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...