Agriculture Committee on April 7th, 2014

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

Thanks, Chair.

I would just say that it's really not practical. This is putting into law that companies must contact all producers.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Every producer?

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

By law. How would one go about doing that in a timely manner or making sure that you actually contacted all producers?

It's important and appropriate that players or people be contacted. That's what the section says. The section actually says, “The Agency may also consult with any other person that it considers appropriate”.

I think that is within the parameters of realism, but the way this is worded right now, this would obligate contacting the producers in all affected regions, like every producer. I just don't think it's practical and for that reason I don't think it should be part of the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Shall this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

We'll move on to amendment LIB-3.

Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment is very similar to the one we had before from the testimonies that we had. It's in the part there that states, “the Agency must provide the Minister with advice on the minimum amount of grain that each company”, etc.

This amendments states:

“year, and on the provisions that need to be made to provide a reasonable and consistent supply of grain cars to short-line rail operators, producer car shippers and domestic grain users. The Agency may also consult with any”

I can repeat the ones that came forward with this before. The federation put on a strong case when they stated:

...the bill should be amended to ensure that producer car users are also consulted by the CTA before it makes its recommendations to the minister.

It was also stated that the government must ensure that all shipping corridors, with priority given to Canadian mills and livestock industries, are adequately serviced.

I've got to stress, Mr. Chair, that when the farmers from British Columbia were pleading for us to do something to make sure that they had the grain in the billion-dollar industry that they had there, and that they only had days of having grain for their livestock, it was also stated, and I heard, that they could always ship it in by truck.

I know the honourable member here is from Peace River and what it would cost to ship a tonne of grain by truck down to the Fraser Valley would be in the hundreds of dollars. That's not feasible and you cannot stay in business very long with that.

I think this fits well here. It's making sure that the agency keeps an eye on those corridors and those producer cars, especially the Canadian mills and livestock industry that we have here in our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Eyking.

I think it has been talked about before in a general context. Anyone else?

I'll bring the amendment forward.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Shall clause 6 carry?

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I request that this particular clause, since there were a number of amendments, be carried on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Is there any objection that clause 6 carry on division?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Recorded vote?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Again, on clause 6.

(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

We'll now go to amendment NDP-5.

(On clause 7)

Madame Brosseau.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, this is in clause 7, it's to be amended by replacing line 39 on page 4 with the following:

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Agency shall, no later than one month after the coming into force of this subsection, make any regulations under paragraph (1)(c) that may be necessary in order to achieve the traffic of grain referred to in section 116.2 within the time period set out in that section. A regulation made under paragraph

So, basically, this is an amendment to make sure that regulations are made within a certain time. We heard some testimony and definitely when I was speaking with some stakeholders the timeline was a concern because it is not legislated. We wanted to make sure to have a better idea of timelines for this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madam Brosseau.

Are there any comments on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Shall clause 7 carry?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

A recorded vote.

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to amendment NDP-6.

Madam Brosseau, please.

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

That Bill C-30 be amended by adding after line 43 on page 4 the following new clause.

7.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 128:

128.1 The Agency must, in consultation with the provincial governments, develop and implement a plan respecting open access running rights for the traffic of grain that would allow any railway company to run its trains on any other railway company's lines in exchange for reasonable compensation and that would ensure that competitive service options are available to shippers.

So we are just asking that the government work with the provinces to develop and implement a plan for open running access rights.

Basically, that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I just see a bunch of trains running into each other with open access—a train wreck, thank you, Ruth Ellen.

I have some major concerns in that. We have to have all of the railways working together on this thing and I think there need to be some compensation processes to make sure what is done is right. But I'm not sure that you'll be able to have CP running on all CN lines and vice versa, and BNSF and whoever else in the U.S. having all the same running rights. I just see a huge mess happening if that would take place. So from the safety aspect it's, as Ms. Brosseau said, a train wreck.

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

I wasn't summarizing, I was helping you to find your words.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Isn't it quite ironic that the New Democrats are suggesting we should have an open market and the other side are suggesting we shouldn't? That's quite unusual, but I leave that for folks to make those value decisions obviously.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

We've just seen chaos.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

This is not a new proposal. This comes from 2001, from Justice Willard Estey, who made the suggestion to the transport ministry in 2001-02 to look at open running rights. At the time, CN and CP said they weren't interested in open running rights. They wanted to keep it closed here in our country, in Canada, while they lobbied the U.S. Congress for open running rights in the U.S.

Of course, CN and CP were successful in the U.S. for open running rights, contrary to my good friend Mr. Payne's suggestion that somehow trains run into each other on open running rights. You just need to coordinate things, just like open highways. If we put more trucks on the road, we just have to coordinate things.

The bottom line is that open access is a doable and achievable thing. Yes, it takes work, and yes, it will take some regulation, and yes, it will take some thought processes. That's why it's a consultative process, not a “do it by this particular moment in time” process, because what it does is enhance competition. It allows other players to come in if they choose to; it doesn't say that they must. The hope is that the competitive market will take care of that and folks will come into the market.

Yes, there are things that need to be looked at. It's not simple. It is about railroading. Railroading is, by nature, because of the way it's done, a bit complex. It's not just as easy as pointing the car in a general direction and off you go.

Clearly, one of the complaints we've heard from many of the shippers right across the entire spectrum, not just the grain sector but right across the entire sector for those who ship, whether it be coal or potash, or whether they're from the shipper's coalition, is this idea is that they don't get the service they think they deserve. With my understanding of an open market, one of the ways to do that is to introduce competition. I know that my friends across the way in the government have been trying to do that in the telecom sector by making more competition.

Now, I don't want to suggest doing a railroad is as easy, because it's a physical piece versus what happened with Bell Telephone many years ago where they had to open-access their lines. It's not. That's an electronic transmission, and in digital transmissions there aren't real physical things that can run into each other, but the idea of it is somewhat similar. This is physical infrastructure, with a steel railroad and with railroad engines, locomotives, and cars that could do damage to themselves and other people's property if they collide, so yes, an element of coordination has to happen, as it happens now in the U.S.

It actually does work. I mean, there aren't huge numbers of railroads, so it isn't as if it's going to be like Highway 401 going through Toronto, for those who know that bottleneck. It won't be like that at all, because there just aren't enough of them, but there are more than what we have presently. It may encourage a short-liner, for all we know, to decide that they want to get into the game in a different way than they are now. It won't necessarily be BNSF coming up, but it might be.

This is an attempt to bring competition into the system. That is what this is structured to do. I would hope that my friends would want to introduce additional competition in that very closed market that we have now, that market called CN and CP, because it is very much a closed shop when it comes to who you want to ship with. In certain parts of this country, you have choice. For those of us who live in Ontario, there are some choices, but for those of us who live in the Prairies, the choices are less so. Primarily in certain parts of the country, whether you live in the north or the south, you are a captive market. I would hope that one would look at this perhaps as a positive aim and work towards that.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Mr. Eyking, please.