Bill C-30 (Historical)

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures

This enactment amends the Canada Grain Act to permit the regulation of contracts relating to grain and the arbitration of disputes respecting the provisions of those contracts. It also amends the Canada Transportation Act with respect to railway transportation in order to, among other things,
(a) require the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to move the minimum amount of grain specified in the Canada Transportation Act or by order of the Governor in Council; and
(b) facilitate the movement of grain by rail.

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to speak to Bill C-30, Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

Today we debate this important bill that has the singular purpose of improving our supply chain and rail logistics in Canada. Since its introduction on Wednesday, the ministers of agriculture and transport have been out on the ground, meeting with stakeholders in that supply chain and working hard to ensure that this gets done properly and quickly.

The current transportation challenges affect all players in the supply chain, and it is essential that Canadian shippers remain competitive in domestic and international markets. Our government is focused on a way forward that will benefit all shippers, selling every commodity from grain to oil, and that will continue to grow our resource economy.

That is why we are taking immediate action to get all commodities moving faster, through legislation and regulations that are designed to increase supply chain transparency, strengthen contracts between producers and shippers, and help ensure the entire grain handling and transportation system is working at peak capacity. This legislation addresses the immediate needs of our economy and longer-term challenges because our economy needs a system that works today and tomorrow, with the capacity to move what is grown.

Yes, we are counting on all sides of the House of Commons to do the right thing and help us to implement these critical measures as quickly as possible. Our economy depends on it. As we all know, farmers delivered a record crop last year, one-third higher than the previous year and 50% higher than average. As many have said, if this type of performance is expected to be the new normal, we must prepare for that. That is what this legislation is about.

Farmers have not been able to deliver their grain to port or to customers, meaning that they do not have cash to finance their operators or storage capacity for next year's crop. A record $5 billion worth of grain could be sitting in farmers' bins, heading into the next crop year.

That is why earlier this month, we brought forward an order in council under the Canada Transportation Act to stabilize the national transportation system and to get grain moving to port. The order in council requires the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways to move a minimum quantity of western regulated grain each week. We are now building upon that order in council.

We will amend the Canada Transportation Act so that it includes the power to regulate volume requirements, as necessary, and extend the interswitching distances to 160 km for all commodities in the Prairies. We will also amend the Canada Grain Act in order to regulate grain contract provisions; require other information to increase transparency of the performance of railways, ports and terminals; and create the regulatory authority to add greater specificity to service level agreements, as requested by all shippers.

These concrete and comprehensive measures will take effect immediately after they are passed.

Under the bill, we will amend the Canada Transportation Act to set out minimum volumes of grain, in extraordinary circumstances, that railways are required to transport, at the joint recommendation of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This change would provide greater predictability for shippers and producers, supporting specific volume performance requirements and ensuring that the supply chain is prepared to respond to peak demand.

Second, our government is creating the regulatory authority to enable the Canadian Transportation Agency to extend interswitching distances to 160 kilometres from 30 kilometres for all commodities on the prairies. Interswitching is an operation performed by railway companies in which one carrier picks up cars from a shipper and drops off these cars to another carrier that performs the line haul.

Increasing the access that farmers and elevators have to the lines of competing railway companies will increase competition among railways for business and give shippers more transportation options. Up to 150 elevators would then have access to more than one railway, compared to only 14 right now. This will increase competition among railways as well as the grain elevators for farmers' business.

Third, we will amend the Canada Grain Act to strengthen contracts between producers and shippers. Regulatory provisions could be created to require that grain companies compensate producers if they do not honour their contracts.

Fourth, we are establishing regulatory power to add great specificity to service level agreements, as asked for by all shippers. We will do this by defining in regulations which operational requirements would be mandatory in these agreements.

These are the immediate measures we are taking in this legislation to get the grain moving now and over the coming months. But we are not stopping there.

We will also require the railways to deliver more timely and detailed data on grain movement. This will help in monitoring the performance of the supply chain. The Canadian Transportation Agency will also gather information from all grain supply chain partners on shipping capacities and plans prior to each new crop year.

This legislation will allow us to adopt clear and realistic solutions so that Canadian shippers have access to a world-class logistics system that will ensure predictable and timely shipping of Canada's agricultural and other products to markets.

Today we are also announcing that the government will expedite the review of the Canada Transportation Act, which will focus first on rail transportation.

This expedited review will evaluate solutions to the structural problems of the grain supply chain and determine how to amend the Canada Transportation Act in order to create a more flexible system.

Taken together, these measures would strengthen contracts between producers and shippers, improve performance by railways, and help ensure that the entire supply chain is working at full capacity.

As the minister of agriculture for Alberta said:

We are pleased that the federal government has brought forward the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which addresses some of our concerns and will help strengthen rail transportation system performance in the immediate- and long-term.

The minister of agriculture for Manitoba said:

The Manitoba government supports this move as it means trains will be able to travel longer distances along other rail companies’ tracks and will improve Manitoba’s access to the port in Churchill as well as important U.S. markets

Finally, the Canadian Canola Growers Association said:

The measures announced in yesterday’s Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate that Government is listening to farmers concerns.

This legislation is not the final step. Our government will continue to engage the full value chain and the provinces to look at the challenges of transporting this year's record harvest and identify all and any improvements moving forward. At the same time, our government will continue to build a stronger grain sector through an aggressive trade and innovation agenda.

We are looking forward to the debate in the House today. This legislation will be moving to committee as soon as possible. I do look to my colleagues in the other parties to support this important legislation before the House.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the government to take action for months and it is quite disappointing. The member quoted some people selectively, cherry-picking them.

I would like to quote Saskatchewan minister Lyle Stewart, who said he thinks "the railways came out the big winners" in the legislation. He thinks the legislation does not go far enough and he does not agree with the sunset clause in two years. He also said that the legislation “...doesn’t give much of a sense of security to producers or shippers...”.

I am just wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment, because everyone is not happy with this. Could he assure us that he would be willing to accept amendments to make the bill a better piece of legislation to prevent another grain crisis in the coming years?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier today, this is decisive legislation. It would impose a very ambitious but achievable and realistic target for the rail companies. They are going to be required to move one million metric tonnes of grain on the Prairies each and every week. That is more than double what they were moving a number of weeks ago.

In addition, this legislation would impose administrative monetary penalties of $100,000 a day for non-compliance.

The member is right that she and her NDP colleagues have been asking for action, and that is exactly what this legislation would deliver, after consultations with all of the key stakeholders. That is why the one million metric tonnes is so important. It is ambitious but achievable.

I ask my colleague this question. Will she support this legislation? Will she stand in her place and vote to move this legislation into law for the benefit of our grain farmers?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary would agree that the minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan, Mr. Stewart, has the interests of farmers at heart, consistent with his long-standing reputation in the public life of Saskatchewan. He says there are serious defects with this legislation.

We have also heard concerns expressed by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. A number of people have said this legislation is far from perfect.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could assure us simply that when this does go to committee—and there is, I think, a will in the House to move this through quickly today and get it before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—that the affairs of the standing committee will be organized in such a way that every representative of farm organizations from western Canada who wants to be heard on this subject will have the opportunity to be heard, that none of their testimony will be curtailed, and that the government will at least have the flexibility to listen to the recommendations where improvements could be achieved?

Everyone here wants the same result. We want the grain to move effectively and in a timely way. Will the government show some flexibility and undertake to at least listen to those who have concerns?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course I can assure the member and all other members that the government will listen and does listen. This legislation is actually the product of our listening and consulting with stakeholders who are seized with this challenge of moving grain to port.

As the member mentioned, the legislation is in front of the House for debate this afternoon and will then be moving to committee. It is the work of committee to determine how many witnesses will realistically be able to come to be heard at committee with their points of view on the bill. The committee will definitely be listening. MPs from all parties who are members of the committee will certainly be listening to the witnesses who come to comment on the bill. This will follow the normal legislative process, except that it is a more accelerated process because this is a very pressing problem that needs to be addressed in the immediate future.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, two members of the opposition from two different parties asked a very straightforward question: is the government willing to accept amendments to a bill that is fundamentally flawed? My colleague from Regina is correct that everyone here wants the exact same thing, to get this valuable product to port in a timely fashion. It is not a very difficult question.

It is not time for arrogance or political gamesmanship. It is a simple question: is the government willing to accept amendments to improve this legislation, yes or no?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question. Perhaps the member was not listening when I answered. The bill is going to committee. When it goes to committee, it is the work of committee to have witnesses come to comment on the bill, and the committee will be paying very close attention to the witnesses. That is why it will be inviting witnesses to comment on the bill.

The member also mentioned that it is a shortsighted bill, but I would argue that there are organizations that support this bill and that considerable consultation has gone into putting together this legislation now in front of Parliament.

I will quote the Canadian Canola Growers Association, which said, “The measures announced in yesterday's Bill, along with other efforts recently implemented demonstrate that Government is listening to farmers concerns.” The Canadian Canola Growers Association said the government was listening to farmers, which is what the member is asking for. We are already doing it. We will continue to do it and the committee will be to continue to hear from witnesses on this important legislation.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I of course expect to be participating at committee and hearing from witnesses next week when this legislation gets to committee. It is important because we not only have the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food but also the Minister of Transport co-operating to bring this important legislation forward.

I think I heard earlier today that the Manitoba government, for example, has said some very supportive things. I wonder if the member could share some of the feedback that we are hearing from important stakeholders who have been consulted extensively in this process.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous quotes and citations from stakeholders who support the legislation. They support the legislation because it is ambitious, but also realistic and achievable because of the excellent consultation between our Minister of Agriculture, our Minister of Transport, and the stakeholders in the supply chain management system. There is no sense setting goals that are completely unachievable, as they would serve no useful purpose. But we do want to set goals that are ambitious.

To respond very directly, the Manitoba minister of agriculture said:

The Manitoba government supports this move as it means trains will be able to travel longer distances along other rail companies' tracks and will improve Manitoba's access to the port in the Churchill, as well as important U.S. markets.

The Alberta minister of agriculture said:

We are pleased that the federal government has brought forward the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act....

The support is there.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would give us the specific assurance that in any regulations that may be published under the legislation, the situation affecting producer cars and short-line railways would be taken into account and that they would be afforded the kind of priority in the system that farmers would expect them to have?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, these types of stakeholders are part of the consultation process. The legislation will be going in front of committee and witnesses will be asked to come to committee to comment on the legislation. I would not be surprised at all if these types of stakeholders do come in front of committee.

I must say that the final decisions regarding witnesses and who will come to committee rest with the committee, but the committee will be making certain that it hears from key stakeholders that would be affected by the legislation.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures.

The new measures set out in this bill include the extension of inter-switching limits from 30 km to 160 km in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; shipping contract provisions, particularly with regard to the sanctions imposed when a contract is broken and dispute resolution; and the regulatory powers set out in the Canada Transportation Act with regard to foods that will be monitored to determine whether shippers are abiding by the agreements concerning the quantity of grain that must be shipped.

I am going to talk more about the content of this bill, but first I would like to provide some background information.

For a number of months now, grain farmers have been extremely frustrated with the problems they are having moving the grain they harvested last summer. These transportation difficulties are resulting in a drop in the quality of their grain and thus a drop in its price. They are worried that they will not be able to transport future harvests. Between $14.5 billion and $20 billion worth of grain is sitting in bins and cannot be moved. That is huge and unbelievable. It is estimated that the backlog is between 17 and 27 million metric tons.

This situation is all the more untenable since business partners are losing confidence. Not everyone is aware of this, but those who are dealing with consequences of the grain transportation backlog on a daily basis can tell you that this is a serious situation.

For a long time, Lynn Jacobson, President of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture, has been asking shippers to increase their capacity to respond to the need. We have been asking the same thing for months. Like everyone, Canada's grain farmers have bills to pay and loans to repay, and the banks will not wait.

For months, we have been urging the government to take action in order to achieve tangible results for farmers. It is completely unacceptable for hard-working farmers to be unable to ship their grain. In my opinion, this bill does not go far enough.

Two weeks ago, I was in Saskatchewan and met with farmers who told me what effect this transportation crisis had on their bottom line. I had a chance to better understand the situation and how complex it is. One farmer I met with made a map for me. This map now hangs in my office and has come in quite handy. A few things have become clear to me thanks to his explanation, such as prices, for one. Producers are seeing a large gap between the farm gate price and what they are seeing at the port. The most recent numbers I have seen are from March 19. The price in Davidson was $5.75 per bushel, and the price at the port of Vancouver for the same period was $10.60 per bushel. That is half.

I am disappointed to see that given the crisis, which is costing $8.3 billion in lost sales, there is still no direct compensation for farmers. I would have liked to have seen measures in this bill that would have compensated farmers for their losses.

When I met with farmers in Saskatchewan, one of them told me that he felt lucky, because his crop had been destroyed by a hail storm recently. He was lucky, because he had crop insurance, and he came out ahead of most farmers, despite that hail storm. This is not how farming should work. If our farmers produce a record bumper crop, they should be able to reap those rewards, not be penalized for years to come.

Another farmer told me that he sold high-grade grain for feed, because he could get a higher price than he could shipping it. That might be good news for the hog industry. We might be seeing some very healthy hogs this year, but for the grain producers, this is completely unacceptable.

The other thing I understand from the map is that transportation logistics is extremely complex in this country. Some of the farmers I met mentioned that there is no plan to replace the important work of the former iteration of the CWB. The NDP opposed the undemocratic and reckless gutting of the Canadian Wheat Board. We can see how important it is to have strong institutions representing our farmers and helping solve logistical issues in their interest.

I want to talk briefly about grain capacity. When the minister presented the order in council on March 7, farmers knew right away that it would not be enough. The minister is requiring that the rail companies move one million metric tonnes a week. That amount is what the railways always said they could do. Therefore, in the end, the government is forcing the railways to do something they were already going to do.

I will quote Lyle Stewart, the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan, who stated:

...at first blush...the legislation itself is deficient.

We made some substantial asks and they weren't numbers that we pulled out of the air. They were numbers that we got from industry and we knew that they were achievable. We believe that 13,000 cars a week of grain could be unloaded, for instance, without handicapping other commodities that need to flow from Western Canada and we thought that $250,000 a day penalties were not out of line for non-compliance.

It is clear that the government could have required more from the railways.

It is time the government took action, but this bill does not go far enough. The minister is trying to clean up a mess that he should have predicted and prevented. The measures being imposed will expire in two years. This is not a long-term solution that will keep this from happening again.

The government lacks vision. Many agronomists and public servants at the agriculture department have said that harvests are only going to get bigger. The bill does not attempt to find long-term solutions for farmers. In addition, the majority of the measures proposed in the bill will be implemented at a later date, but the issue is all too real right now.

The fact that the measures will expire in two years demonstrates, yet again, that the Conservatives see this as a short-term issue. In reality, this is a structural issue that farmers are faced with. The problem could well resurface in just a few harvests.

The minister did not respond to requests from the hardest hit provinces. They wanted stiffer fines, compensation for grain farmers and higher minimum targets for grain cars. As I said earlier, we condemn the fact that farmers have not received any compensation. This crisis has cost farmers $8.3 billion since it began, yet there is still no direct compensation for them. The NDP would never do that to farmers.

We have long been calling for better arbitration and tougher penalties for breaking service agreements. The Conservatives refused to pass those amendments six months ago. Now that they are facing a crisis, they have started listening to us. They should also listen to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I would like to end my remarks on the bill by reflecting on the policy direction of the government. I would like to see the government have a comprehensive vision for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is so important. It represents one in eight jobs in this country. It is vital to our economy.

The minister is bringing in pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to issues, rather than leading the way on ag issues. It seems that we only have a chance to debate agriculture-related bills in the House when something goes wrong. The latest grain transportation crisis is a good example of this. The government has waited months and months before acting. Then it has scrambled together a bill that could help farmers get their grain moving. This government only acts when it needs to, and it delays action as much as possible.

I wish we could work together. I am looking forward to having witnesses at committee. I am really hoping the government can agree to accept amendments and work together.

I am looking forward to seeing this bill go to committee, where we can hear witnesses and make this a better bill that will actually support farmers, get grain moving, and prevent this problem from happening in the future.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. I know that she has taken some time to travel to western Canada, specifically to Saskatchewan, to meet with farmers. I think that is a very good thing.

I wonder if the member could offer some opinions on what would have prompted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take the rather extraordinary step of disagreeing with his own government about the content of this legislation. He has pointed out, in particular, the likelihood that under the present draft of the legislation, short-line rail operations would be treated unfairly.

I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit more on what that unfairness would be. Again, why are we experiencing the rather unusual situation here of having a parliamentary secretary criticizing his government's own legislation?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have an article here, and I would like to quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said:

Without a consistent car supply, western Canadian shortlines and the loading facilities located on them are left in an extremely precarious position.

He goes on to say that the long-term solution to the crisis lies in mandatory service level agreements between shippers and railways, with reciprocal penalties during times of poor service.

I think he is actually standing up because this has been going on for months. I know that both opposition parties have worked very hard. We have asked questions. Last year, when Bill C-52 came to committee, we worked very hard and had a lot of amendments to make sure that it had more teeth and was a good piece of legislation that would help.

People are standing up across the country and saying that this is not enough. Now we have some members getting up, shortly after the tabling of this bill, to say that it is not enough and that we should work together to make it a better piece of legislation.

I am really hoping that the government will work with us, because on committee we are outnumbered. I can do the math. I am hoping that there is more openness and that the government members will actually listen to witnesses and to us when we come forward with amendments to make this a bill that will actually work and prevent long-term problems.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and her fine presentation.

I would like to know whether she is concerned about the fact that some producers have not delivered any of their 2013 grain harvest. With no delivery, there is no income, but those producers still have to pay for their expenses for 2013, when they sowed their fields. They are probably apprehensive about seeding their fields in spring 2014. I would like to know if the hon. member is concerned about the producers who might go bankrupt or who are on the verge of bankruptcy.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for her hard work with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It is always a pleasure to work with her.

During the recent two-week constituency break, I had the opportunity to visit Saskatchewan and Regina, where I met with many farmers, economists and stakeholders in the field, people who work on the ground. They are worried, frustrated and desperate. You can see in their eyes and hear in their voices that they are at the end of their rope. They have to borrow money, because the government is telling them to wait and to borrow money if they have a problem. This government's failure to act and its lack of vision are frustrating. How many months did it take for them to introduce this bill?

Now the Minister of Agriculture has a chance to save face. There is a lot of pressure from people who are angry and disappointed in the Minister of Agriculture regarding grain transportation and the crisis they are going through. They are also frustrated by the Conservatives in general, because they cannot trust the Conservatives. How can anyone trust a government that turns its back on farmers? They are desperate. That is why we are standing up for them.

When the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food examines this bill, I hope we have the opportunity to hear from many witnesses. We will also then have the opportunity to make some amendments to Bill C-30 in order to make it better.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague, who gave a great speech on the subject, to elaborate. It is not just the farmers who are going to have a devastating time on this one. It is all those other secondary producers, including the flour mills, the bakers, the restaurants, and the shops across the country and internationally who use those products for us and our daily sustenance on a regular basis.

I would like the member to elaborate on the trickle-down effect of the damage this is going to have on aspects of that economy in all of Canada.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking that question, because there is a domino effect. We are having problems domestically transporting. Some businesses have been touched to the point that people work on shiftwork at bakeries. Some businesses have been close to not having that shipment, so they have been almost to the point where they have not been able to bake those buns. This has a domino effect across the country, but also internationally. Canada has a real black eye.

There was a ship that came from Japan that was not able to fill up, so it went to the States. We have a black eye internationally. This is not good domestically, and it is not good internationally.

It is very frustrating, and I am hoping that there is more collaboration among parties. We all agree that something needs to be done. We all want to get grain moving. We all want to make sure that there is security and that we can regain the confidence we have lost because of this grain crisis. Let us work together.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to some questions earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said that the agriculture committee will ultimately determine the witness list and the way the bill will be dealt with at the committee stage. With regard to all the witnesses who may want to be heard, I recall a year ago, when Bill C-52 was before the standing committee, that there was a long list. The committee had six or seven meetings to accommodate all the witnesses.

Between now and the Easter adjournment, there would likely be only four regular sittings of the agriculture committee to deal with this legislation. It needs to be dealt with surely before the House adjourns for Easter. I wonder if, from the NDP perspective, the hon. member would agree that if necessary, to accommodate the witnesses, we would all agree to extend the hours of the agriculture committee, have the committee meet around the clock if necessary, to ensure that every single farmer and representative of a farm organization who wants to be heard on this vital legislation has the opportunity to present to the committee.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that we have to get this moving and start working on it as soon as possible.

The next meeting of the agriculture committee is on Monday. Personally, I am willing to work longer hours. I want to have as many witnesses as possible come and share their testimony. I know it is not much notice, but we could send out a request to people we want to have come to the committee.

I am completely open to working longer hours and having more meetings. However, that is not my decision and I cannot say that will happen. I am open to it, but it all depends on whether the government is willing to work together with members so that Bill C-30 will become a better piece of legislation. It is a question that the government will have to answer, but we in the NDP are open to that idea.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say “here we go again”. The House is once more dealing with legislation to patch up the grain handling and transportation system in western Canada. Just about a year ago, we were doing exactly the same thing.

Back then, it was called Bill C-52 and it was legislation to create service level agreements between shippers and railways. Just about everybody told the government at the time that Bill C-52, as originally presented, would not work, but the Conservatives refused to listen to any of that advice. They refused each and every amendment. They voted them down. They basically told farmers and others to get stuffed. They put on the whips and they voted against every single idea that was presented to the standing committee to try to make Bill C-52 useful. They forced it through with absolutely no change.

Sure enough, as everybody predicted at the time, it failed. Not a single service level agreement was ever completed under the useless Bill C-52.

That is one of the reasons the grain industry is now in such chaos. Grain shipments are months and months and millions of tonnes behind. Piles of crops are stranded on farms across the prairies. Some are now spoiling. Feed users and domestic processors cannot get the supplies they need. Terminals are half empty. Ships are waiting. Demurrage charges are horrendous.

Many sales have been lost outright; others have been deferred, and the prairie price is now down by 35% or 40% compared to where it was last year. Good customers like the Japanese are simply going elsewhere to buy the grain that they would normally come to Canada to get. World grain conferences are talking incessantly about the “unreliable” Canadian grain system. Some farmers have not had any income since last year. They are rolling last year's debt into next year's debt.

When all that is added together, and by the government's own calculations as specified in its March 7 order in council, the impact of this disaster is now in the range of some $8 billion in costs and losses. That is $8 billion scooped out of the prairie farm economy, most of it taken directly from the pockets of farmers.

The problem has been dragging on for very nearly six months now, and the best the government can forecast is that it will take another six long and painful months to clear the backlog that now exists.

Grain companies are going to have a banner year. The deductions that they are taking off farmers' cheques have never been higher. Railways are going to have a banner year. In fact, they have gone to New York and boasted to their shareholders that this year's grain problem is just a “modest” little thing. They tell their shareholders not to worry, because grain shippers are captive shippers anyway, and there is no other way to move the product. There are no serious financial penalties for not moving it, so eventually the railways will get paid in full.

The only ones here who are out of pocket for that $8 billion are the farmers. Crisis legislation is obviously necessary. Indeed, it is long overdue.

How did this mess arise? Everyone blames everyone else. They blame the weather and the big crop that came from the bumper harvest last year. It is always somebody else's fault. No one is responsible and no one is accountable for the failure and the damages.

However, let us think of the painfully damaging message this sends to prairie farmers. Of all of the participants in the grain system, the farmers are the ones who did their jobs very well last year. They produced maybe the best crop in history. Now the system is telling them not to dare do that again, because the rest of the system cannot handle anything more than just an average crop. Neither do we have the will to give grain any sense of priority, so the farmers are being told to just be content with mediocrity.

That is what the system is saying to farmers through the massive failure this past year.

That is simply not good enough.

The system failed farmers this past year. It failed badly. There is responsibility all around: for the railways, for the grain companies, and maybe even a bit for the cold winter. But if the system failed, then this is the question that must be asked: who designed the system? Who put it in place? Who set it up for failure? Who has imposed $8 billion in costs and losses on prairie farmers?

The unequivocal answer to that question is this: the current Government of Canada. This disastrous system, the one that has failed so badly, is the one that was designed and implemented over the past three years by the current government. That is where the buck has to stop.

So, we are faced will Bill C-30.

I think one thing in the bill that almost everyone, except the railways, would applaud is the change with respect to inter-switching. That would, possibly, simulate competition at a great many more delivery points across the Prairies. That would be a good thing. I note that some of the farm organizations are welcoming this move. They are also describing it as a modest improvement. However, it is an improvement and we all hope that it will work.

The legislation would also re-legislate the order in council from March 7, the one that ordered the railways to move a certain volume of grain in a certain timeframe. Significantly, however, the legislation would not improve upon the order of March 7. The railways would not be asked to do significantly better than they would otherwise have done anyway, with the onset of spring.

The question is, why not? That is the question being asked so eloquently by the minister of agriculture in the Province of Saskatchewan. He is a very practical, business-like, down-to-earth minister. He is a no-nonsense kind of guy. He would not propose a volume or a penalty system that was outlandish, outrageous, or impossible to achieve.

The Province of Saskatchewan, through the minister, has asked for about an 18% increase in the volumes to be shipped, and for penalties to be at the rate of $250,000 a day instead of $100,000 a day. He has looked it, he has examined it carefully as someone who knows the system, and he is saying, “Why not?” That would help, too, if the government could have a positive answer for Minister Stewart.

The rest of Bill C-30 would largely enable legislation to authorize the creation of future regulations. There would be no immediate action. It would simply be a matter of future hypotheticals if regulations were ultimately to be forthcoming.

We ask the question: why are there no legislative guarantees for farmers? A regulation could be changed by the stroke of a pen in the middle of the night. Right now, no one knows what those regulations might say. It would be very helpful if the government would table the draft regulations before the standing committee so it would know what those regulations would likely do when they finally come in.

For example, would there be comprehensive monitoring from one end of the system to the other to measure, analyze, and report publicly on grain marketing transportation and handling and the outcomes the system is actually generating?

Would there be complete transparency?

Would there be regulation on the basis calculations and the deductions that come off farmers' grain cheques and go into the pockets of grain companies? That basis spread, today, has never been wider in Canadian history, meaning that the grain companies are getting a lot of money and the farmers are getting less.

Would there be any sensible business-like coordination of grain handling and transportation logistics to replace the absolutely chaotic free-for-all that exists today? No one is out there directing traffic, so we have a snarled mess.

What about short lines? What about producer cars? These were the issues raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What about servicing domestic customers, like the feed grain users in the Fraser Valley, and the cereal manufacturers in eastern Canada?

Would there be a full costing review to track all revenues and costs to follow the money in the grain system to see how the efficiency gains have been shared or not shared over the past 22 years when then there was the last costing review?

Would there be any new capacity or surge capacity in those service level agreements? Would there be any precise definition about what service the railways must provide? How would performance be measured, and would farmers get liquidated damages when the system fails? Penalties paid to the government do not help farmers. The damages need to be paid to the farmers who have incurred the losses.

Why has all of this been left out of Bill C-30? It has been left to be done by regulation, maybe sometime. Why were these specific amendments voted down when they were last considered by the government a year ago in the context of Bill C-52? When will farmers get to see any of those proposed draft regulations? I think it would be very wise for the government to make sure that farmers and all of us have a chance to review those regulations before the standing committee is called upon to vote on Bill C-30.

Finally, will the government accept common sense amendments to try to fix the mess in grain handling and transportation, in the interests of farmers who, I repeat, are the ones and the only ones who are picking up the tab for all of this disaster?

Concerns about the inadequacy of Bill C-30 have obviously been expressed by many members of Parliament on all three sides of the House, and concern is coming from others as well: I mentioned the Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Saskatchewan; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities has expressed concern; the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association; and of course, the parliamentary secretary.

As the bill goes speedily through second reading today, which I think it should, and into the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for detailed consideration, the government needs to ensure that all of those who have these concerns, all of those who are going to be vitally affected for better or for worse by the outcome of Bill C-30, have the opportunity to be heard.

There are only about four meetings of the committee normally scheduled between now and when the House would adjourn at Easter. This matter has to be resolved before the Easter break. It would be very important for us to hear from all parties today, saying explicitly that, whatever extra hours or extra meetings of the agriculture committee may be required to make sure all the witnesses are heard, those meetings and hours will be added to the committee's agenda, so we can have a full ventilation of this subject. No one will feel they have been shut down or cut off, and we can all be assured that, when the final decisions are taken, the full information was before the committee and the decision is taken with full knowledge of what the circumstances are.

On behalf of the Liberal Party, I can say we are more than happy to have as many meetings as it takes to make sure everyone is heard. I think that is what I heard from the deputy agriculture critic for the NDP, and I hope the government would give us that assurance before the end of the afternoon, so we can all make sure that the agriculture committee does its job properly.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and say we are all on the same page here. I want to clarify that the NDP is ready to work as long as it takes on the agriculture committee to accommodate all the witnesses who would like to come before our committee.

We recognize there is not much time to get this done. We have about two weeks, which means four meetings, but we are ready to work as long and as hard as permitted by the government. It will be up to the Conservatives to agree to how much we can dedicate to the witnesses coming before committee for Bill C-30.

I wonder if the member could comment on Saskatchewan's agriculture minister, who wanted targets set to 13,000 cars a week with daily fines of up to $250,000. Right now we have fines up to $100,000, but that is up to $100,000 and it is not paid to farmers who are being so heavily hit because they have done a great job. They have a bumper crop, but if they are not able to move it, they are not being paid. Could the member comment on some of the suggestions by the Saskatchewan agriculture minister?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have followed the career of Minister Stewart in Saskatchewan quite closely. He is not given to hyperbole or overstatement. He is a very solid, practical, businesslike kind of guy.

He knows the agriculture industry from top to bottom. When he makes a recommendation like that, it is undoubtedly rooted in good, solid factual analysis. I am sure that his department, the Department of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, would have worked out the arithmetic to analyze his position.

Minister Stewart says quite clearly that the level the government has set for railways to move a certain volume of grain is too low. It is not a stretch. It is not a reach. It simply would require them, at the level set by the government, to move what they would have moved anyway over the course of the spring.

Minister Stewart is saying, given that there is a backlog that has been accumulating for six months—literally millions of tonnes stranded on farms—that the government should up the ante with the railways and ask them if they could not do a bit more. He has suggested an increase from 11,000 to 13,000 cars. That is about an 18% increase, which does not strike me as outlandish or unreasonable, and it is obviously backed up by the analysis of the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture.

As for the penalties, quite frankly, $100,000 a day would sound like a pretty stern penalty for most individuals. For the railways of Canada, that is walking-around money; it is not something that is likely to influence their behaviour severely.

Minister Stewart has a point that the penalties need to be higher than they are today, to be meaningful. I agree thoroughly. Those penalties should in some way go to the advantage of farmers and not just go into the coffers of the Minister of Finance.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We have heard some very interesting things in the House today.

About 80% of the riding that I represent is made up of farmers. The area has a lot of farmland. We do not grow a lot of grain, but I know quite a bit about the situation and about how important it is to discuss Bill C-30 and to hear from as many witnesses as possible in committee.

I do not know how the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food works. I know more about other committees. However, I do know that, unfortunately, over the course of this session, the Conservatives have not wanted to discuss issues. This is becoming customary. I would like the member to expand on that.

Does the member really believe that the government will accept the amendments proposed? Does he think that the Conservative government will be able to accommodate the many witnesses who want to testify regarding Bill C-30?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful on the last point, that the government will at least make the gesture of making it possible for all of the witnesses to be heard. It would be pretty unseemly if some farm organizations and farm groups from western Canada were shut down or shut out simply because there was not enough time, when it is obviously possible to make time if we have the political will to do that. Anybody who would be shut out would be constituents of the government in large measure, so I do not think the government would be inclined to do that. I hope we will see that kind of generosity and flexibility from the government.

In terms of the willingness to accept amendments, I hope the experience from last year will be instructive to the government. Last year, many of these same issues were before the House and before the standing committee in consideration of Bill C-52, the legislation dealing with service level agreements. The arguments were all made. The government brought in the whips and voted down all the amendments. Now it is clear that was the wrong thing to do. At least some of those amendments would have made a difference. Some of those amendments could have prevented the problems we are now having, or at least reduced the consequences of those problems.

Based on that experience, I hope the government will be more open to hearing what the farm organizations are truly saying and respond to that testimony with concrete changes to the legislation. The government did not do a good job last year. It has an opportunity now to fix it. With that experience so recently in mind, I hope the government will learn from the mistakes made a year ago.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very informative speech and also for all the hard work he has done on behalf of farmers over the years he has been in this House.

There has been a debate regarding the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board's single-desk status and this catastrophe we are facing today, as we have read in The Western Producer and other newspapers and heard in talking with farmers.

I would like the member's opinion. Is part of the reason for this catastrophe today the loss of the single-desk status of the Canadian Wheat Board?

I know the member has been on the ground talking to farmers, and I would like to get his opinion on this.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, quite a number of farmers would certainly make that case.

The Canadian Wheat Board had a variety of functions in the system. Some of them were set out in legislation, such as the single-desk seller function. Some of its functions simply developed by way of the evolution of the grain system in western Canada. The Wheat Board was there, after all, for the better part of 60 years. It became, in a way, the quarterback in the system, helping to direct traffic and provide some overall coordination.

When the Conservatives made the decision to eliminate the single desk, it was their policy decision to make as government, and they took that decision. However, I do not think they contemplated the collateral damage, and some of the collateral damage was the total elimination of any coordinating function, any oversight function, and any ability to try to use limited assets in the most cost-effective businesslike fashion.

This is what is missing in the system now. It is not an issue, at the moment, of single-desk selling or not, but an issue of absolute chaos in an uncoordinated system where no one is paying attention to the synchronization.

It is a very complex system. It is a system where one has to get the right grain from the right delivery point to the right terminal onto the right boat to the right customer, all just in time. It is a very intricate, complex number of parts that all have to work together.

At the moment, no one is trying to bring any coordination to that. No one is trying to make sure we use these obviously limited assets in the most cost-effective way, so we do not have a colossal screw-up but rather a smoothly functioning system that would get the most money for farmers, because the product is delivered to the right place, at the right time when the--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have to stop the member there, because we have run out of time for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to add a few comments in the debate on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act. I certainly support the motivation behind this bill, and I am most mindful of the problem that exists in the prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. However, I want to place a couple of concerns on the record and ask whether there may be some unintended consequences of the bill. I support the bill and will keep my comments short enough so that this bill can be moved expeditiously to committee before the end of the day.

This bill seems to be based on a premise that it is the railroads, and the railroads alone, that are responsible for the inability of farmers to get their grain to markets. Although there may be some truth to that statement or that moral blameworthiness, I think it is an oversimplification.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture talked about the extensive consultation with the railroads before the implementation of the order in council approximately three or four weeks ago and the tabling of legislation. The railroads claim that there was a lack of consultation. CP president Hunter Harrison stated in the media that he was very concerned about the speed and the lack of consultation by the government in making such significant changes. Canadian National, which forms the southern boundary of my riding of Edmonton—St. Albert, has expressed similar concerns with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt know, being a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, that this is a complicated supply chain. For grain to be moved to market, it requires the co-operation and coordination, as the member for Wascana just indicated, of multiple moving parts, including grain cars, elevators, and inland terminals. Of course, the railways are a big piece of the puzzle, but there are also ports, ships, and weather. All of these things have to work together if grain is going to be moved in an orderly manner from the field to the bin to the elevator to the railcar to the port and to markets.

We had a bit of a perfect storm last year, in a good way. There was a bumper crop. Crops have been estimated to be anywhere from 50% or higher than average yields, and that created a problem. The railroads have also had some weather experiences this winter, which was a very significant amount of snow and cold weather over the prairie provinces, and all over Canada as a whole. As a result, their ability to move grain was comprised. The government needs to be mindful of that.

I am always concerned when the government's solution to any problem is to bring in heavy-handed regulation, especially if the railroads are correct in their assessment that the regulations were brought in without adequate consultation. In fact, there is some suggestion in some editorials today that a solution like this may have unintended consequences that could cause more problems than it would solve. They may get grain moving; they may not. We always have to be mindful that there is not infinite capacity for the railroads to move product. There are only so many rails and so many cars. We also have to be mindful of other conditions, such as weather, and something that I do not think we have talked about today, which is safety.

The year 2013 was horrific for rail accidents. The most tragic was the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, in July 2013. However, there were also derailments in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where products, including dangerous products, were derailed and caused fires, though thankfully nothing as catastrophic as was experienced in Quebec.

Nonetheless, if we are going to put extra pressure on the railways to move more product, does that mean they are going to have to move trains faster? Does that mean they are going to have to use longer trains? Has anybody properly considered what that might mean for the safety of moving product by rail? There are those who live in communities that surround railroad tracks, like I do. I live less than two blocks from the Walker Yard, which is the main switching yard in western Canada for CN Rail. I hope the government takes into consideration that it is a complicated chain.

Another problem with the weather this year, as I understand it, is with respect to the Great Lakes and moving product through Thunder Bay and that region. The ice is not allowing for the free flow of water, and perhaps the government needs to consider using icebreakers to help break up the ice so that more ships with grain can move through the Great Lakes.

The problem is much more complicated than simply blaming the railroads. There is no doubt they have major responsibility and are a major part of the supply chain, but the supply chain is larger than they are.

I will resume my seat and take questions in a moment because I want to see the bill go to committee before the clock hits the bottom of the hour, but I would ask the government to consider what some of the unintended consequences of bringing in more regulations to the railways might be.

The last thing I want to say is that rail is responsible for moving other products besides grain. There is potash. There is oil. If the railways are forced by threat of a $100,000-per-day fine to put priority on grain over other commodities, are we going to be standing up in the House three months or six months from now debating a potash fair transport act or an oil fair transport act? Those products are going to become compromised if grain becomes the only priority.

I support the intention of the bill. I am very sympathetic to the farmers who are unable to move their product and who have grain in their bins that could conceivably rot and spoil if left there too long, so I support moving the bill to committee today. However, I ask the government and the committee to consider some of the unintended consequences to the railroads as the bill moves forward to committee and back to the House. The railroads are only one part, albeit a big one, of the supply chain.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to enter into the debate, because obviously this piece of legislation is critical for folks who have been dealing with rail car shortages, and I have another reflection to add to this discussion.

Friends of mine from the west coast and from forestry economies across Canada have particularly seen abuses from rail companies, which have often simply broken contracts. They had contracts for rail cars to be delivered so that they could move products to markets, particularly in B. C. on the coast. I am thinking about communities like Fort St. James, Burns Lake, and Houston, where they have had piles upon piles of wood ready to go, with buyers ready, and people going to work at the mill to produce that wood. The rail companies, in northern B. C. at least, and in too many other parts of the country, have a virtual monopoly. They either deal with the company or deal with the company. There are no other choices.

Does my friend have any comment as to the broader effects of abuses that go on when governments allow unregulated monopolies to establish themselves and then cause so many grievances in the supply chain? As he mentioned in his speech, it affects not just the industry we are talking about today but many other industries as well, such as the forestry industry in British Columbia and other provinces.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if railways are breaking contracts, the remedy is quite simple: litigation for breach of contract.

The bigger problem, as I think my friend indicated, is the lack of competition. Yes, we have a duopoly. There are only two major railroads running in our country, and that creates a problem. Interswitching may or may not help. It might actually hurt, if American railways start demanding use of other lines. The long-term solution would be more competition, and bringing in the heavy hand of regulation is unlikely to attract any further competition.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek agreement that we see the clock at 1:30.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.