one proposed in Bill C-52. This situation, unfortunately, gives a trade advantage to our competitors around the world. They have the capacity to deliver their goods more rapidly and more punctually, despite the fact that our Canadian products often have a shorter distance to cover.

Unfortunately, for too long now, the government has not wanted to act. The Conservatives have been waiting since 2007 to introduce this bill, and when we take a look at their inaction and the cutbacks they have made over the past few years, we may conclude that they do not understand how important our railway system is.

On our side of the House, through the bill introduced by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, we have conveyed the shippers’ demands in an attempt to restore the balance in their relationship with the railways. Canada needs a national transportation strategy.

Greater use of rail transportation would have a positive impact on the quality of our environment and would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Unfortunately, when shippers cannot obtain services from our only two rail service providers, they will rely even more heavily on trucking, which will have a negative effect on our economic activity from an environmental point of view. We sense a lack of commitment by the Conservatives to our railway network, as evidenced by the lack of investment in railway infrastructures.

We must therefore restore the balance between the railway companies and shippers. Our position is a simple one: we are on the side of businesses and exporters, and we are determined that they should receive the railway services they deserve and that they need. As usual, this government is on the side of big businesses that have a near-monopoly and is not interested in protecting SMEs through a bill that would have given them a leg up in international markets. If the government ultimately gives in, it will be attributable primarily to co-operation among the various industrial associations that banded together to advocate for legislative changes to the Canada Transportation Act.

Therefore, I would ask the government to work with us when the bill is being considered in committee. The competitiveness of our companies and our SMEs depends on an efficient rail transportation system. Canada’s economic vitality also depends on it. Our businesses need good services in order to make investments and create jobs. We will therefore support this bill. We ask that the government co-operate with opposition MPs to improve the bill and contribute to Canada’s solid economic growth.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for his speech. He showed empathy for the groups who are faced with these difficulties and will feel the impact of the bill tabled in this House.

We will support the bill, despite its serious flaws. For example, I am very concerned to note that, in the arbitration process, the burden of proof will rest solely on the clients and not on railway companies.

Does my colleague share my deep concerns regarding the impact of that approach?

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

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

Indeed, it is one of our concerns on this side of the House. Small businesses are penalized, because they have to prove that they were adversely affected by the lack of service. That provision needs to be reviewed in committee and improved. My colleague is absolutely right.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the all-encompassing scope of my colleague's speech. Could he expand more on his remarks about the environmental impact associated with road transportation, as compared to rail transportation?

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

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

Indeed, rail transportation has a much smaller impact on the environment than trucking.

Someone said that rail freight transportation was not adapted to the reality of remote places in Canada. Since they are often not adequately served by railways, all too often they have to rely on trucking as an alternative. But using that method of transport has a much greater environmental cost.

Rail and train services offer more benefits to businesses and leave a smaller carbon footprint.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have 10 minutes to talk to the House about my party's viewpoints and my own on Bill C-52, which I have here in my hands. This government bill amends the Canada Transportation Act.

I would like to preface my remarks with a comment on the atmosphere here this morning. We are talking about and debating a government bill, but none of the MPs who have agreed to debate this bill in the House belong to the governing party. There are three possible reasons for that, reasons that may be unknown to members of the public, who I hope are listening on CPAC.

It may be a strategic move to put a lot of pressure on the opposition members, forcing them to work hard in the hope that they will exhaust their resources. But I have news for the government: we have many very young MPs who can work very hard for long hours. If that is its tactic, perhaps it should think of a new one.

If that is not the case, then it might be something that worries me a little more: contempt for the parties affected by its own bill, perhaps even contempt for the work of parliamentarians. We belong to a Parliament. When we are here on the Hill, we are paid very well to do our jobs as parliamentarians.

The government introduced a bill of major importance to the Canadian economy, but its members could not even be bothered to stand up in the House to explain their government's position. That reminds me of the time a few years ago during an interview while Parliament was prorogued when the current Prime Minister—only for another two years—came right out and said that he thought shutting down Parliament would be better for the economy. He was quite serious when he said that.

After considering all the possibilities, we think we have the answer. We see this as a very clear demonstration of the utter contempt this government has for our parliamentary duties. All modern legislation has regulations. Many members of the current government seem to live in a fantasy world of libertarianism. We sometimes wonder if it should not be called the conservative libertarian party of Canada, whose answer to everything would be the invisible hand of the market.

In good legislation, there is no place for that kind of fantasy. Furthermore, I challenge any one of my colleagues across the floor to name a single piece of legislation, from anywhere in the world, that has followed that logic through to its conclusion and has been beneficial for the people. It simply does not exist.

Modern legislation needs to strike a balance among people—the buyer and seller, those who need a service and those who provide that service.

There are near monopolies or duopolies, as in the case of credit cards and rail freight transportation. There are just a few huge companies that provide a service to thousands of users. It is impossible to think that, within such a completely unbalanced framework, the invisible hand of the market can balance everything. That is impossible.

That is why it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure balance and some degree of fairness, and to promote commerce not just for a small number of huge companies, but for all Canadian companies.

Let us come back to the bill before us today, Bill C-52.

I would like to point out that my party and I will be supporting Bill C-52, despite its many weaknesses. We will do so mostly to address the needs of this country's rural areas. But this bill is merely half a step, and not quite in the right direction.

However, out of respect for people in rural areas, who really need to have their processed goods and raw materials shipped efficiently, even a small, flawed, sideways, ill-conceived step is better than nothing. Therefore, we will be supporting this bill.

I was saying earlier that we are dealing with a duopoly that has created a ridiculous situation: 70% of our primary processed materials, our natural resources, are shipped by rail by two companies. Eighty per cent of shippers are dissatisfied. It is impossible that 80% of the country's entrepreneurs have suddenly caught the “complaints” bug for no reason. We have to think of the consequences of this situation.

At present, some shippers are unable to enter into reliable and clear agreements that would allow them to provide services themselves to other companies, even internationally, with reliable transportation.

Shippers that have an agreement regularly have to deal with delays that are so long they result in catastrophic scenarios where assembly lines in Canada are slowed down. I will say it again because it is such a big problem: time and again assembly lines are slowed down. It is not because people are not qualified or are not willing to work. It is because they are waiting for parts that have been delayed by an inadequate rail transportation system. This represents tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in lost efficiency.

For other shippers, it is a question of the lack of availability. For example, a certain tonnage of materials could be shipped to China, but shippers are unable to sell their products. It is not for lack of supply or because they cannot meet demand. It is because the link between Fermont and China is slowed down by poor rail service. How do you put a price tag on such losses in a global economy?

I would like to point out a fairly disturbing aspect of the Conservative's approach to the economy. They spend a lot of time botching free trade agreements. They have been signing agreements with many countries as quickly as possible, even if the agreement is flawed and provides for much less than what Canada could require. The Conservatives are focusing on quantity.

Meanwhile, they are not making the necessary efforts to ensure that Canadian companies remain competitive. Some ways of achieving this would be through decent transportation, a credit card system that does not charge exorbitant fees, and a research and development program. Although our Canadian entrepreneurs have a great deal of expertise, we must make their job easier so that they are able to be competitive.

The government has not managed to do that, but it is rushing to open markets left and right by signing agreements that are all too often flawed.

To summarize, the Conservatives do not care about keeping companies competitive. We should not be surprised to see an increase in our trade deficit, which recently reached $2 billion.

The bill is flawed and was introduced only because one of our colleagues, who introduced a bill on the protection of railway customers, exerted a lot of pressure. Her bill was clearly worded and truly designed to help those experiencing this problem.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill is weak, particularly when it comes to the arbitration process, because it puts the burden of proof solely on shippers.

One of the clauses of the bill says that both parties must consent to arbitration. As a result, if a large company says that it does not want arbitration, the case will end up in court. My colleague from Côte-Nord can attest to this. An SME could, once again, end up in court with a mega-corporation. We know how these types of situations turn out.

We will support this bill, but we hope that it will be improved by the standing committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his interest in rail transportation. I imagine that this is an important issue in his riding as well. He asked a question about arbitration, and he only had the time to touch on it briefly at the end of his speech.

I would like him to talk about the disadvantages small businesses experience when dealing with a giant like the rail company. I would like him to explain in greater detail why small companies are at a disadvantage in such a situation.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which will allow me to be a bit more specific.

There are two sides to the problem. The cost of the arbitration process will be paid by both parties. I repeat that in this country there is a duopoly. Two massive companies regularly face off in arbitration with medium-sized companies and sometimes even small companies with far fewer resources, but the cost is the same.

I would like to read out a provision that really concerns me:

No party to a confidential contract is entitled to submit a matter governed by the contract to the Agency for final offer arbitration under section 161, without the consent of all the parties to the contract.

So people have a contract and go to arbitration. What happens if the big company says no? They will end up in court and the costs will be insane.

If a massive company like CN does not want a potentially damaging issue to move forward, we know what will happen: it will drag out for years or decades, because the company is strong enough to drag things out. In the meantime, SMEs will have to wait for fair service.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his passionate speech. I can tell he is committed to rising in the House to defend the interests of the people in his region, in his riding. We can see it in his everyday work.

Unfortunately, my colleague did not have enough time to say everything he wanted to say about this bill. I would like to give him the chance to continue and perhaps to conclude with a thought of his own. Unfortunately, in the House we do not always have enough time to share our ideas, our opinions and those our of constituents.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact there is one other aspect that is just as important as the others that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, and that is the fact that, generally speaking, rail services are underdeveloped in this country.

We missed an historic opportunity during the 2008-09 post-recession recovery planning phase. For example, of the billions of dollars spent by developed nations to recover from the 2008 recession, South Korea put a large percentage into rail networks. Why? I believe it was trying to achieve two things. First, rail transportation is one of the sectors that creates the most jobs. Second, when the IMF eventually evaluates whether the country's economy is healthy or not, railways are something tangible. The money invested in them did not disappear; it was spent on goods that are part of the country's inventory.

South Korea did not squander its resources on programs that do not always produce results in the long run. It invested in transportation. Now that the crisis is coming to an end, South Korea has a high-performance network to offer its people and businesses. Did the Conservative government have even an ounce of the wisdom the Koreans did? Absolutely not.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech on rail transportation in Canada, I will focus on the need to support rail services. The aim is to reduce road transportation and to support environmental and social objectives.

As is my wont, I will tie this speech to personal experience by focusing on the industrial boom that is currently occurring in my riding. For those Canadians and parliamentarians who keep up with current events, the riding of Manicouagan is presently undergoing a mining boom and unprecedented industrial development.

The remainder of my remarks will focus on iron mining and hydroelectric projects and the announcements that have been made regarding them.

Despite the announcements by various governments, freight transportation occurs mostly over land. Freight to major work sites is primarily shipped by road trains. There are projects under way all along highway 138, between Quebec City and Sept-Îles, and even as far as Natashquan, which is where the highway ends. A little over 1,000 km separates Quebec City and Natashquan. It is possible to get there via Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Highway 138 also goes to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Freight can therefore be transhipped and transported on highway 138 via Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Highway 138 is currently in a terrible state of disrepair. This is not because of a lack of investment in upgrading and maintenance. It is the result of heavy vehicle traffic. I travel regularly from Ottawa to Sept-Îles. It is a 14-hour drive. I can tell you that it is not safe to drive along some stretches of highway 138.

Despite everything that has been done, new repairs and upgrades are required every year. Road train traffic undermines all these efforts. The weather conditions also affect the maintenance of highway 138. It is quite dangerous to drive on some stretches of highway 138. Drivers who travel on highway 138 often have to deal with road trains and trying weather conditions. The media often report accidents involving road trains on highway 138. I am not saying that it is the norm and that accidents occur every week, but they happen enough to warrant me mentioning them today.

Highway 138 presents a problem in terms of both greenhouse gas emissions and public safety. These are concerns that warrant public attention.

In my speech, I will mention the three major rail transportation companies. There are rail transportation companies in my riding, but they are private companies.

The company Québec Cartier Mining, which is located in Port Cartier, provides rail transportation. Moreover, QNSL, Quebec North Shore and Labrador, which is now the property of Rio Tinto—that is what I was told yesterday when I did my research—also provides rail transportation. Finally, there is Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc. It specializes in transporting passengers traveling as far as Schefferville. The company also transports iron ore. That is what I was told when I did my research.

Québec Cartier Mining ships freight from Port Cartier to Fermont. Quebec North Shore and Labrador, Rio Tinto, transports to Wabush. Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc, which is the third biggest passenger carrier after CN and CP—I was also told his—transports passengers to Schefferville, but has to borrow a stretch of track owned by QNSL, which is Rio Tinto Alcan.

Establishing a rail transportation network that connects Sept-Îles and Baie-Comeau is a priority, especially given the intermodal maritime–rail facilities that are located in these major cities in my riding. Maritime and rail transportation connecting these communities would significantly reduce trucking between these two points, thereby minimizing the number of accidents that result from poor road conditions and interaction between commercial and non-commercial vehicles.

Based on my experience, which is shared by industry specialists, it is important to combine different modes of transportation in my riding, including the blue highway—sea transportation—, and transport by truck or rail. This will make for an effective transportation network and not put undue pressure on the road network, which is currently the case.

Announcements were made regarding the La Romaine project, for which some of the construction material will be transported by sea. However, no concrete results have been seen yet in Havre-Saint-Pierre and the project is not yet underway. Most freight is still shipped by road.

Trucking also includes the transportation of prefabricated homes and modular units. It can be a real problem to pass a trailer transporting a modular or prefabricated home when driving on highway 138 for 7, 10 or 14 hours, if going to Natashquan.

All these factors create a need for federal authorities to invest in the development of the railway system, and particularly to ensure that these three private players do not have a monopoly. The fact is that, in the end, because they are private players, competing companies simply cannot use the tracks, unless they do like Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc., which must pay $50,000 per trip to use QNS&L's tracks.

Right now, competition on tracks that were built by a corporate entity is not tolerated. That is why there is a need for the government to invest and ensure that all users can benefit from the railways and infrastructures.

Industrial development in Manicouagan and the increase in international investments in the mining sector justify a significant involvement in railways by the state, to give a national dimension to infrastructures, which would then be made available to every player in the industry.

Given the many announcements of foreign investments, if all foreign partners who show up on the north shore and in Manicouagan decide to build their own rail lines, they will multiply. In my view, and in the view of many stakeholders, it would be more effective to share already existing and functional tracks and infrastructures, given their lifespan.

Now, we have to wonder whether the development of the trucking industry as the only carrier is really not the result of an oil and trucking lobby. This is another issue that was brought to my attention, since I was told that, not to long ago, Quebec had a good railway system and that it was dismantled in the 1990s. That said, I am not an expert on this issue.

I humbly submit these views to the House.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Drummond, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague for his very good speech.

As he pointed out, railroads are very important in addressing climate change and environmental issues. Rail service was key in building Canada, but it has now fallen by the wayside.

The Conservative government has neglected our infrastructure. It has not done enough to subsidize, fund and promote public transit, which includes rail as an important pillar.

Could my colleague explain the importance of rail for the environment and tell us how the government could promote rail transportation much better by investing in our infrastructure, so we can benefit from a better means of transportation?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

What we are observing is a blind delegation of the parameters for building and establishing these private rail systems. That is what we are seeing at present in my own riding.

I referred to Tshiuetin Rail Transportation, which carries people in partnership with the Innu and Naskapi. That is noteworthy nevertheless. I mention it today as an excellent initiative, but it is in the private sector. So this problem exists.

The environmental impact that road transport involves or can have is obvious. You should see the colour of my car after I have travelled on highway 138 alongside extended tractor-trailers for the entire trip. That is a simple demonstration that there are constant greenhouse gas emissions. There are emissions that exceed the established standards. This is quite simply a real problem.

The federal authorities need to have the genuine will now to invest in these alternative measures and in creating a rail network. Perhaps this is not as applicable for the 700 km between Quebec City and Sept-Îles, but there are sections of highway 138 that could be improved if heavy equipment were transported by rail.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given a very good description of the situation in his region in terms of how to use all the networks for transporting and shipping goods in a remote region. I would like him to speak a little more about what would be particularly acceptable, as a mode of transport, especially in terms of the environment and the economic situation and life in his region.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

It is important to be consistent. For instance, it was announced that the Route Bleue, which goes through my region, would be maximized. We are still waiting for that to happen. We are waiting to see this wishful thinking—which was announced to placate the population—put into action. The same thing happened with the announcements made regarding the Romaine project.

I would point out to my colleagues that the Route Bleue and the St. Lawrence River are being underutilized at this time for heavy equipment transport. This would take considerable weight off of highway 138, which is already in very bad shape. Furthermore, considering the mileage on my 2012 vehicle, the rocks that are all over the road and the state of my windshield after driving on that road for a few years, I would say that using the St. Lawrence more to transport heavy equipment would be a much better idea.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration).

I will say right away that we will support this bill at second reading, even though it is flawed.

Some 80% of rail freight service customers, that is to say shippers, are not satisfied with those services. They asked the government to take action and to introduce legislation compelling CN and CP to enter into service agreements with them.

As I mentioned, this bill is a first step, but it is not a panacea, on the contrary. Shippers are having trouble getting fair and reliable rail freight services. Some of them cannot even sign contracts with major railway companies, which experience significant delays or do not have enough cars at their disposal.

The Conservatives finally introduced this bill to address some of those problems after the NDP critic tabled her bill introducing the rail customer protection act last spring.

The NDP transport critic did a very good job on railways. She is also working very hard on public transit and has suggested that we have a national public transit strategy. The Conservatives should entertain that strategy, but they are unfortunately still turning a deaf ear. It would be good if they listened to all these good ideas on public transit.

As I mentioned earlier in asking my honourable colleague from Manicouagan a question, the railway is Canada's raison d'être. It is a historic and essential factor for Canada. The level of service has been declining for some time now. The government has stopped investing in infrastructure, and legislation does not have enough teeth to force businesses to invest in that infrastructure.

Consequently, we are using the roads and trucking far too much, when we could be using the railway. The benefit of doing so would be considerable, not only for our roads, which are being damaged, but also for the environment because the railway is a very environmentally friendly mode of transportation.

Bill C-52 is a first step in the right direction, but it is far from perfect, since major demands by shippers have gone unheeded. Its ambiguous wording, for example, creates potential loopholes. The NDP will seek amendments at the committee review stage to prevent any abuses of market power by requiring that service agreements be reached and putting in place conflict resolution processes.

Rail freight services are currently of poor quality, and this is costly for the Canadian economy. In fact, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Many industries in Canada have to deal with rotten crops, work stoppages at plants and in mines and missing freight on a daily basis. Poor rail services hurt Canadian shippers and undermine our global competitiveness, in addition to costing jobs.

We should rely much more on the railway, but in order to rely on it, it has to be efficient and first-class, so that businesses and SMEs use it more and more. In my region of greater Drummondville, the railway is an important industrial element, but it is not used as much as it could be. If we had a railway that was more efficient, more available and more reliable, and on which we could rely, I am sure that businesses in my region would use it more. This would be a win-win situation on all levels: our competitiveness, our economy and our environment.

The Conservatives have not provided enough money for our infrastructures. Because of this, we now have a huge quality deficit, and one example of it is the poor condition of our network of railway tracks.

In addition, the Conservatives’ bill is very weak in that its safeguards do not cover existing contracts between shippers and railway companies, and it provides only a limited arbitration process in cases where negotiations on a new contract break down. Furthermore, we need to have a more global vision, as I mentioned earlier.

Railway transportation is the backbone of Canada’s economy, as 70% of our goods are shipped by rail. It is therefore essential that railway services be advantageous both for shippers and for our railway companies. The high cost of railway services also has a negative impact on Canadian shippers. Bill C-52 explicitly excludes the issue of rates, ignoring the demands of certain shippers’ associations.

We should not forget Canada’s trade deficit, which continues to escalate. According to Statistics Canada, our trade deficit reached $2 billion in November 2012. This is clear evidence of the Conservatives’ failure. Not only does the Conservative government have the highest budget deficit in Canada’s history, but in addition, our trade deficit is clear proof of its failure across the board.

The fact that it ignored railway transportation is just more evidence of its economic failure. As I mentioned, 70% of our freight is shipped by rail. We must give much greater consideration to railway infrastructures and take a more global viewpoint. Not only was Canada built by the railway, which has quite a history in Canada, but in addition, the railway is clearly the way of the future. All modern societies are investing in railways. All societies that have a long-term vision are investing in the railway infrastructure.

We have been asking for a long time for a national public transit strategy that would include the railways. Unfortunately, once again, the Conservative government has failed. This is a very serious matter.

I am now going to digress from talking about Bill C-52 to make a brief aside. Recently, the environment commissioner issued his latest report. I would like to thank Mr. Vaughan for all the work he has done. In his latest report, he has done an excellent job for Canada and the environment. In the report, he mentions the annual financial support, in hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly $1 billion in total, that the Conservative government continues giving to coal, oil and natural gas, even though the money could be put toward a national transportation policy. This is very important. We think of public transit, but we should also be thinking about freight transportation. They go hand in hand. We will have to revisit this notion.

Everything is interrelated. Transportation is related to the environment and to our economy. It is all part of the same thing. Unfortunately, as we have shown, the Conservative government has the largest budget deficit in Canada’s history, as well as a trade deficit that reached $2 billion last November, according to Statistics Canada. In addition, there has been a lack of investment in infrastructures. I would like to add that 80% of shippers are unhappy with the services provided by our railway system.

This is clear evidence that the Conservatives have failed. The NDP must absolutely take their place so that we can implement a national transportation strategy. This will help the economy, the environment and transportation overall.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many farmers in my region, in the towns of Saint-Clet and Saint-Polycarpe. These people would like to use the railway to ship their goods, if only the rates were reasonable.

Members may not know this, but two rail lines, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, run through Vaudreuil-Soulanges. We are a hub for the country and the movement of goods.

I can say that farmers were disappointed with what the government did not do, with its lack of action to improve rail fees.

Could the member talk about the challenges facing farmers these days, when the world is facing economic difficulties?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges for his very relevant question.

As I mentioned in my speech, that aspect is missing from the bill. It is another example of how the Conservatives failed with this bill. We will support it, but unfortunately, certain aspects of it need to be improved, including fees. That is problematic.

If we want to encourage the use of the railways and if we want farmers in a given region to be able to use them, fees needs to be affordable and accessible. If fees are made more affordable and if heavy trucks are pulled off our roads, we will improve our roads, our economy and our environment.

Railways are the way of the future. I believe that Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not have the courage to finish the job concerning fees.

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

Mr. Speaker, rail transport is not the only file on which the Conservatives have been dragging their feet. They implemented new railway safety measures, made cuts to VIA Rail Canada and prevented the introduction of high-speed rail in Canada. The Conservatives simply do not give Canada's rail network the attention it deserves.

When you stop and think about it, this network is very important, especially for our rural areas, and northern Ontario. In places like Hornepayne, North Bay and even Kapuskasing, this issue is very important regarding both freight and passenger service.

Can my colleague tell us a little more about the benefits for manufacturers, and indicate whether more passenger trains and more freight trains would in any way benefit people travelling by car?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this very relevant question. She explained the situation very well in her preamble.

And that is why I would like to come back to the national transportation strategy proposed by my hon. colleague, our transport critic, in her bill.

I hope the Conservatives will have a look at it, because what we really need is a comprehensive vision—one that involves investing in infrastructure and investing in our economy, especially our regional economies. This vision involves protecting the environment and protecting our roads, which would be better for everyone if they were in better shape.

Indeed, my hon. colleague painted a clear picture of the situation. Bill C-52 is merely a drop in the bucket in terms of this problem. A much more comprehensive, more overall vision is needed.

We in the NDP have a vision that includes the economy, the environment and a national transportation strategy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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