Debates of May 29th, 2013

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that his party is not the only one that represents the workers. There are other parties in the House that believe we represent the workers just as well, if not even potentially even better.

With respect to Bill C-52, we also represent the interests of small businesses. It is the shippers in particular who are most impacted by this, and indirectly the workers too. However, we are talking about large and small businesses that have been anxiously awaiting this measure.

In regard to CN, the member brought up the fact that the Liberals privatized it in 1995. A few years later was when this issue came to light. Does the NDP take the position that it would buy back CN or nationalize a railway?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North missed my point. When a government, be it Liberal or Conservative, takes an ideological position—in this case, the Liberal government taking an ideological position of privatization without really thinking of the consequences of that ideological decision—then we end up having to do repair legislation, as we are doing tonight.

The member says that the Liberals also defend the workers, but all I have heard for the past few months is Liberals defending the rights of middle-class workers. What about the workers who are having difficulty, who are not in the middle class? I have not heard anything from his party about that. I find it very rich that the member for Winnipeg North brings this up and pretends to be the defender of working people in Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration). This topic has been a very important one for my constituents and for people across rural communities and, particularly, western Canada.

Before I go further, I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, who for years has been a real advocate when it comes to fairness in the transportation industry. She has worked very hard on reforming this act, in particular, and bringing the NDP position forward.

The NDP position is fundamentally one of seeking fairness and a fair playing field for those who depend on rail service as part of their work, business and industry and, very important, the communities that depend on fair rail service to ensure their employers and industries are dealt with appropriately.

We in the NDP have made it clear that we support the bill at this point, but we believe it must be strengthened as we go forward. We are not pleased with the delays that the government has allowed and also the kind of cowering we have seen from it, which is not a surprise, to major corporate interests in this field.

As we know, the proposed bill will give rail freight customers or shippers the right to service agreements with rail companies. It also puts in place a Canadian Transportation Agency-led arbitration process for failed negotiations and penalties for those who violate the arbitration results.

Key amendments that the shipping company pushed for and that were championed by the NDP were unfortunately defeated in the committee. Without these rejected amendments, we believe the bill remains a partial success for the shippers and it must be strengthened in the future.

It is important that we indicate to stakeholders and to the government that this is not a done deal. As with anything, but particularly when we talk about this area, the bill needs to be further strengthened.

Bill C-52 partially addresses the fact that rail freight customers, known as shippers, have been suffering from insufficient freight services stemming from the abuse of market power by the large rail companies.

The Conservative government has finally tabled legislation, after years of talking and inaction, to address the fact that many shippers cannot even get a service agreement as rail companies have not been willing to negotiate.

As the bill only covers new service agreements, current agreements and contract violation, which are all a major source of revenue loss for shippers, are not affected by Bill C-52.

Certainly in terms of the stakeholders that have been involved, I would like to read into the record some of the stakeholders who have spoken out in support of the NDP broader position, which is that the act must be strengthened.

I recognize that the wish for this act to be strengthened comes in large part from people who work in the mining industry. As someone representing an area that depends on mining and as someone who is proud to say that I come from and live in a mining town, I recognize that in order to ship the ore and the goods that are needed for the mining industry to both do its job and to export its product, fair rail services are essential.

The Mining Association of Canada, as represented by Pierre Gratton, indicated:

Although MAC appreciates the government's initiative through Bill C-52, it is our view that the bill, unless amended, will not deliver on the government's promise...“to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of the entire rail freight supply chain”.

Coming from western Canada, I share with many of my colleagues from there the understanding and the clear recognition of the importance of agriculture in our region, particularly agriculture when it comes to grain production. I want to read the message that was brought forward by the Grain Growers of Canada, as represented by Richard Phillips. He noted:

I think what we're looking at here is the level of service and timeliness of service to meet our sales commitments. That's what we're really talking about. [...] When Pulse Canada was down in Colombia and we'd just signed a deal there, we were looking forward to increased exports to Colombia, and the Colombians said they weren't sure they'd actually buy anything more from us because they couldn't get reliable enough delivery of product on time.

Clearly there is a concern about our ability to export. These are clearly serious concerns brought forward by our clients when it comes to reliability and timeliness of exports of a fundamental product, which is grain. That is unacceptable. It is a clear indication of why it is absolutely essential that we not see this as a "done deal" as such, but that we understand it is something that needs to go forward. We must continue to listen to stakeholders and seek a truly fair system when it comes to the rail service provided in our country.

As someone who is proud to come from western Canada, I want to read into the record the words of the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, as represented by Ian May. He noted:

Since the government committed to the legislation, we've heard that service has improved. I can tell you that it hasn't. I can tell you that as recently as two weeks ago we had mills just about shut down because they couldn't get boxcars in western Canada, and not just one. Whether that's coincidental with a broader understanding of Bill C-52 and perhaps the fact that it is balanced versus a shipper bill that would have levelled the playing field—and that's our language—I don't know.

The Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, a very inclusive coalition and one that has a great deal of clout in western Canada, is clearly stating that the bill does not go far enough, that there are serious problems in the kind of rail service that is provided and that they are getting a raw deal. That concerns me a great deal. In the last few years, and certainly since I have had the honour of being a member of Parliament for northern Manitoba, it is clear to me, day by day, the way in which people in my part of the country are getting a raw deal from the government.

I want to indicate the cutbacks to Via Rail, for example, have directly impacted the people of northern Manitoba and will continue to impact as tourism picks up in the summer. The people who are affected are those who live on the Bayline and in Churchill, who depend on reliable, quality rail service provided by Via Rail.

I also want to indicate the lack of imagination and commitment to another transportation hub, which is the Port of Churchill. It is truly a gateway to Arctic trade and to opportunity, not just for Manitoba but for all of Canada, yet the government has squandered opportunities to truly make investments. The gutting of the Canadian Wheat Board as we knew it played a major role in setting us back. As we know from last year, the shipments through the Port of Churchill are nowhere near where they ought to be.

I also want to indicate the government's failure to invest in an all-weather road network across northern Manitoba, something that could improve the quality of life of many first nations and Metis people in that part of the country, as well as the economic development opportunities.

Again, time after time, we are seeing a government being short-sighted toward the interests of northern, rural and western Canadians, and we see it in this bill that must go further. I agree with my colleagues that western, northern and rural Canadians deserve far better.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments from my colleague from Churchill. She started off talking about her colleague from Trinity—Spadina, the great comments she had, and the great work she was doing on this file.

It is interesting to note that one of her propositions is that there would be absolutely nobody looking at the overall network. Whether this network is owned by a government, as it used to be, or it is a private enterprise, the member wants the shipper to be able to go to the rail company and say, “I want you to ship my goods and I do not care what else you have in your network; it has to be completely ignored. I do not care if your network gets overwhelmed or collapsed; nobody should be taking that into account. Only worry about my one shipment or my shipments over the course of this year”.

Does the member not realize that there is a thing called “the folly of the commons”? That is when there is a field that can only handle so many sheep, and if someone wants to put 1,000 more sheep in it, the field that is feeding that network is killed off. There is absolutely no gain in that. In fact, what happens is that the individual destroys not only that shipper's ability to ship, but everybody's ability to ship, and nothing gets to market. Is that really what the member wants to see happen in this situation?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution. I was a bit surprised by the repeated reference to sheep. We are a bit beyond that, although some days I wonder about the government's members and any comparisons to that.

However, this member is my neighbour in my province, and I know he represents an area that very much depends on rail transportation.

My question for him is this. Recognizing the importance of industry and of customers getting a fair deal from their rail transportation companies, is that not critical to expanding the economy? Is it not critical to ensuring that people in his constituency and in our province have a brighter economic future? Therefore, instead of criticizing, would he not join with us in calling for his own government to do better?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on that point of recognizing the valuable contributions that our rail lines make to the province of Manitoba, as I suspect they make to all provinces. If I can gloat for a bit in terms of the province of Manitoba, in particular the city of Winnipeg, whether it is our CN shops, our CP shops, or the potential of CentrePort, there is all of this humongous network that is virtually nationwide. However, Manitoba, because of its geographical location, is actually in a great position to do that much more. The potential is there, and it is real and tangible.

One of the core aspects of being able to ensure we have that future growth of demand depends on the shippers, and it depends on a number of elements that will allow for that growth to proceed. That is why it is so critically important that we have this service agreement, and that is why, in essence, it could have been better. The bill itself, in principle, is good and worthy of supporting, but it would have been better had there been some amendments—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We want to leave some time for the response.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position is clear. This bill can and must go further when we are talking about truly making it a fair deal and looking at how we can strengthen service agreements and the ability of clients and industry to engage in arbitration when things are reaching a breaking point.

It is very clear that time and again the current government is short-sighted when it comes to building true economic opportunity. In western Canada, often the Conservatives use overblown rhetoric about what they are doing on behalf of our provinces, and yet here is a perfect example. Western Canada and the industries in our region depend on rail service. Clearly we have heard from stakeholders that they are getting a raw deal and that the government can do better, yet instead of taking the opportunity to listen to important stakeholders, whether in the grain industry or mining, we have been left with a half-baked bill and an approach that certainly does not represent the best interests of western Canadians.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House to talk in support of Bill C-52, which proposes to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to say that of course Canadians from far and wide know that our government is focused on what matters most to Canadians, which is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. It is our government that has been praised and has received accolades from international organizations from around the world, from the OECD to the IMF, and Forbes magazine, which says that Canada is the best place to be doing business.

There is a reason for that. There is a reason why international organizations praise this country. There is a reason that Governor Branstad of Iowa says he is afraid to bring potential investors to Iowa. It is because his state is so close to Canada that he knows he may lose investors because the Canadian economy is doing so much better than the U.S. economy. There is a reason for all of these things.

As I said, our government focuses on what matters most to Canadians. The Liberals on the other hand focus on dividing Canadians. They talk about their Quebec leader and how superior they are to the rest of Canada. Their leader has said that Canadians who do not speak two languages are lazy. They say they are against reforming the Senate. They are for the status quo because they are afraid of losing 24 senators in Quebec.

We have to give the NDP credit on the other hand because at least they are consistently wrong. Let me propose something to the NDP. Rather than being called the “New Democratic Party”, they should be called the “Old Democratic Party” because it is the same old policies from the sixties and seventies: high spending, high taxes and reckless spending on crazy social engineering schemes—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since it is quite a chore to be here until midnight, I would like to hear relevant debate. I am not even sure what bill my hon. colleague is talking about. I hope he knows.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

I recognize that we are just three minutes into the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre. I note that he, and members generally, are allowed tremendous liberty in terms of their comments around the question that is before the House. I am sure that the hon. member for York Centre will be bringing those ideas and arguments around to the question that is before the House.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me. The NDP members feel the Liberals nipping at their heels, so they are a little excited and a little nervous.

We are here to talk about Bill C-52, so let me begin.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I am happy to receive such praise from the opposition, and I look forward to their support of Bill C-52.

I would first like to thank the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for his steadfast and laser-like focus on creating the bill that is before us today to bring fairness to this sector of our economy. Of course, I also want to thank my colleagues on the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, particularly our chairman who has done yeoman's work in making sure the bill got through the committee expeditiously.

As the minister said on December 11, 2012, “This bill will help shippers maintain and grow their businesses while ensuring that railways can manage an efficient shipping network for everyone”.

Bill C-52 supports the interests of the entire economy. Given the importance of rail service to our country, shippers need to have service clearly defined and they need to know that the railways will deliver rail service efficiently and effectively. That is the only way shippers can properly plan and seize market opportunities.

I would like to talk about some of the new provisions that are proposed in Bill C-52. First, the bill would give every shipper the right to a service agreement with the railway and would provide an efficient and effective process for establishing such an agreement when commercial negotiations fail. That is key. Every shipper would be able to request a service agreement with their railway. That is an important point. The railway would now have 30 days to respond. This particular change is an important gain for all shippers, including small and medium-size businesses. It would ensure that they have an opportunity to negotiate service with the railway directly.

Second, if the parties cannot agree commercially, the shipper would have access to a timely and efficient process to establish an agreement. Under the auspices of the Canadian Transportation Agency, shippers would be able to request an arbitration process. This important arbitration process would establish, in a clear and comprehensive manner, how the rail service would be provided by the railway.

For many years, shippers have raised concerns that they have faced additional costs or lost sales when rail service is inadequate, particularly when they face regular problems such as delays in receiving rail cars. Canadian businesses or farmers can agree that this situation is a significant challenge for their operations. Shippers generally acknowledge that railways have made improvements to freight service in recent years. However, shippers believe that an effective enforcement mechanism is essential to ensuring that improvements continue.

This brings me to the third important point. We want to ensure that railways are held accountable in the event of service failures. This would be achieved through monetary penalties. These financial penalties could reach up to $100,000 for every confirmed breach of an arbitrated service agreement. Specifically, the financial penalty would take the form of an administrative monetary penalty under the auspices of the Canadian Transportation Agency. This consequence would ensure greater railway accountability.

Now, let me explain how this new provision would work. When a shipper is concerned that a railway has breached a service agreement that the agency had arbitrated, he or she could ask the agency to examine the situation. If the agency confirms a service failure in such a case, it can apply the monetary penalty to the railway company for a confirmed breach.

This potential and significant financial penalty would provide a strong incentive to comply with arbitrated service agreements. The amount of the penalty imposed would depend on the severity of the service breach. As with any administrative monetary penalty system managed by a regulatory body, the penalty would be payable to the Crown and not to the shipper. The agency is the appropriate body to confirm whether a breach has occurred, and can set a penalty accordingly. Indeed, the agency's role under this new provision would be to look at the reason for the breach and determine the right consequences, case by case.

Giving the agency the authority to impose the administrative monetary penalties is a sound approach. During consultations for this bill, both shippers and railways acknowledged the agency's expertise in rail freight service issues. In addition to this strong new enforcement tool, shippers will also have access to two other mechanisms to address railway service problems.

Of course all shippers will retain their right to file a complaint on service with the agency. All shippers will also retain the right to seek damages resulting from railway service failures through the courts. These rights apply regardless of whether shippers have agreements arbitrated by the agency or agreements they negotiated commercially.

First, a shipper can file a complaint with the agency under the existing level service provision under the act, which requires railways to provide adequate and suitable service. If the agency confirms that the railway has not met its service obligations, it has broad powers to order a range of corrective actions to be taken by the railway.

The new provision on service agreements complements this existing remedy for examining rail service complaints. If a shipper has a service agreement that defines clearly the railway's service obligations, this will provide a more precise reading of when obligations are not met, and facilitate the filing of a complaint in such a case if a shipper deems it necessary.

Second, shippers will continue to be able to sue for damages incurred due to rail service failures. Seeking damages through litigation is an especially important option for those shippers who are seeking compensation for significant lost sales or costs incurred due to a railway service failure.

Shippers wanted to ensure that any new enforcement tool, such as administrative monetary penalties, does not undermine any existing remedies. This strong new enforcement mechanism would not in any way disrupt, replace or erode existing shipper remedies.

I am confident that in most cases shippers and railways would be able to work out service agreements commercially that include communication protocols to be followed when service failures occur. Moreover, I expect commercial agreements would also identify recovery plans to mitigate the impact of any service failures.

The great strength of Bill C-52 is that all of its elements would help drive commercial negotiations.

Through the implementation of the bill, shippers will be in a better position to negotiate service agreements with the railway in the commercial forum. Both railways and shippers have expressed their preference for commercial solutions.

As all stakeholders continue to work in collaborative partnerships, I firmly believe that Bill C-52 includes a strong enforcement mechanism. It provides the best way forward in supporting commercial solutions and innovations that strengthen our rail freight system, a system that will foster Canada's economic growth, a system that will support shippers and railways as they strive to grow their businesses, capture new opportunities and create jobs and prosperity for Canada and Canadians.

I strongly encourage all members of this place to vote in favour of Bill C-52, a bill that would not only help strengthen our railway system, it would support our growing economy and lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague.

CN made $2.7 billion in profit last year. Do the Conservatives really think that a $100,000 penalty is going to change the way the company operates?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Good grief, Mr. Speaker, only the NDP would see profit as an evil. It is absolutely ridiculous.

We on this side of the House have imposed penalties in the range of $100,000, but we encourage the parties to work it out commercially together, not have something imposed from the top, which we know the NDP members love to do because they think that government knows better than individuals do, government knows better than the two parties who are negotiating in free and open agreement do.

We on this side are focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We see profit on our side of the House as a good thing, not an evil, as does the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would give the member credit. He sure does have those talking points from the Prime Minister's Office down pat. I will give him full credit for that.

My question is related to a lost opportunity. The government was in a wonderful position where it had substantial support outside of the House and inside the House to move forward. A number of amendments were brought forward that would have provided more strength to the legislation, that would have had a broader appeal, particularly to many of the stakeholders, the shippers, the people the hon. member says are generating the jobs.

We do recognize the valuable role in job creation and how they generate the jobs for our economy, there is no doubt about that.

My question to the member is, and he should put the speaking notes aside for now, why does he feel that his government put a pass on improving the legislation, which would have given more strength to the legislation and which would allow for an even fairer playing field for our shippers from coast to coast to coast?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government consults more than any other government in Canadian history. There were extensive consultations, not on the economy, but on Bill C-52. In fact, on the bill itself, for example, Kevin Bender, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said:

These measures will create the conditions for improved railway performance and accountability. It will help ensure all shippers can gain access to an adequate level of service.

This goes on and on. I have, from the president of the Grain Growers of Canada, from the chemistry industry, from the Forest Products Association of Canada, quote after quote on how Bill C-52 would create a fair, open, accountable and legitimate form of commercial interaction between the shippers and the railways.

The member talks about a lost opportunity. I will tell him about a lost opportunity. 1993 to 2006 was a lost opportunity when the Liberals were in power in this country. They sat on their hands, did nothing and left the country in a mess. It is our government that is picking up the pieces and giving Canada back to the Canadians.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our natural resource committee, we have been studying market diversification in the energy sector. I note that Jim Facette, the president and CEO of the Canadian Propane Association said this about the bill:

It contains all of the measures that the propane industry requested — the right to a Service-Level Agreement, an arbitration process should commercial negotiations fail, and consequences for non-compliance.

One of the things we did hear as part of that study and testimony was the propane industry's ability to potentially expand its markets to replace higher carbon fuels all across Canada.

As we know, rail is a good way to get into many of our rural areas.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on the possibilities of expanding existing businesses in Canada with strong, stable rail service?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member who has provided the first informed and educated question of this question period.

Let me say that it is our government that has made the economy the number one priority. It is our government that focuses on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. It is our government that has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G8 country. It is our government that has the strongest job creation record of any country in the G8.

Our government has created the conditions for business to thrive and to grow in this great country of Canada. In the interests of fairness and support for business, we have introduced Bill C-52, which the member has commented on, which would help small business. It would help big business. It would help the energy sector. It would help the mining sector. It would help all sectors of our economy, from one end of our country to the other.

Thank goodness that we have the best finance minister in the world and the best Prime Minister and leader that one could ask for to lead our economy as the number one economy in the G8.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is just unbelievable. They are all tooting their horn on the other side.

However, I do agree with the member that the big problem started in 1995 under the Liberals, when they decided that they were going to sell CN.

I had the opportunity to attend one of the committee hearings on this matter where the shippers indicated that they routinely suffer from service disruptions. Sometimes some of them would actually lose the freight they were shipping because it was going bad; it would not get there on time.

We see at committee after committee opportunities to strengthen the bill. We are not saying it is not a good bill. We believe it is a good bill. The only problem is that there have to be amendments. How could the Conservatives be so arrogant to believe that there should not be any amendments?

Let us look at this one, in particular. Nine amendments were put forward by the NDP and 10 by the Liberals. We did not pull these out of our hats. These amendments were brought forward by witnesses.

Why is that the Conservatives spend the money bringing witnesses here and they choose to ignore them all the time, no matter what? It is just unbelievable.

Why were all recommendations from the independent rail freight service review not incorporated into the bill? Why is it the Conservatives continue to ignore the requests of witnesses who would be directly impacted by the amendments they will not change?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member on one specific point, which is that in 1995, under the Liberal government, it was an abomination, and we should have seen results back then. Typical of the Liberals, they just find it difficult to make priorities.

The member says that we did not listen at committee. We did listen at committee. We had a variety of witnesses from all sides. We had a thorough consultative process before the bill was even drafted.

I have a number of quotes. Let me just give the member one from Richard Paton, president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association, who said, on Bill C-52, “The level of service offered by Canada's railways can make the difference between companies investing here, or taking their business elsewhere”.

This government focuses on what matters most to Canadians—jobs, growth and long-term prosperity—and on creating an environment in which jobs can grow and we can maintain our position as the number one job creation economy in the G8.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I also want to thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for her work as our transportation critic, for her tireless work with a community that is invested in seeing improvements to the Transportation Act and for her efforts to improve the bill.

Bill C-52 would amend the Canada Transportation Act. It is a bill that is long overdue.

Rail transportation is the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is in the DNA of our history, and it is something that touches a huge part of our economy. More than 70% of all surface goods in Canada are shipped by rail. We are a vast country and a country that is open to the world. It is very export oriented, and having good transportation networks is absolutely fundamental.

Many of us are familiar with the railway industry. I know that in my family, my grandfather, my husband and my mother all worked in the railway sector. It is part of our country, part of our history and part of our current economy. It touches so many Canadians.

What we have been finding through the study on the bill and leading up to the bill is that 80% of service commitments for agricultural rail customers, which means that they deal with food, feed and farm materials, are not met by the railway companies. There are serious delays, insufficient numbers of rail cars, et cetera. A rail freight service review found that 80% of shippers were not satisfied with the service they received.

What is the root of the problem? One would think that after a couple of centuries, we would be getting our rail service right, but sometimes when governments rush to fix one problem, they create other problems. Sometimes when governments have ideological blinders on, they are wilfully blind to the problems they are creating.

In 1995, the Liberals were in a rush to show that they were jumping on board the privatization bandwagon. They wanted to prove to the world that they could privatize with the best of them. One of the companies they rushed to privatize was CN. They privatized the company, CN. They privatized the tracks. What they forgot to do was put in any safeguards for Canadians, safeguards for shippers and safeguards for our passenger rail service in terms of access to the railway tracks. They basically turned it over to the private sector.

CN is doing very well. It made a profit of $2.7 billion. Bravo. It is doing well. It was just announced this week that the CEO made a salary of $48 million. I am sure he worked hard for every single penny of it.

The trouble is that these ideological decisions create problems. It was the Liberals in 1995 that unleashed this, and frankly, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives after them, for almost 20 years, have done anything to fix the problems until this bill. It is with insufficient measures that they are trying to address the problems.

Let me say up front that this is a bill we will be supporting at report stage and third reading, but it is a weak bill. It is a bill that does not do the job Canadians really need it to do.

The bill would give rail freight customers or shippers the right to service agreements with rail companies. It is shocking that they have not had this before now, especially with the two majors, CN and CP. It also puts in place an arbitration process, led by the Canadian Transportation Agency, in cases of failed negotiations or where there are penalties for violating the results of arbitration.

This is positive. Canadians deserve fair and reliable freight services. This is obvious and logical.

Shippers pay good money, but they need a stronger position vis-à-vis the two main companies that form a duopoly. Together they have a kind of two-party monopoly. Their power is only partially addressed by Bill C-52.

There were recommendations by the shipping community at the committee stage that were sensible, practical and modest, yet the Conservatives ruled them out of hand with no serious consideration.

As the official opposition finance critic, I certainly know this. With every budget bill we have massive omnibus budget bills. We have been dealing with another one this week, Bill C-60, which again, is an amalgamation of all kinds of changes to different laws, many that have nothing to do with finance and budgets. We have seen that they never accept one amendment to any of their budget implementation legislation. Experts in their fields have testified at the finance committee that the government will have problems if it bullies ahead with certain changes, such as getting rid of the inspector general of CSIS. The expert who helped set up CSIS told us that this would cause problems, but it did not matter. The Conservatives are more expert than the experts, and they went ahead and made the changes anyway.

In this case, they heard expert testimony about why certain changes should be made. However, the Conservatives gave them no serious consideration. They rejected the changes out of hand, which is a bit sad, because this House ought to be about discussion, debate, learning, and ultimately, compromise to get the best laws possible for Canadians.

The bill needs further improvement. The NDP will continue to work with businesses and shippers across the country to improve this legislation and to tackle the issue of uncompetitive freight rates and gouging of the shippers. What we heard from businesses across the country was that they are getting poor customer service. They have had disruptions in rail service and unacceptable service costs. We heard about produce rotting, because it could not be shipped. We heard about lost contracts, because there was no guarantee that the goods could be shipped reliably, which made Canadian businesses unreliable suppliers. We heard about missed connections with ships for travel and shipping. This is a daily occurrence for industries across Canada.

Poor rail services are hurting Canadian exporters, damaging our global competitiveness and costing us jobs, which is a little ironic from a government that talks a lot about jobs. However, when the rubber hits the road, it often misses the train. That is what has been happening with this legislation.

There are a number of key amendments we put forward that the shipping community pushed for. They were championed by the NDP and defeated at committee. Without the rejected amendments, this bill remains only a partial success. Nevertheless, it is still worthy of our support. I want to stress that we are dissatisfied with the outcome. It is not what the shippers really wanted to see. Therefore, there is a need for future strengthening of this legislation.

Sadly, I see that my time is just about up. There is so much else to say. Thanks for the attention of this House. I look forward to the questions of my hon. colleagues.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member talk about her support for the bill, because the bill is supported by Pulse Canada, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, the Canadian Canola Growers Association and Western Canadian Wheat Growers.

I would like to ask my colleague if the NDP will support this bill and have it expedited as soon as possible.