Agriculture Committee on April 7th, 2014

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I hear what the department and the parliamentary secretary are saying about the magnitude of the difference between the others. I appreciate that relative magnitude between what others may feel, “Why am I less important than someone else when it comes to a fine? My industry is suffering.” I can understand they might say that and then ask why they get to have that fine that large. And the fine, if it happens to me, is only this small. I recognize that may pose some difficulties for the government side.

But, unfortunately, we're dealing only with this piece of legislation that talks about this specific opportunity. I guess when you do the other pieces, you can decide, when you do the review, if you want to review the fines up or down, or sideways, whatever you decide to do.

Clearly, we didn't pull the number out of the air. It's been supported, as has been previously stated, by the Province of Saskatchewan. It's been their suggestion that this be the level.

I'm sensitive to what the parliamentary secretary said, for the Minister of Transport, around the difference in the magnitude. I agree that poses some difficulties, for sure. But I think in this particular case, what was trying to be driven by many of us—and I think the reason for actually doing the whole legislation—is that there's a problem in this one particular instance, driven by a grain crisis. That's the reason we're all here tonight, quite frankly. It's not to review the entire system; it's to do something specific to try to alleviate a specific problem.

I think in this particular case, notwithstanding the magnitude is greater.... I truly am sensitive to that. I'm not making a political statement. I agree the magnitude is quite substantive, 10 times as.... It's quite significant. But in this particular case, I think the big stick is actually what we're looking for. Perhaps this is a way of doing it, perhaps not. But that's what we put on offer. Whether that's something the government doesn't want to go to, I understand, but we'd like to see the big stick come out.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I would just echo that it is $100,000 per day.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Per infraction.

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

The other thing I would mention, too, is that with the earlier amendment that we passed, the railways also now, with respect to service-level agreements, have some obligations as well with potential costs, should they fail in delivering on their service levels, and there's the impact that would have on shippers. I would say that the stakes are higher now, given the amendment that we passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

That was kind of where I was going to go as well with the service-level agreements of the prior amendment. But, I think, just going to the testimony we heard, that they were focused on having contractual relationships between the shipper and the railroad. That seemed to be the major focus, whether it's 100,000 or 250,000. I think a lot of people looked at that and said that really wasn't the point. The point was to make sure there were some teeth here and that there were going to be these relationships to keep those volumes up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Watson, I don't know if you have a comment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Then, I think we're at the end of that.

Shall amendment NDP-9 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We will now move to NDP amendment number 10, reference 6502727.

Madam Brosseau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

There is a ruling, an inadmissible ruling on it. But you do get your day in court here, so please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is clause 9 to be amended by adding after line 15, on page 5, the following: “(4) The total amount of the penalties provided for in subsection (3) is to be paid into a compensation plan for producers administered by the Canadian Grain Commission.”

I know it's been ruled inadmissible, but we just wanted to push the fact that we want to see compensation for farmers. That's basically it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Just so everyone knows, I want to make sure we have as much debate and discussion on the amendments as we've been able to. There have been a couple of other ones. I may have been able to have done something in terms of stopping that, but I wanted to make sure that we didn't.

The ruling is that Bill C-30...and clause 9 seeks to amend the Canada Transportation Act by imposing a penalty for any contravention to the threshold of grain transportation. That amendment attempts to create, based on the penalties imposed by clause 9, a compensation plan for producers, which would be administered by the Canadian Grain Commission.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 767, it really is at the initiative of the crown: “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury...”

Okay?

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

Got it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I wanted to make sure that you had a chance to bring it forward, but also that we understood that there's a reason in terms of the royal recommendation.

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

We know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We will then move to clause 9.

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

Recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Shall clause 9 carry?

(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

We'll move on now to clause 10.

Shall clause 10 carry?

(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Shall clause 11 carry?

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Shall clause 12 carry?

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Shall clause 13 carry?

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Shall clause 14 carry?

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

(On clause 15)

In clause 15, G-3, as I mentioned prior, is adopted based on G-1.

Shall clause 15 carry as amended? The amendment would be consequential to G-1.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I could ask for clarification, are you suggesting that you don't wish comments on the amendment to clause 15? Are we just simply going to go through the formality of voting on it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

There's no vote on it because of G-1. As I mentioned, when we did G-1, when it was approved it was consequential to G-3 also. It would be adopted.

As for anyone who wanted to speak, I didn't see anyone who wanted to bring it forward since it had already been adopted.

But if you want to debate it....

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Can somebody explain—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Well, we've already started the votes—

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I know, and I appreciate the clarification, Chair. There was perhaps a misunderstanding at the beginning when you suggested that there was a consequential amendment. Perhaps we could take a second so I can go back and take a look at it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Chair. I would not dare to do that. I understand the circumstances of what you're saying. I just want to go back to my friend across the way and his first amendment. I recognize that the initial motion by the parliamentary secretary also included a sunset provision.

It may well have been me not quite understanding what the direction was. I certainly am prepared to accept your ruling, as long as we're all clear around the issue of us actually now voting on the entire clause as amended. Or is it the amendment to the clause?