2013-02-08

Government Orders
Fair Rail Freight Service Act[Stage Direction]
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.
Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): 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.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: 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.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: 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. 
Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): 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.
[Interjection]
Isabelle Morin: 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: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: 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.
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Jean Rousseau: 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.
Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): 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.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): 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.
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: 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.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): 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.
[Interjection]
Élaine Michaud: 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.
Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP): 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: 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.

Statements By Members
Black History MonthMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): 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 RightsWayne Marston: 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 PetitionMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): 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.
Lunar New YearMr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend, thousands of Canadians will be making a special voyage home. Canadians of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese heritage and their families eagerly await the Lunar New Year, a time to see friends and family, and a time to remember those who have passed on.
At home and together with our communities and fellow Canadians, we remember and share our traditions of food, music and the arts. We celebrate a year of hard work, and share our hopes and wishes for the coming year.
From my friends and colleagues in the House to all Canadians:
 Xin nian kuai le.
Happy New Year. May you have health and may you achieve whatever your heart desires.
Tibetan New YearMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Monday, February 11, Tibetans here in Canada and around the world will be celebrating the Year of the Snake.
Tibetan New Year is celebrated on the first day of the first month of the Tibetan lunar calendar. This year marks the year 2140. The celebration lasts up to 15 days, with the first three days being the most significant. New Year's typically means celebrations, togetherness, family time, as well as prayers.
I wish all the Tibetans inside and outside of Tibet much health and happiness. May we all join in wishing them at Happy New Year or:
 Losar la tashi delek.
The Great LakesCarol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, water levels in Lake Huron are at an all-time low, and people are getting worried.
Wetlands are endangered; docks and boat ramps are high and dry; exposed water lines are freezing; and the harbour at South Baymouth on Manitoulin Island will have to be dredged so the Chi-Cheemaun Ferry can reach the dock.
While the government sits on its hands, the costs of low water are soaring. Property values are affected, and now freighters on the Great Lakes are running light so they do not bottom out.
The International Joint Commission has adopted a wait-and-see stance that is not sitting well with the communities, businesses and people affected. They want action and are pointing to the derelict work order for compensating structures in the St. Clair River as a good place to start. The speed bumps were called for in 1917 to offset the increased water flow from repeated dredging of that river's shipping channel, but have never been built.
With water levels down in all the Great Lakes, it is time to protect these Canadian crown jewels and reverse the mounting environmental and economic crisis.
Winter FestivalMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to announce the commencement of the winter festival Snowman Mania in Wasaga Beach located in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. Snowman Mania is celebrating its eighth year. 
The festival started off as a snowman building competition and has grown over the last number of years to a four day winter extravaganza in February of each year.
This year the volunteer committee has put together a polar bear dip, which I am hoping my colleagues will participate in, a ball hockey tournament, a demolition derby and numerous other things and, of course, a snowman building competition.
I would like to thank the Wasaga Beach Chamber of Commerce, the town of Wasaga Beach and all the local volunteers, including the 2013 committee of Doug McCullough, Ross and Mary Anne Gough, Peter Wilson, Ehab Masad, Tanya Snell and Rotary Club president Todd Young, for their outstanding service, their generosity of spirit and all their volunteer efforts to make this great event happen every year.
Canadians should be proud of their winter heritage. I am exceptionally proud of these volunteers in my riding who make things happen so that Canadians can enjoy the winter.
AuroraMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of excitement these days in the town of Aurora, a vibrant community in my riding located in the heart of York region. Aurora, a town that uniquely blends an urban sophistication with the charm of its rural roots, is celebrating its 150th birthday.
On February 3, the anniversary date of the town's inauguration, I and hundreds of proud residents kicked off the celebration at the mayor's sesquicentennial levee. Rich in culture and steeped in heritage, residents are passionate about remembering and preserving the history of their beloved town. Indeed, with the help of a dedicated group of volunteers, Aurora will be marking each season in 2013 with a celebratory event to acknowledge its past, present and future.
I invite all Canadians to visit the town of Aurora this year and join the celebration.
Food BanksMr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to help distribute hundreds of pounds of meat from deer culled in a national park to various food banks.
I would like to salute the work of the La Frontière shelter and the RCM of Montmagny family support centre in Sainte-Apolline-de-Patton. Moisson Kamouraska and the Rivière-du-Loup Carrefour d'initiatives populaires and Society of St. Vincent de Paul are staffed by administrators, employees and volunteers who refuse to let their fellow human beings lose their dignity. Every day, they find the resources to prepare meals for those who have fallen on hard times.
I would also like to salute Moisson Beauce and Les Frigos Pleins de Bellechasse. On the spur of the moment, the members for Beauce and Lévis—Bellechasse graciously participated in this endeavour. I will leave it to them to talk about the importance of these organizations one day. 
All of the organizations told me the same thing: the number of people having a hard time putting food on the table has been going up for the past four years. That includes people with jobs. All members of the House have a duty to find a solution to this problem. 
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to an ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union, an agreement that is expected to boost Canada's economy by the equivalent of $1,000 for every Canadian family.
Shamefully, the NDP and its anti-trade allies consistently oppose our government's plans to open up new markets for Canadian exporters. The former NDP trade critic and MP for Windsor West has said that he supports the efforts of big union bosses to stop any further trade negotiations with Korea, Japan and the European Union. Another former NDP trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, summarized his party's views when he said that free trade has cost Canadians dearly.
A leopard cannot change its spots and the NDP cannot hide its anti-trade agenda. In challenging global economic times, Canadians know that it is only our government that has a pro-trade plan to generate jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Wireless Smart MetersMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Cliff Paluck and the West Kootenay Concerned Citizens group for hosting sessions on smart meters and wireless technology in Castlegar, Trail and Slocan Park. The guest speaker, Jerry Flynn, a retired naval officer, spent most of his military career working in signals intelligence, electronic and radio warfare.
Fortis, B.C. has made an application with the B.C. Utilities Commission to introduce wireless smart meters in our area. According to Flynn, the ambient level of electromagnetic resonance in our society is already extremely toxic and wireless smart meters will dramatically increase this danger. Flynn noted that Canada's Safety Code 6 guidelines are based solely on industry studies, which consider only thermal effects but ignore the known and dangerous effects of non-thermal microwave radiation on biological systems.
In keeping with the precautionary principle being urged by numerous independent scientists around the world, we should only consider installing wired meter technology in all our homes, as it is risk-free.
Thanks again to Cliff and Jerry for increasing our awareness.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the cold winter drags into February, many Canadian families are looking into having a vacation, either to ski or to get away from the cold altogether.
Of course, one Canadian is scheming of a new way to make it harder for Canadians to take those vacations in the future. This person has a plan to impose a new $20 billion job-killing carbon tax on Canadian taxpayers. He wants to impose this job-killing carbon tax to generate billions of dollars in revenues. This $20 billion job-killing carbon tax will make it harder for Canadians to take these vacations in the future, because they will be paying more for everything, including gas, groceries and electricity.
The person pushing this $20 billion job-killing carbon tax is none other than the leader of the NDP.
School Principal AwardMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's Outstanding Principal Award is a special recognition through the Learning Program to acknowledge the achievements of 51 school principals in Canada. The Learning Program is a charitable organization dedicated to a strong public education system.
I am so pleased that two of the 51 principals receiving this prestigious recognition in 2013 are from the riding of Avalon. Joy Brown, principal of Coley's Point Primary School in Bay Roberts, and Robin McGrath, principal of Holy Cross Elementary School in Holyrood, will be honoured during a gala event in Toronto later this month. These two individuals were selected from a large number of nominations by a committee of distinguished education, community and private sector leaders.
For every successful school, there is a successful principal who strives for excellence in education. They engage their communities, mentor their staff and create a safe and nurturing learning environment for their students.
I join the students, teachers, staff and parents of Coley's Point Primary and Holy Cross Elementary schools to congratulate Joy Brown and Robin McGrath for being recognized as two of Canada's outstanding principals. They have made their teaching colleagues, schools, communities and province very proud. Keep up the good work.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP and their leader are trying to fool Canadians yet again.
How, one might ask? The NDP leader wants to generate billions with the NDP's proposal to impose a $20 billion carbon tax on Canadian families. During the NDP leadership campaign, the current NDP leader said he had proposed a system of carbon pricing that “will produce billions”. 
This sneaky $20 billion job-killing carbon tax will increase the price of absolutely everything. Studies show that the negative effects of the NDP's carbon tax would be most keenly felt by low-income Canadians and those living in rural regions. This exposes the NDP for what it really is, the party of big union bosses and special interest groups that cries crocodile tears for people who live on low incomes.
Our government will continue to stand firm against this $20 billion carbon tax and work hard for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Conservative GovernmentMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we keep seeing more and more instances of misuse of public funds by this Conservative government. 
It is throwing millions out the window to buy dubious advertising, and Conservative senators like Harb, Duffy and Brazeau—the same ones that the Prime Minister swore he would never appoint but is now responsible for—are stuffing their pockets with allowances they are not entitled to. That is theft.
Unfortunately, in the House of Commons things are no better. The Minister of Human Resources calls job seekers bad guys, a minister uses a search and rescue helicopter as his personal taxi, and millions of dollars are being spent on rewriting Canada's history with a Conservative twist and misinforming Canadians.
Instead of being willing yes-men for the PMO, my Conservative colleagues should use their speaking time to demand accountability from their colleagues who misuse taxpayer money. That is what an MP is supposed to do.
The NDP believes in properly managing public funds, and we will be there for Canadians in 2015.
Electoral BoundariesMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1994 the majority Liberal government introduced the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act. The purpose of the bill was to suspend the independent electoral boundaries commissions of 1994, as the Liberals did not like the electoral boundaries proposed by the commissions.
Yesterday the hon. member for Wascana tried to mislead Canadians, indicating that the Prime Minister “accepted the previous government's intent at the time, and the Conservatives voted for it”.
Not only is that completely false, but it is hypocritical, which is no surprise coming from the Liberal Party.
At the time the Liberals criticized the independent commissions, as stated by Liberal MP Don Boudria, who said, “Members must realize that the redistribution...is most unfair to British Columbia and Ontario”.
The hon. member for Wascana knows full well that the Prime Minister fought and voted against this undemocratic Liberal bill. I would be more than happy to table the results of the April 13, 1994 vote of Bill C-18, following question period.

Oral Questions
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives made deceptive phone calls to an entire province, and the Prime Minister says harassing the people of Saskatchewan like this is just fine, even though his own caucus calls them deceptive and says they were wrong to do so.
Why will the Prime Minister not also admit this was wrong? Will the government support the NDP's bill to crack down on these sorts of deceptive and misleading calls?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk about one NDP bill, because the NDP critic for democratic reform said that the electoral boundaries commissions serve in good faith and expect non-interference from political parties. However, the NDP actually has a bill before the House right now to overturn the work of those non-partisan electoral boundaries commissions, in the form of Bill C-396, which does not accept the work they have done in the past. NDP members are trying to use the power of the House and their ability to present legislation here to overturn that work. It is an example of exactly what NDP members do all the time: Do as we say, not as we do.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear anyone here apologize to the people of Saskatchewan. That is because the Conservatives take them for granted, whether they live in rural areas or in cities.
The Conservatives used the same firm in Saskatchewan that Pierre Poutine used. They used a shell company to hide their activities. Now they say there is nothing wrong with attacking an independent commission. We must put an end to Conservative misuse of funds.
Will the government clarify the CRTC rules about using such calls?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that NDP members continue to pursue this with their “do as I say, not as I do” approach. 
They criticize the automated calls, yet they made exactly those automated calls, both from Burnaby—Douglas, with regard to the process on redistribution, and with regard to one of their caucus colleagues after she left.
They criticize us for being involved in the redistribution process, while they have done so vigorously from their side. They say that we must respect the work of the independent commissions, then they push bills in the House to overturn the work of the independent commissions. 
They have had a monopoly for years on sanctimony. Now they have a monopoly on sanctimonious hypocrisy.
EthicsNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, this morning we witnessed the sad spectacle of Senator Brazeau's court appearance. The Conservative senator appointed by the Prime Minister was already under investigation for theft from the Senate and income tax fraud. He exhibited sexism toward a journalist and insulted aboriginal leaders.
The Prime Minister has not yet admitted that giving Senator Brazeau a job for life was a mistake. Will he acknowledge his mistake now and make sure that taxpayers get back the money that was stolen from them?
Peter Van Loan:  Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness of these events and charges, he was expelled from caucus. The legal system will handle this matter.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if Senator Brazeau serves his full term until 2049, he will collect over $7 million in salary alone. He is the Prime Minister's $7 million mistake.
 He cannot stop his salary, but he can stop this unelected senator from collecting illegitimate living expenses. What is the government's plan to return the money to the taxpayers?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in light of the serious charges that have been laid, he has been removed from the caucus and, of course, the legal system will proceed forthwith on those matters.
In terms of housing allowances and the like, the committee on internal economy over at the Senate has, of course, been seized of these matters. Today several were referred to an independent outside auditor to ensure that they are dealt with appropriately through independent oversight.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, it is not that hard to admit to a major blunder. They knew that guy had a shady past, but they appointed him to the Senate anyway. The Conservatives carry on digging into their bottomless pit of hypocrisy. The Prime Minister called the Senate a “relic of the 19th century”, but then he changed his tune and appointed more senators than Mulroney did. Taxpayers are now on the hook for millions so that the Prime Minister's friends and generous Conservative Party supporters can sit pretty for the rest of their lives.
Why not just abolish this archaic, undemocratic institution that is about as obsolete as phonographs and street lamp lighters?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has been pursuing an ambitious agenda of democratic reform changes to the Senate. In fact, our Prime Minister has appointed every single democratically elected senator when he has had an opportunity to do so, including one just a couple of weeks ago.
We would encourage all provinces to provide the opportunity for democratically elected senators to be appointed to the Senate. We would also encourage the other parties that have consistently opposed such changes to modernize and democratize our important parliamentary institutions to change their positions and actually support real reforms that will make the Senate accountable to all Canadians.
Employment InsuranceMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month, jobs continued to disappear.
Canada has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since the recession. Industries in the manufacturing sector are being forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more in taxes on salaries because the Conservatives continue to raise EI premiums.
Can the government assure this House that it will cancel the EI premium hikes planned for 2014? After all, jobs are at stake.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, our priority is job creation and sustainable, long-term economic growth.
We have lowered tax rates more than 140 times. An average Canadian family can save about $3,000 as a result of the changes our government has made to help families.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, Canada lost 22,000 jobs last month. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Conservatives' EI payroll hike has already cost the economy almost 300,000 person-years of employment. However, three consecutive EI tax hikes do not seem to be enough for the government. It wants to hike taxes again.
I realize that the Conservatives abandoned most of their principles when they came to power, but when exactly did they begin to believe that the best way to create jobs was by increasing taxes on employers and employees?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, we know that the best way to create jobs is actually to reduce taxes, which is why we have done that 140 times. That is why the average family pays $3,000 less in tax today as a result of our changes. Perhaps that is why we have seen over 900,000 net new jobs since the economic downturn, the very best track record on job creation in the entire G7. In fact, it is a record we expect to continue into the future. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada will see that prosperity continue, as a leader, into the decades ahead.
Electoral BoundariesHon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what will the Minister of Democratic Reform do now? Will he join the government House leader's parliamentary secretary in condemning the Conservative Party's deceptive attempts to intimidate Saskatchewan's independent electoral commission?
 Will he commit to upholding open, fair and democratic practices, or will he be blind to his government's latest devious breach of democracy and join his Prime Minister in defending the indefensible?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the electoral boundary process encourages input from parliamentarians, political parties and the public. It is well known that our party agrees with the 75% majority of public submissions opposed to the commission's proposals in Saskatchewan.
While we are working and respecting the process, on the other hand, the Liberals, while in government in 1994, introduced legislation that would have suspended the independent electoral boundaries commissions. We would not do that.
Parliamentary Budget OfficerMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that there was a net loss of 22,000 jobs in January.
That is the kind of news the Conservatives do not really want us to find out while they insist on allowing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate to lapse and drag their feet finding a replacement.
Why does this government not want to extend the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer? When will they stop keeping Canadians in the dark? Why are they so scared of financial accountability?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we want a Parliamentary Budget Officer who is impartial and provides credible opinions about budget issues.
The Parliamentary Librarian has retained the services of an executive search firm. We do not intend to change the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports to the Parliamentary Librarian. 
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, we learned today that we lost 22,000 net jobs in January, and this is much worse than the experts predicted. It flies in the face of the Conservatives' job creation claims. The reality simply does not match their talking points.
 Without the PBO, it will be that much harder to learn the truth. Instead of hiding from accountability, why will the government not extend the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate until a replacement is found?
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly that we sympathize with the loss of jobs for many Canadians today. However, having said that, we have an economic action plan that has in fact worked. We have seen over 900,000 net new jobs created in Canada since the end of the recession, July 2009.
Having said that, we intend to continue with our economic action plan into 2013 to create jobs, to make sure long-term prosperity is in our future and to make sure our economy continues to grow.
Human Resources and Skills Development CanadaMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, after the government lost the personal information of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it took political pressure and several class action suits to force the government to take action. Providing complete protection to the victims of this negligence would cost $100 million a year. The Conservatives are trying to play the hero by offering much less for only six years.
When will the Conservatives take the protection of personal information seriously and truly protect these victims?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the loss of this information by the department was totally unacceptable. It never should have happened.
We are doing everything we can to help Canadians and protect them, specifically by offering them Equifax services free of charge. What is more, I have directed the department to change all its systems to protect Canadians. 
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash for the minister: that is just not good enough. It is not even as much as her own department has recommended. For just a moment, can the minister at least try to put herself in the shoes of the more than half a million Canadian victims? 
First their personal information was lost, and now some have learned the Conservative government is adding insult to injury by informing total strangers of their loss. 
When will the minister take privacy seriously, and what is her plan?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we take the protection of Canadians' privacy very seriously.
That is why we informed the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada immediately. It is imperative that the department ensure the security of individuals and their information. Fortunately, to date, there is no evidence that the information has been used for fraudulent purposes.
Democratic ReformMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, welcome to Fantasy Island, starring the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. 
However, we know that Senator Brazeau will collect another $7 million if he serves his full term until 2049. If we add up the tab for all of the Prime Minister's appointees, they will collect over $115 million from taxpayers.
Are a $115 million bill and Senate ethics rules that are stuck in the dark ages really going to be this Prime Minister's legacy on Senate reform?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, we want to see a more democratic, accountable and representative Senate. That is why we took action and referred Senate reform to the Supreme Court. Our reference to the Supreme Court will accelerate the process of reforming the Senate, and may even lay the foundation for further Senate reform.
EthicsFrançoise Boivin: Mr. Speaker, this government's problem is that it has zero credibility.
The Prime Minister can try to distance himself as much as he wants, but he is the one who gave Senator Brazeau the job. He is responsible.
The Conservatives appointed him knowing that there were several allegations of sexual harassment against him and that he was not paying his son's child support, and they kept him in caucus after he made sexist comments to a journalist. The Prime Minister even called him a gentleman. 
Why did the government wait so long to remove him from caucus?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, at the time the senator was appointed, he was the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, one of Canada's national aboriginal organizations. Obviously in light of recent events, action has been taken. He has been removed from caucus and appropriate steps are being taken by law enforcement authorities, and by the Senate through its own review process.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if only it were an isolated incident.
But in the long list of cronies appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, cases of abuse are unfortunately too common.
Senator Duffy claims to live in Prince Edward Island, Senator Harb receives an allowance to live in his own house and Senator Wallin may live in Saskatchewan, but no one knows for sure.
That is a lot of wasted money.
How will the Conservatives ensure that taxpayers get this money that was unjustly paid? 
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is currently examining the rules regarding housing allowances, and we are counting on the committee to enforce the rules.
That said, today, the Board of Internal Economy sent some senators' files to an external auditor, Deloitte, so that it can examine them and report back.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in addition to Senator Brazeau, we have Liberal Senator Mac Harb claiming a housing allowance despite living here for decades. Fictional Prince Edward Islander Mike Duffy literally runs through kitchens to avoid answering questions about his residency. Now Pamela Wallin refuses to confirm whether she lives in Saskatchewan.
The Prime Minister has made 58 Senate appointments and has now unseated Brian Mulroney as the king of Conservative patronage. When will the Conservatives get serious about permanently fixing the Senate and abolish it?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are in a bit of a contradiction here. They cannot blame the Senate for having unelected senators, because they refused to pass legislation to allow senators to be elected.
 We have taken action to make the Senate more democratic, accountable and representative. That is why we referred the whole issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. Our reference to the Supreme Court will accelerate the process of Senate reform and lay the foundation for further reform.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, we voted against it because it is an expensive band-aid, not a solution to the $90 million a year boondoggle that is the Senate.
At the end of the day, the Prime Minister's bagman, campaign managers, failed candidates and personal friends will collect over $115 million in salaries from taxpayers. Senator Brazeau alone will collect $7 million.
We could save hard-working taxpayers $90 million a year by getting rid of the Senate. It is a black hole of accountability and a national embarrassment. When are Conservatives going to do the right thing and abolish it?
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that in fact the members opposite did not vote on it because at every opportunity they filibustered and did not even let the whole issue come to a vote. That is where the NDP stand on this. They are delaying Senate reform. 
On this side of the House, we are taking action. We have referred the whole issue to the Supreme Court. We are accelerating the pace of Senate reform and laying the foundation for further reform.
Human Resources and Skills Development CanadaMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the incompetence continues regarding the data breach and mail-outs now going to the wrong people. We know the minister did not stuff the envelopes, just like we know she did not personally lose the hard drive. However, it is the disinterest she has shown in the issue, the disinformation she has shared, and the disrespect to the 600,000 Canadians who have been affected by refusing to go the House committee and be accountable for her inaction and her feeble response. 
Will the minister do the right thing and appear at committee?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the first problem mentioned has already been identified. Solutions have been taken and the problem has been fixed. This situation is totally unacceptable, particularly because it was avoidable. That is why I have instructed the department to completely overhaul its IT systems, its security processes and to have the staff trained to make sure this sort of thing never happens again to Canadians.
International Co-operationStéphane Dion: After letting the government contribute nothing to AFISMA and nothing to help restore democracy in Mali, after closing our embassies and offices in Gabon, Guinea and Niger, and after removing all but three francophone African countries from CIDA's priority list, is the Minister for La Francophonie going to wake up and do his job?
Can he assure the House that francophone Africa will not be a victim once again, in the upcoming budget?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a very long history of support for the people of Mali. In fact, the ambassador of Mali called Canada's assistance exemplary.
We remain concerned with the situation in Mali. That is why the minister announced additional support for Mali, in the form of humanitarian assistance, emergency health care, access to water and food for displaced people and refugees.
Child CareMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several members have spoken this week about the government's abandonment of the universal child care program. In 2006, the Conservatives promised to replace this program with tax credits to employers who would create new child care spaces. They promised 125,000 new spaces in five years.
How many spaces have they created so far? Have they enabled women, some of them heads of single-parent families, to have access to a system of affordable child care? 
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our party believes that parents are best at deciding how to raise their children. That is very important to us. That is why we proposed this program. Part of the program was to create child care spaces. Between 2006 and 2010, more than 110,000 child care spaces were created, and we do not have figures on how many have been added since then. In this way, we are supporting parents.
Correctional Service CanadaMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder whether the Conservatives learned anything from the Ashley Smith tragedy.
The correctional investigator sounded the alarm about a dramatic increase of serious self-injury in federal prisons. However, instead of taking action, the Conservatives are closing Canada's only program dedicated to treating self-harm.
What is the minister's thinking? How can Corrections Canada prevent the next tragedy without any support?
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely incorrect. The project she is referring to was a pilot project. It has concluded. 
These services will be offered at all institutions and will be part of the regular case management process.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the statistics from the correctional investigator are rather alarming. In five years, the number of self-injury incidents has nearly tripled. That is a serious situation, and we must take action immediately in order to avoid further tragedies like that of Ashley Smith. Self-injury is a serious problem in our prisons. Dropping the programs that were aimed specifically at this problem is a monumental error.
What is the goal of the Minister of Public Safety? Is it rehabilitation or self-injury?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, again, the member opposite is absolutely wrong. It was a pilot project. We have taken those lessons learned from that pilot project, and we are integrating them across the country in order to help inmates who are dealing with mental health issues. Our government and Correctional Service of Canada are leading the way. We have initiated a number of things, including a 90-day assessment. When inmates enter a facility, they are assessed and treated accordingly.
There is more work to do. However, we are leading the way. 
No projects have been cut. This was a pilot project. We are using the lessons learned across the country.
Food SafetyMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that the XL Foods contaminated meat recall cost taxpayers $2 million. This situation could have been avoided had the Conservatives not cut inspector jobs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They thought they would save money by cutting services, but the recall cost more than the inspector jobs.
Will the Conservatives stop improvising and putting Canadians' lives in danger with their irresponsible cuts?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC): Mr. Speaker, food safety is our top priority.
Since 2006, the government has increased the number of inspectors and CFIA's budget by roughly 20%. The government will continue to provide CFIA with the resources it needs to keep our food supply safe.
Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, we are just now learning the full cost of the XL Foods meat recall of last fall. The cost of almost 40 staff, plus overtime, plus travel, plus accommodation, leaves taxpayers on the hook for over $2 million.
My question is simple. After the largest meat recall in Canadian history, after all these costs, after 18 Canadians fell ill, have Conservatives learned their lesson? Will they be reversing their reckless planned cuts to CFIA?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, safe food for Canadian consumers is our top priority. Since 2006, our government has increased the number of inspectors and the budget of the CFIA by roughly 20%. 
However, I must point out that every time we impose or implement a measure through our budget to increase finances or funding for food safety, the opposition, and the NDP in particular, vote against each and every measure. It is shameful.
Foreign AffairsMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, speaking in Montreal, the Leader of the Opposition tried to articulate what the NDP's foreign policy would be. Unbelievably, his speech demonstrated to Canadians that the NDP leader wants to take Canada back to a foreign policy approach where Canadian values are secondary and every dictator with a vote at the UN would be pandered to. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell the House our government's approach to foreign policy?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, the Leader of the Opposition showed yesterday that he wants to take Canada back to failed foreign policy approaches. 
Canada will no longer go along just to get along. We have consistently protected and promoted freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world. Our government has a principled foreign policy approach. Under our government, Canada no longer panders to every dictator with a vote at the United Nations.
The NDP leader would kill trade agreements and hurt Canadian exports. He would also send Canadian taxpayers' dollars to developing countries without any plan to achieve results.
Employment InsuranceJean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, if we can come back to serious matters. The Conservatives have returned to their attack on Quebec with renewed vigour.
 In their vicious quota system for cuts to employment insurance, the target for Quebec is the highest of them all: 40% of the cuts are to be made in my province.
 That is unacceptable. It is nothing more than an outright attack on Quebec and its regions.
 Quebeckers have paid for employment insurance, and it belongs to them. The Conservatives want to take their money, attack their way of life and destroy their economy, which is so important in the regions.
 Does the minister intend to listen to reason and abandon these destructive and irresponsible quotas?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we have an employment insurance system that is the same everywhere in the country. Everywhere.
It is very important to protect the integrity of the system. That is why we have a variety of methods for identifying ineligible benefits, to protect the integrity of the system. 
It is very important to make sure that Canadian taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly and respectfully.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, almost half of all Canadian jobs are created by small businesses. Most of them are family businesses. They are now finding out that employment insurance is not there for them.
Tariq Anwar worked for 14 years in his family restaurant. The family sold the restaurant and he found himself out of work. He has been told that he is ineligible for EI, after paying into it all those years. He is ineligible because he is related to the owner.
Is that fair? Rather than cutting EI why not try administering it fairly, or at the very least competently?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is there for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It is important to understand that it is there for them while they are looking for another job.
What we are doing is helping people to connect with jobs, whether it is through the employment insurance system or programs such as labour market agreements that help Canadians who have lost their jobs or who are out of work get back into the labour market. 
We have expanded the system, not cut it. Our priority is job creation and growth and we are doing everything we can to help Canadians get back to work. 
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably time for the minister to get out of her glass bubble and actually talk to people affected by these cuts.
The fruit industry in British Columbia depends on seasonal workers, but under the new EI rules seasonal workers will be forced to accept any work that comes along. With these demands, there will be a dramatic decrease in the number of workers available to help with the harvest. Fruit growers will be left scrambling with harvest and delivery.
When is the government going to reverse these changes, which negatively affect seasonal workers?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make sure that when Canadians work they are better off than when they do not. 
We have a shortage of skills and labour right across this country. Employers are so desperate for help that they have to pay extra costs just to bring in outside workers, when we do have qualified Canadians for those jobs. We want to help connect Canadians with those jobs so that they, their families and their employers are all better off.
Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by attacking unemployed people with their employment insurance reform, the Conservatives have neglected to consider people living with disabilities.
Their reform requires unemployed people to accept any job within an hour of their home. But working people with disabilities do not have the same ability to travel as other people have. They are being asked to do the impossible and they are being threatened with punishment if they do not obey.
Will the minister finally admit that her reform is punishing working people, and especially those who are living with disabilities?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, no government in Canada has done as much as ours to support people with disabilities. 
The employment insurance system adheres to that goal. That is why any decision about an unemployed person accepting a job is based on individual circumstances. It is very important to acknowledge that, because it is a principle of the system.
The EnvironmentTed Hsu: Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner just told the government to increase the money that operators set aside to cover the cost of a nuclear or offshore drilling accident. The liability cap is out of date now, far below what other countries require. Previous bills to take taxpayers off the hook for nuclear accidents had overwhelming support but died in 2008 because of an early election call, in 2009 because of prorogation, and in 2010 simply from neglect.
Will the Conservatives now raise liability caps? When will we see properly reviewed stand-alone legislation to do it?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Canada the foundation for our liability regime is the polluter pay principle.
I should point out as I did the other day that the Commissioner of the Environment said in terms of nuclear liability limits that:
 —Canada has actually acknowledged that is too low.... My understanding...is they are looking at this now and they may be taking some action in that regard. 
That action would have been taken years ago if the NDP had not been so determined to filibuster. Those members insisted on putting their own ideology ahead of public safety, as they usually do.
TransportationHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the latest towboat incident and the numerous abandoned ships on our shores that threaten our environment and our navigation lines demonstrate the need for strict regulations so companies are held accountable for towing vessels and removing them when they are cut loose.
Presently there is money secured for oil tanker navigation in our waters, but we need similar legislation for other types of vessels as well. Will the government act now to ensure the safety of our shores and our navigable waters?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we do take very seriously the continued safety of our navigable waters and our role as the regulator for offshore shipping.
That being said, it is necessary for us to work with our provincial counterparts as there is often overlap in jurisdictions in this regard. I would encourage the hon. member to work with us as we do that.
Aerospace IndustryMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at a time when astronaut Chris Hadfield is inspiring all Canadians as he serves on the international space station, the Conservatives are abandoning the 700 employees of the Canadian Space Agency.
The agency is in financial difficulty, but the Conservatives could not care less. The president resigned last week, frustrated that his projects were going nowhere.
What will the Conservatives do to keep the agency's employees and their expertise in Canada? Will they leave Commander Hadfield up in the air?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. 
If my colleague paid more attention to this file, she would know that, a few weeks ago, we announced Canada's participation in the very important and cutting-edge RADARSAT Constellation mission. We are world leaders in satellite technology. 
We are very proud of Chris Hadfield, the first Canadian astronaut to command the international space station.
By the way, Canada's participation in the international space station program until 2020 was announced in the 2012 economic action plan. Thanks to our plan, we have commanders like Chris Hadfield, whom we are very proud of.
Tourism IndustryFrançois Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, for years the tourism industry has been concerned about the constant decline in spending by international visitors to Canada. This reduction in spending runs counter to the international trend of 4% growth in 2012 alone.
We wonder why Canada is not benefiting from this trend, except when we consider the Conservatives' actions and see that the Canadian Tourism Commission has been underfunded for years. In fact, the Conservatives constantly cut its budget, contrary to what all of Canada's major competitors in the world are doing.
What measures will the Conservatives adopt in the next budget to correct this situation?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, that view is quite pessimistic because Canada is highly competitive in tourism. That is why our government has launched the federal tourism strategy.
I would remind my colleague that we are on the right track. Tourism-related spending has increased in Canada over the past 13 consecutive quarters despite the economic slowdown.
Increasing numbers of jobs are being created in the tourism sector, and we are welcoming increasing numbers of tourists from China, India and Brazil, which shows that the tourism industry is doing well.
We will be continuing on that path.
Public SafetyMr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has consistently taken steps to ensure our correctional system actually corrects criminal behaviour while respecting taxpayers' dollars. Radical left-wing special interests have complained that our government is treating criminals inhumanely by using the common practice of double-bunking.
Could the parliamentary secretary update the House on our government's position on double-bunking?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, that member is absolutely correct. Double-bunking is a completely normal practice used by many western countries.
 Corrections Canada, last year, completed a study that showed that the rates of double-bunking were not connected to the rates of violence. The fact of the matter is, contrary to the suggestion of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that prison populations would explode, the increases have actually been less than a quarter of what CSC predicted.
Not only is the NDP soft on crime, it is absolutely soft on facts.
EthicsScott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, the minister from Labrador is still under a cloud of serious election violations but he is doing nothing to help himself. Instead of coming clean and opening his books, he is helping to cover up more Conservative election fraud. He has given a high-paying job to Chris Crawford, the former CIMS database manager.
If the minister from Labrador still knows how to speak, could he get up and explain why he hired Mr. Crawford in his office in the first place, and what Mr. Crawford knows about Pierre Poutine's attack on voters?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, another day, another false allegation, another conspiracy theory.
It reminds me of that old television show, Unsolved Mysteries. Let me solve a few for the member. Who was Lennay Kekua? Fake. Beyoncé at the inauguration? Lip sync. Where is Jimmy Hoffa? Probably in the NDP caucus. Who made the illegal robocalls? The Liberal member for Guelph.
Case closed. Mystery solved.
Canada Revenue AgencyMs. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of my fellow citizens requested a tax form from the Canada Revenue Agency but was told to pick it up at her post office. However, it is the agency's responsibility to send out those forms. What is worse, there were none at her post office. Several attempts were made to reach the distribution centre, but without success.
When will the Conservatives realize that their cuts to public services are making life hard for people who simply want to file their income tax returns?
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the way that Canadians file their taxes is changing, and we are also changing to meet those needs. CRA encourages Canadians to file online, and a growing number of Canadians are taking advantage of that safe and secure option. Taxpayers can still file on paper, and tax forms remain available on request or at a local post office.
Again, last year roughly 1.3 million packages that were mailed out were never used. I certainly think everyone can appreciate that we should not be spending money in that way.
Foreign AffairsJohn Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, our government is continuously reviewing our network of diplomatic missions abroad to ensure taxpayer dollars are respected.
Canada House on Trafalgar Square in London is an historic heritage site and home to our High Commission. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please update the House on the status of this mission?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question and for the good work he does in the Canada-U.K. Interparliamentary Association. 
Canadians who have visited London may know that our High Commission enjoys a place of privilege in Canada House on Trafalgar Square. What many people may not realize is that our mission is currently split between Canada House and another aging building miles away.
We will be expanding Canada House, taking over the building immediately adjacent and consolidating the High Commission's operations in one spot. This will save taxpayers money and will provide better service to Canadians. This exciting project will improve our operations in one of the world's greatest cities.
Public Works and Government ServicesMatthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on June 15, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the City of Halifax in its dispute with the Government of Canada concerning the federal government's chronic undervaluation of historic sites. This ruling will have significant implications for municipal finances.
For example, Public Works and Government Services Canada valued Fort Chambly at five time less than the municipality did. That is a loss of $500,000 in property tax revenues for the City of Chambly.
When will the Conservatives comply with this ruling and give municipalities their fair share?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.
Public Works and Government Services Canada provides services to all Canadian taxpayers at the best value for money. I will be pleased to answer his question next week.
Employment InsuranceMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development will be travelling around to talk about the upcoming budget. If the economy is truly her priority, as the government claims it is, I hope that she will listen to employers in all regions who condemn the harmful effects of her employment insurance reform. 
Guillaume Gagnon, a businessman in Sainte-Flavie, said, “The reform will compromise all of our efforts and may even put the brakes on our future investments.” 
Rather than plow ahead with measures that are bad for regional economies and our business people, will the minister do the right thing and cancel her employment insurance reform?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, what will help business people and the regions is having the skills and the people they need. Our changes to employment insurance will make more information available to unemployed workers about suitable job openings in their regions. We will help them find available jobs. That is better for unemployed workers, employers and the regions.
International Co-operationAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers do not identify with Canada's international development assistance priorities.
The federal government is abandoning francophone countries with which Quebec has a special relationship. The government is helping the countries that it sees as markets instead of the countries with the most vulnerable populations. 
In response to this, Quebec has decided it wants to create its own development assistance agency. Since there is no constitutional provision preventing Quebec from funding humanitarian aid organizations itself, is the government open to giving Quebec its share of the CIDA envelope?
Lois Brown: Mr. Speaker, the federal government will continue to provide international assistance on behalf of all Canadians.
All Canadians, including Quebecers, have consistently donated generously to causes they believe in and to help those less fortunate. 
Under our government, Canada's aid investments are achieving results in food security, in maternal and child health, and in education. Canada will continue to assist those most vulnerable.

Routine Proceedings
House of Commons Journals No. 48Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the House of Commons Journals No. 48 from the first session of the 35th Parliament dated April 13, 1994.
Not Criminally Responsible Reform ActHon. Ed Fast:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder).
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMylène Freeman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that calls upon the House of Commons to protect the water and public health of our rural communities by supporting my motion. The petitioners come from Alberta and B.C., and I am very glad to have their support. We need some measures to help rural communities where there are septic systems polluting our environment and people cannot bring them up to standard. I am very glad to introduce this petition today.
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present 30 signatures from the constituents in my riding in support of Bill C-452, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which aims to fight sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Fair Rail Freight Service Act[Stage Direction]
 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant has three minutes left. 
Sylvain Chicoine: 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: 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?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: 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.
Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP): 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? 
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: 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: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
François Lapointe: 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: 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&amp;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.
Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): 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?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: 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: 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.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: 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: 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: 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?
[Interjection]
François Choquette: 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: 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?
[Interjection]
François Choquette: 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 (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
 (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee) 
[Interjection]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Private Members' Business
Transboundary Waters Protection ActMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):  moved that Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act, be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to rise to begin third reading debate on my private member's bill, the transboundary waters protection act. 
Since its introduction just over a year ago, we have had a fulsome, positive debate at second reading and again at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I thank all members of the House, and specifically those on the committee, for their contributions to the debate. I am hopeful that we will soon see the bill enacted.
The strong support that Bill C-383 has received thus far reflects the opinion of the vast majority of Canadians, who strongly oppose the bulk removal of water from Canada's freshwater basins. This is something I hear continuously from my constituents, family, friends and colleagues on all sides of the House. 
This is an issue that I believe unites us as parliamentarians. Indeed, it is rare to have an issue that is so clearly one-sided in a country as large and diverse as Canada.
Canadians want to know that their federal and provincial governments will take the necessary steps to prevent bulk removals of water from ever happening. Why? Not only do bulk water removals pose a significant threat to ecosystems, but water is also an important component in the fight against invasive species. By removing a potential pathway for these species, we could help prevent the devastation these species' movement between basins could cause.
When I was before the foreign affairs committee in October, I commented that no bill was ever perfect. All along I have been open to ways in which this legislation could be strengthened, which is why I would like to briefly explain one amendment that was made to Bill C-383 in committee, an amendment that I believe makes it a strong bill. Here I refer to the addition of purpose clauses to the sections of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act that contain the bulk water removal provisions. In my view these clauses clearly articulate that the purpose of these bulk water removal provisions is to prevent the potential harm these removals could cause to Canadian ecosystems and to reinforce our desire to prevent harm to the environment.
As most members know by now, Bill C-383 amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to bestow on transboundary waters—those that flow across the boundary—the same protections currently in place for boundary waters, those waters that straddle the border.
Speaking of that, I live on one of the Great Lakes, and that water also borders on the United States. I know exactly where we are coming from on that.
While the provinces have laws, regulations or policies in place to prevent the bulk removal of waters from their territories, our hope is that with Bill C-383 we will enhance protections at both the federal and provincial levels. Rest assured that we will continue to work with the provinces to ensure that these waters are protected.
The second amendment provided for in Bill C-383 is an amendment to the International River Improvements Act, which prohibits the issuing of a licence for an international river improvement that would link waters that are neither boundary nor transboundary with an international river if doing so would increase the annual flow of the international river at the boundary. This specific provision would ensure that an international river is not used as a conveyance or a pathway to move water in bulk outside of Canada.
This last amendment was recommended by water experts from the program on water issues at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto. In fact, testifying before the standing committee on October 25, the water experts voiced their support for Bill C-383, with one stating that:
 —the goal of protecting Canada's water resources from bulk export is significantly accomplished by way of this proposed legislation. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Munk School experts for their role over the years in Canadian water policy debates, and especially for the assistance they have provided to me on the bill.
Next, Bill C-383 moves some definitions and exceptions from the regulations of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act into the act itself. As has been touched upon in previous debates, moving definitions and exceptions into the act would entrench key definitions such as what constitutes the removal of water in bulk.
 These exceptions would allow for the removal of water temporarily for emergency or humanitarian purposes such as firefighting, but not for commercial purposes. These exceptions are reasonable and are not inconsistent with the purpose of the bulk water prohibition. Now that these definitions and exceptions are to be moved into the body of the act, any changes would have to be approved by Parliament. This would provide members of this House with much greater oversight.
During committee consideration of Bill C-383, there was some discussion about the definition of “bulk removal”. In the bill, “bulk removal” is defined as removing water from boundary or transboundary waters and taking it outside the Canadian portion of the water basin in which it is located. If the means of diversion include canals, tunnels, pipelines or other channels, for example, any removal is prohibited. In other words, any attempt to transfer even a drop of water outside the basin of a boundary or transboundary water using a canal or some kind of channel would be prohibited. By other means, one could not take more than 50,000 litres outside the basin per day.
Some members of the committee were concerned that this would be a potential loophole in the legislation. I want to be clear that this would not be a loophole. Even though 50,000 litres seems like a large number, it is no larger than a tanker truck or average residential swimming pool. As such, this could not be considered a bulk removal, and in fact could not be considered economically feasible.
I would like also like to address another area of the bill raised at committee regarding manufactured products containing water. As the bill states, “bulk removal does not include the taking of a manufactured product that contains water...outside the water basin...”. This includes water and other beverages in bottles or containers. This is included to ensure legitimate commerce, such as the products of breweries, soft drinks, juice, or even bottled water manufacturers, is not interfered with. My goal in introducing this legislation, and I believe it is the goal of others in this House, is to remove the threat of bulk removals of water, not prevent breweries and other manufacturers from selling their fine products around the globe.
Finally, I would like to take a minute to highlight the deterrence aspect of Bill C-383. Bill C-383 proposes amendments to strengthen the enforcement authorities, fines and sentencing provisions of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. 
These amendments include mandatory minimum fines for designated offences and increased maximum fines for all offences. For instance, violations of this act could result in a fine of up to $1 million for an individual and up to $6 million for a corporation for a first offence. In addition, these fines would be cumulative, meaning that every day the violation occurs is considered a separate violation. Fine totals could increase very rapidly. I believe that in itself would provide a strong deterrence against even contemplating violating the terms of this act.
Added to this, there would also be the potential for further fines under this act. Bill C-383 contains provisions that would allow the courts to add increased fines for aggravating factors such as damage to the environment.
As members know, my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is nestled between Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. It is basically surrounded on three sides by waters that would come under this act. It is an area where we have some of the greatest sources of water in this country. Coming from this part of the country, I have a deep appreciation for Canada's water resources. 
Although water seems abundant and everlasting, I do not, and we should not, take this resource for granted. I understand that we, as Ontarians, and we, as Canadians, must be responsible stewards of our water. I want to ensure this resource remains protected for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren and for generations into the future. I introduced Bill C-383 in order to play a small part in protecting Canada's water. 
We all agree that potential harm to Canada's water from bulk removals is too great to ignore. I urge all members of the House to vote for this measure.
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech. Bill C-383 is definitely a first step, but it is not enough.
For a long time the NDP has been asking for something much more comprehensive, a national water policy to address all aspects of water protection in Canada. Our party also wants a review of NAFTA with respect to bulk water exports.
I would like my colleague to comment on what else should be included in a national water policy.
[Interjection]
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member agrees with the bill in principle, that protecting our waters is the right way to go.
However, I have to respectfully point out that the member is trying to throw a bunch of different issues into the mix. This is a national bill. It covers transboundary waters. I do not want to put words in the member's mouth, but it appears he is implying we should get into provincial jurisdictions. I know from experience that if we were to try to do that, first, it is not necessary because they are covered by the provinces and territories, but, secondly, provinces like Alberta or Quebec would be the first ones to tell us to get out of their jurisdiction. 
The bill covers it very well, and the member's issue is not really part of this, at all. 
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's question. I would ask the hon. member what the government would do if a province lifted its current prohibition on exporting water. If, for example, a province like Newfoundland and Labrador decided to lift its prohibition and allow tanker ships to take water from Lake Gisborne to another country, would the member's bill prevent that?
[Interjection]
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his work on this issue. We had a bit of a disagreement on how we could get to an end, but I think we both have the same purpose, and I thank him for that. 
When one throws out what-ifs, what if the Ottawa River stopped flowing tomorrow? We would deal with that when it comes. The reality is, what province or territory is going to do that? Their taxpayers would be up in arms if they ever took away the controls and protections that protect their water. It is not a valid fear. That is all I am going to comment on it.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is a great outdoorsman, a lover of God's natural resources, both fish and wildlife. He mentioned in his speech that his private member's bill might go a long way in helping to ensure protection from invasive species. I wonder if he could talk about that, plus anything else he finds pertinent.
[Interjection]
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member and I both share a very strong love for the outdoors, including fishing. Invasive species are something our government has dealt with in a number of ways. With international shipping and so forth, species have come here in the past that have done long-term damage. We have tried to create some laws and enforcement to reduce that. There is always risk with some of these, but we have to do everything we can, not just as a government but as individuals, to continue that.
On diversions and channels, which was one of the things I talked about in my speech, everyone knows about the diversion that goes out of the south end of Lake Michigan through Chicago, which eventually goes in to the Mississippi. We have been very fortunate in our country so far to keep the infamous Asian carp out of there. Those are the types of things we have to protect against, and I think Bill C-383 will do that. 
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak to Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act.
I will start by saying that the NDP will be supporting this bill despite all its flaws.
This bill would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to strengthen prohibitions against the bulk removal of water and to enhance current protections. The bill applies to all transboundary waters between Canada and the United States, waters that flow from Canada to the United States and rivers that flow to the United States. If I am not mistaken, the Saint-François River, in the riding of Drummond, is affected by this bill.
This bill is very important to me because water is one of the world's greatest natural resources. Water is an incredible resource. It should even be a human right. The United Nations General Assembly recognized the right to water. On July 28, 2010, the General Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution recognizing the human right to water and sanitation. It is a right that is essential to human survival. It is such a fundamental right that violating it can cause death in just a few days if people do not have access to drinking water.
 Canada is very rich in water, in lakes and rivers of all sizes. Our country's water should be protected by a far-sighted national water policy. 
 After a series of promises from the Conservatives, this bill is before us at last. However, it does not address the most likely threat to Canadian waters: the interbasin transfer of water. Those are neither boundary nor transboundary waters, but they could be linked to international waters that flow from Canada to the United States and then exported to the United States.
 While Bill C-383 is a step in the right direction, it clearly does not ban all bulk exports of water. My colleague mentioned in his question that the bill has some serious weaknesses that could lead to bulk exports of water. We will continue our fight to reach our objectives. The NDP is completely opposed to bulk water exports.
 Thus, we want to ensure that all surface water is protected, that any eventual water exports by tanker ships are regulated, and that NAFTA's threats to our water supply are opposed. What is needed is a coordinated plan by all provinces to establish measures that ban the removal of water in bulk. We must call for the signing of bilateral agreements that would prevent the United States from acting unilaterally to import water and would address the issue of the exemptions under the act that allow the export of bottled drinking water and other beverages.
 As we can see, this would not be just a little bill about boundary waters. We want it to have a much larger scope. It would truly be a national water policy. In order to accomplish this, we need a government that really understands the importance of water to Canada. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not demonstrating such an understanding at this time. The Conservatives prefer to act through little bills and little actions. We see that such actions are not part of a vision. The Conservatives do not have much of a vision.
 When we were talking earlier about the railways, it was the same thing. It lacked vision. This bill shows that the Conservatives have no vision.
 In the NDP, we have a real, overall vision of what a national water policy to prevent bulk water exports should be.
 NAFTA defines water as a product. That is why that agreement has long been considered a threat to Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.
 On February 9, 1999, the House of Commons adopted an NDP motion calling for an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers. The motion also called on the government to introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers. Furthermore, the motion asked that the federal government not be a party to any international agreement that compels Canada to export freshwater against its will.
 It should be clear to everyone that the NDP has been working on this issue for a long time and working in this field for a long time. For many years, the NDP has called for a ban on bulk freshwater exports. The NDP has been the leading voice in this. We even have an idea for a national water strategy, which is very important.
 I would also like to talk about a recent report by the Commissioner of the Environment, Mr. Vaughan. The report was released last week. And I would like to thank Mr. Vaughan again for the excellent work he has done for Canadians. He has done an excellent job as environment commissioner. 
In his recent report on the environment, he said that the federal government has not done its job when it comes to shale gas. According to Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that health and the environment are protected against chemicals.
 At present, the federal government does not require mandatory disclosure of the chemicals used by shale gas companies. This is very serious, in spite of what they would have us believe. Every year, about 600 shale gas wells use the equivalent of 360,000 Olympic swimming pools of water, all mixed with 900 Olympic swimming pools of chemicals. When they say it is just a bit of chemicals seeping into the ground and into our environment, they forget to mention that it is mixed with a huge quantity of water, and that this amounts to a huge quantity of chemicals. The federal government, the Conservative government, is failing to protect our water, because it does not require mandatory disclosure of the chemicals used in the shale gas industry.
 I am very proud of the position taken by the leader of opposition, who is calling on the Conservative government to require mandatory disclosure of these chemicals. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is resting on its laurels and doing nothing about it. This is a threat to the environment and to people’s health. 
In fact, the environment commissioner said that it is a violation of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which includes the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle goes like this: when you are not sure, when you have doubts, and when there is a risk of a threat to health or the environment, you have to take precautions. If the Conservative government at least required disclosure of the chemicals, an appropriate analysis could be done and proper rules made and standards established for shale gas so that it is done in a way that is not harmful to the environment and human health. At present, we are in a complete vacuum.
 I have talked a lot about shale gas in this regard because I care a lot about it. My hon. colleague’s bill does not mention this national water policy, but it is necessary. What is missing is a more comprehensive vision, a broader vision. Water is a human right recognized by the United Nations. We have to have a strong national water policy that we can use to protect our environment and human health.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to announce that the Liberal caucus will support this bill.
We will support it mainly because we pushed for the government to introduce measures regarding the water export threat. I admit that this is more of a future threat than a current one since, right now, there is not really any great threat to the export of Canada's fresh water. This threat will grow in the future.
We urged the government to introduce measures consistent with those proposed by the University of Toronto's Munk Centre, namely, an approach that is mainly environmental in nature that would prohibit water diversions from one watershed to another in Canada. Without this prohibition, it would be possible to export water. In order to conduct large-scale water exports, the water must leave one watershed and go through several others to get to another country, namely, the United States.
We will support this bill because we want to make it clear that we are against the idea of exporting fresh water outside Canada.
That being said, this bill has many shortcomings. In response to the question I asked earlier, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound said that we should not dwell on hypothetical situations. I raised the idea that an entrepreneur could want to export water from Gisborne Lake in Newfoundland to another country using tanker ships.
That is not a hypothetical situation. It happened. I believe a local entrepreneur in Newfoundland may have even signed a contract with another country to do exactly that, but the provincial premier at the time, the hon. Brian Tobin, stepped in and declared a moratorium thereby cancelling the contract.
The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound said that, if ever a province decided to lift its moratorium on the export of water, there would be a public outcry and people would rail against the government.
Yes, I believe that that is what would happen today, but one never knows what might happen in the future. If a province is short on revenue and decides that it would be a good idea to export water and use the returns to fund its education or health care system, public opinion could change.
I would like to add that the president of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, whose name escapes me right now, is in favour of exporting water from Quebec to fund the health care system.
Public opinion can change, based on the type of campaign used to promote an idea.
I will set that aside for a moment to say that there are a number of flaws in this bill. My colleague from Drummond just mentioned a few.
The bill does not prohibit bulk water exports using tankers. It does not exclude the possibility of exporting water from rivers that flow into coastal areas, as is the case in British Columbia. This water could be exported using tankers or floating bags.
Even though my colleague would say the opposite, I doubt that this bill would prohibit the export of water to the United States via a pipeline.
The government claims that since this bill, which applies primarily to transboundary rivers, prohibits exports from these rivers, it therefore prohibits exports via a pipeline.
I am not sure that is the case. I would like to quote an expert, J. Owen Saunders, who works with the Munk Centre and who was involved when the centre presented the framework for a bill, which became my bill, to prohibit inter-basin water diversions in Canada.
Here is what Mr. Saunders said in committee:
 I would say that when you're talking about pipelines or canals, it is a grey area of international law. I assume the government is aware of that and is prepared to defend it under NAFTA. But certainly the argument can be made that the water has been captured when you put it into a pipeline. I take that point. 
That leaves the door open for a province to one day decide to lift its moratorium and sign a contract with an American company, and together the two could try to invalidate this aspect of the bill introduced by my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. It could happen, and that is one of this bill's flaws.
I would like to address the point that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has made on numerous occasions. His point was that my bill, which was voted on in the House and was defeated by the government, based on the work of the Munk Centre and the work of people such as J. Owen Saunders, was somehow unconstitutional because it was infringing on provincial jurisdiction. That is not the case. I asked Mr. Saunders that question in committee and he was quite categorical on that point. Preventing massive diversions of water from one water basin in Canada to another is a matter of national concern and fits within the peace, order and good government provisions of our Constitution. Therefore, I do not think that is a valid point. 
I think that it would be a bigger challenge to work with the provinces on issues such as this. This is the kind of challenge that a federal government that really cares about our water security would want to take up with the provinces. If a federal government wants to get anything done in this very complex federation, it has to have the courage to sit down with the provinces and work it out. However, it is much easier not to do that and to pass something that is much more limited and may have some holes in it.
I was hoping that we could have had more than one or two committee hearings on this issue. I was hoping that we could explore the issue of water exports within the context of NAFTA because this is where the issue gets complicated. This is why the hon. member has brought in the bill and why I brought in my bill. It is because there is still a lot of dispute as to whether our fresh water in its natural state is protected from the rules of free trade that are under NAFTA. It would have been good to explore that whole issue in committee. We might have drawn some conclusions about what more needs to be done to protect ourselves against the free trade provisions of NAFTA as they might apply to water. 
If ever there is a dispute on this issue and there is a Canada-U.S. tribunal struck under NAFTA, do not expect the American members of that tribunal to take the same point of view we have, that water is not part of NAFTA. In the United States, water in its natural state is a commodity. Therefore, we know where they stand on this issue.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join the debate on Bill C-383, the transboundary waters protection act.
First, I would like to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for bringing this important legislation forward. The support that the bill has received so far is a testament to his efforts and reflects the position of Canadians from all regions of this country on the need to protect Canada's waters.
Bulk removals of water would pose a significant threat to Canada's environment. The protection of this resource is of vital importance to all Canadians. That is why, in 2008, our government made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to put in place stronger protections to prevent the bulk removal of water. It is also why we introduced Bill C-26, which unfortunately died on the order paper with the 2011 election call.
Thanks to the work of the member from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, we have this bill before us. The time has now come for the House to pass the legislation, which would ensure Canadian waters are protected from bulk removals. I am glad to see that Bill C-383 is supported by the government and by members of all parties.
As my colleague mentioned, the transboundary waters protection act would amend two acts: the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. Amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act would prevent the bulk removal of water from transboundary waters, waters that flow across borders. Boundary waters that straddle the border, such as the Great Lakes, are already protected under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and its regulations. With the changes found in Bill C-383, all of these waters under federal jurisdiction would be protected from the bulk removal of water to outside the country.
There are other elements found in Bill C-383 that would strengthen protections against bulk removals. For example, proposed amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act would bring the enforcement authority fine schemes and sentencing provisions of the act in line with those found in the Environmental Enforcement Act, which delivers on the government's commitment to bolster protection of water, air, land and wildlife through more effective enforcement. 
Provisions found in Bill C-383, which would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, closely follow the regime from the Environmental Enforcement Act, in terms of the fine schemes. I must remind everyone again of these penalties. Sentencing provisions and enforcement tools would be available. These provisions would include mandatory minimum fines for designated offences and increased maximum fines of all offences under prosecution and conviction.
In addition to higher fines, the act would set out fine ranges that vary according to the nature of the offences and the type of offender, such as individuals, small revenue corporations and corporations. Each of these categories of offender would face stiff fines for violations. For example, individuals could face up to $1 million in fines and a corporation up to $6 million for the first offence. For a second or subsequent offence, the applicable fine range would double. Fines for contravening the law would be cumulative, meaning that a violation that continues for more than one day would be seen as a separate offence for each day that it continues.
Further, the court must order an offender to pay additional fines if the court determines that the offender obtained any property, benefit or advantage from the commission of the offence. Courts also must consider increasing fines if the offence caused damage or risk of damage to the environment. As with the other federal environmental statutes that were amended through the Environmental Enforcement Act, the bill includes other provisions that would enhance the goals of deterrence, denunciation and restoration, which are the fundamental purposes of sentencing.
This legislation contains provisions aligned with the publication of information about an offence committed and the punishment imposed as well as provisions requiring that corporate shareholders be notified in the event of a conviction. The objective is to encourage compliance, given the importance of public opinion to corporate success. 
As we can see, this legislation provides strict consequences for violation of the act. The goal is quite simple: to deter anyone from attempting to violate the bulk removal of water prohibitions found in the act.
Bill C-383 would also move certain definitions and exceptions from the regulations for the International Boundaries Water Treaty Act into the act itself. This would make it more difficult to change these definitions or exceptions at a later date and would provide Parliament with a stronger oversight role, should changes ever be considered.
I would also like to take a few minutes to speak about the provision in the bill that would amend the International River Improvements Act. The purpose of the International River Improvements Act is to ensure that international rivers are developed and used in the national interest. International rivers are waters that flow from any place in Canada to any place outside Canada. The International River Improvements Act requires proponents that would like to construct improvements, such as dams, canals, obstructions, reservoirs or other works that would significantly alter the flow or level of any international river at the international boundary, to apply for a licence. This act allows the federal government to ensure that all such works are constructed and operated in a manner that complies with the Canada-U.S. boundary treaty. 
 Bill C-383 would amend the act to prevent the use of international rivers to transfer large quantities of water across the border. As mentioned in previous speeches and during committee consideration of this bill, some water experts see the use of international rivers as a potentially efficient pathway for transferring water in bulk. To prevent this from happening, Bill C-383 would amend the International River Improvements Act to prohibit licences for linking waters wholly in Canada with international rivers and then using those rivers to move water in bulk across the border. This amendment to the International River Improvements Act would add another layer of protection against the bulk removal of water from Canada. It was endorsed by experts from the Munk School of Global Affairs during the recent standing committee consideration of Bill C-383.
I would once again like to offer my thanks to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing this legislation. As we have seen, the bill is roundly supported by members of the House. I urge all members to support this legislation when it comes up for a vote.
Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Our party intends to support this legislation, and I commend my colleague opposite for bringing it forward. However, I particularly want to thank all the activists in Canada who have been urging the government for several years to protect our most precious resource, namely our water.
Bill C-383 amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to strengthen the prohibitions against bulk water removal and to improve current protections. It targets all boundary waters between Canada and the United States, the waters flowing from Canada into the United States, and the rivers flowing into the United States.
In my opinion, this is an important piece of legislation that would help protect our resources. As a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, protecting Canada's waters is a major concern of mine. Therefore, I appreciate this opportunity to debate the bill, to stress its positive aspects, and to also discuss its limitations.
First, it is important to point out that the bill proposed by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is quite similar to the legislation presented by the Conservative government in 2010. Indeed, a bill was introduced following promises made by the Conservatives in the 2008 and 2009 throne speeches to introduce legislation to ban bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins.
As hon. members know, the bill presented by the Conservatives was never passed because it never went beyond first reading stage. Of course, it was not a government priority. The reason I am discussing the similarities with the old legislation is not just to underline the Conservatives' inaction to this day, but also because one of the positive aspects of Bill C-383 is that it addresses a major flaw that existed in Bill C-26. Indeed, the latter did not protect Canadian waters from its most serious threat, that is transfers from a water basin that is neither a boundary nor transboundary water body from Canada into the United States. 
As for Bill C-383, it proposes to amend the International River Improvements Act to prohibit the issuing of permits for projects that link non-boundary waters to an international river when the purpose of such projects is to increase the annual flow towards the United States. This is an important change that would prohibit the issuing of a permit to build, operate or maintain a canal or pipeline transporting Canadian water to an international river.
Like its predecessor, Bill C-383 has one major flaw: it does not prohibit all bulk water exports. That is why the NDP believes the legislation needs to go further. It must provide greater protection to this precious resource, water. We are hoping for legislation that provides for the protection of all surface water in Canada, the development of a plan coordinated with the provinces to implement the ban on bulk water removal, and the signing of binational agreements that would prevent the United States from acting unilaterally to import water.
Finally, the NDP especially wishes that the federal government will commit to addressing the threat posed by NAFTA to the sovereignty of Canada's water resources.
For those who may not know that, under NAFTA, Canadian water is both a service and an investment.
NAFTA defines water as a product. The definition of water as a good could weaken or invalidate provincial and federal legislation and regulations on the protection of our water.
In this regard, the Council of Canadians reminded us of the worrisome example of California's SunBelt Corporation. In 1990, SunBelt entered into an alliance with Canadian company Snowcap Waters to export bulk water from British Columbia to the United States.
On March 18, 1991, the Government of British Columbia imposed a moratorium on water exports. That moratorium was followed by the provincial government passing the Water Protection Act, which banned water exports for good.
After the British Columbia government passed this legislation, SunBelt filed a lawsuit against Canada under NAFTA provisions and demanded $10 billion in compensation.
At last report, the matter was still unresolved.
In order to deal with such threats, former NDP MP Bill Blaikie introduced, in 1999, an opposition motion that led to the moratorium on bulk water exports. The motion, which was adopted by the House, also tasked the government with introducing legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers. Furthermore, the motion stated that the federal government should not be a party to any international agreement that would compel Canada to export freshwater against its will.
The day after the motion was adopted, the Liberal government of the day announced a strategy to prohibit bulk water removal, including exports, in Canada's major basins. However, as was the case with many other grand Liberal announcements, the government did nothing tangible.
Needless to say, the NDP has not given up on its efforts to protect water. In June 2007, the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion asking the government to initiate talks with the U.S. and Mexican governments to ensure that water is excluded from NAFTA. The motion was adopted by the House, but the government has not yet had serious discussions with these countries.
Always mindful of protecting Canadians' interests, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster did not abandon the cause. In 2011, he tried again by once again introducing his motion calling for a national water strategy, Motion No. 5:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop and present a comprehensive water policy based on public trust, which would specifically: (a) recognize that access to water is a fundamental right; (b) recognize the UN Economic and Social Council finding, in General Comment 15 on the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights (2002), that access to clean water is a human right; (c) prohibit bulk water exports and implement strict restrictions on new diversions; (d) introduce legislation on national standards for safe, clean drinking water; (e) implement a national investment strategy to enable municipalities and aboriginal communities to upgrade desperately needed infrastructure without resorting to privatization through public-private partnerships; (f) oppose measures in international agreements that promote the privatization of water services; and (g) commit to ensure water does not become a tradable commodity in current and future trade deals. 
I would like to commend the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for showing the type of practical steps that must be taken. We must do what is necessary to make it law.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): There remains one minute before the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has his five-minute right of reply.
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Manicouagan has one minute.
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain: Mr. Speaker, although this speech addresses the risks associated with exporting massive quantities of water and how opposing that is an essential part of the national water policy, I will focus on why the public is concerned about the emergence of economic initiatives that commercialize the abundant water resources in our country's remote regions.
In light of the country's current political climate, the situation with industrial development and the commercial value attributed to our country's natural resources, I truly hope—and I hope this is being recorded—that the Conservative government is paying this lip service today, about how there is no commercial value associated with water as a product, with the best of intentions and not as part of a plan to hoard this resource for a future sale, once its value has reached international highs.
Larry Miller: Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take the whole five minutes on this wintry day in Ottawa and let everybody get out of here, but I do want to have a last chance to thank all the members for their past support on the bill. It has been unanimous support up to now. I am not taking anything for granted, but I certainly hope that continues. 
Regarding a couple of the members' comments today, I have to point out that they seem to want to interfere with and go into provincial jurisdictions. Then on the next breath they admit that would probably not be a very wise thing to do. I will leave you to speculate, Mr. Speaker, as to why they continue to do that. The bill would do what I want it to do and what most Canadians would want it to do. It does not cross boundaries, whether it is legal issues or provincial jurisdictions, and I think that is the wise approach on this. 
With that, I wish everyone a good weekend and I would appreciate their support next Wednesday on the third and final vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): With the completion of the hon. member's right of reply, the time provided for the debate has expired.
Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 13, 2013, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:58 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:58 p.m.)