Oh sure. Yes.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
If the shipper can show the agency.... First of all, you need a breach, so you need the agency need to come to the conclusion that the railway has breached its obligations. If it has, and if the agency is satisfied that there's been a loss, then the agency has the ability to award compensation.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Well, it's not required, but if you require it, then at every time they have to order it. But you may not be in a circumstance where you need to order compensation every time if there hasn't been a loss. It's a power given to the agency. If there has been a loss, then you assume that the agency will order it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Chair, I have a comment. I've sold enough product to know that you never want to be in court all the time collecting your money. I think that's what concerns me about this whole thing: that all of a sudden the railroads say they think they did their job and they have their lawyers and it goes back and forth and back and forth. At the end of the day, if a farmer feels and shows that he has been done wrong or has lost money and goes to this agency, then that's it, right? If the agency says yes, you've lost $100,000, that's it. The farmer assumes he's getting $100,000, I'm guessing. Or does it end up in court with the railroad and the farmer having to wait until all of that comes out?
That's the last part. I understand. This, on the outside, is good, and the parliamentary secretary explained it all to us, but it's that final part of getting the money into the farmer's account that concerns me. You've explained it, but I don't have the official on that.... Can the railroads can go to court to fight it, maybe for months? So the farmer might.... Is that possible?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Yes. The answer is yes. I mean, if the agency issues a decision under the act, there is an appeal process to the Federal Court of Appeal, but it's true in every instance, whether you have a contract or whether you have an arbitration process. There is always an ability to challenge a decision of an arbitrator or any body of law and to appeal it if you believe the decision is wrong.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
There's an appeal process in legislation for the railway to—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
—there's an appeal process for the transportation company to go back to, and the farmer has to wait until that's all settled.
4:15 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
Yes.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Are there any other points?
If not, we do have an amendment that was amended and accepted, so I would ask, shall amendment G-1, reference number 6515935, carry as amended? That was with the French component to it. Will it be carried until we have—
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you.
I indicated this to the parliamentary secretary earlier, and I didn't quite get a response.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Yes, through the chair, what I suggested in my comments....
You may have been consumed with advice that was coming back and forth from the back wall. I know the brilliance that is back there and they perhaps were helping out, which is always a good thing, because we have brilliant folks back here as well. What I suggested was on your last piece, “Paragraph 116(4)(c.1) of the Act is repealed”, which is the sunset provision.
What I suggested was that if there were a willingness across the way, we'd present a subamendment that says to remove it, but rather than going through an additional vote—which is what I'm trying to suggest to you—if the willingness isn't there, then I guess I'm not going to propose a subamendment that says we want to repeal that piece, and then we won't have an additional vote. That's what I was trying to suggest to you.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I think it's really important to put this legislation in context. This is legislation that has a start and a finish. It's meant to address a situation that exists right now and that is going to exist for the foreseeable future. But there will be an end to it, so there are many clauses in here that are going to be repealed in time. I think that is appropriate.
I would also say that there is going to be a review of the Transportation Act. We heard many witnesses say they actually liked the legislation the way it was. They had a couple of suggestions, such as this particular one that I'm proposing right now, but they also fully recognized that under the upcoming review, which I'll call an accelerated review because we're starting the review of the Transportation Act earlier, they are going to make more meaningful long-term types of suggestions as to how to amend the Transportation Act.
I really want to put into context that this bill actually has a start and a finish. It can be extended at the time. When things should be sunsetting, there will be a possibility to extend, but this legislation is not meant to go on into eternity.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'd just like a little clarification on terminology.
Alain, you mentioned that the shipper gets compensated, but how does the farmer get compensated? You keep talking about how the shipper's going to be compensated. You mean the shipper from the grain company? You're not talking about the farmer?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Transport, Legal Services, Department of Justice
The legislation deals with the relationship between the shipper and the railway. If the farmer's not the shipper.... The legislation only deals with the relationship between the shipper and the railway. The relationship that exists between the shipper and the farmer will be dealt with under the instrument that deals with that, but this act doesn't cover that.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm just using the hypothetical situation. That boatload of grain was supposed to go to Japan, but that didn't happen, and it keeps coming back, and eventually the farmer doesn't get paid or gets paid less or whatever and has to go for another shipment. Let's follow the money here. When that boat leaves without taking their grain, the grain goes to rail and to the shipper, which is the grain company, but it doesn't necessarily come back to the farm in this process. This is only for the grain company and the transportation company. The farmer's not involved with this process. Is that right?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
That's correct. The farmer's interests are in the CGA. The amendments to Bill C-30, which we talked about earlier, deal with provisions that can be inserted into contracts and the penalties for breach of those provisions. That's the relationship between the shipper and the farmer, and that's how the farmer gets compensated.
