Agriculture Committee on April 7th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We'll take a five- or ten-minute break.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We'll start.

I will now turn our attention back to Madam Brosseau on NDP-8, 6513665.

Madam Brosseau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So this is clause 8 to be amended by adding after line 6 on page 5, the following:

“(1.2) The Agency may, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), prescribe terms and conditions governing the interswitching of traffic that include prohibiting the delisting of specified producer car loading sites for specified periods of time.”

This requires a moratorium on the closure or delisting of producer cars as requested by the CFA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

Are there comments on the amendment, anyone?

Mr. Eyking, first.

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

Mr. Chair, maybe the P.S. can answer this. I don't see anything in this bill that mentions interswitching. Maybe it's good that Madam Brosseau put it in here, because I don't.... I read it twice on the weekend, Mr. Chair, and I didn't see anything on interswitching.

Maybe it's in there somewhere and I don't know where it is. If it's not there I think this is a good spot to put it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I want to thank Madam Brosseau for bringing it forward. One of the things we heard from a couple of different groups—CFA raised it, and I think some others did as well—was this idea that they liked the interswitching. We agree with the extension from 30 kilometres to 160 kilometres. We think that's a good provision, and I think a lot of folks said it was a good provision.

One of the things that was missing in it was this idea about the delisting of the short lines. Some are there now. They said they wanted to make sure those stay protected until the rail review happens and with a sunset provision in this bill, obviously that would do that. The intention is to make sure none of those sites gets delisted. Perhaps other folks will want to use them in the future, perhaps they're not using them at the moment but they want to keep them available. And so what we heard from those groups was to not lose any in the meantime until we get to the rail review. The government has been clear about its intention to accelerate that review.

And so this would simply make sure we didn't lose any of the short lines along the way by delisting. That's what we're trying to drive here. It wouldn't be forever obviously because there is a sunset provision. Two years hence, this thing would go away and that would be the end of that. And I'm sure the new CTA would take into account those concerns; I wouldn't prejudge obviously. That piece will get done in due course, and the folks will make those decisions based on the information here. So I would hope my friends across the way would want to ensure we don't lose any opportunities by having CN or CP perhaps delist some short lines.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Lemieux.

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

First of all, I would point out that the legislation does talk about interswitching. It doesn't use the word interswitching, but clause 7(1) talks about section 128 of the Transportation Act.

Mr. Chair, I would also like to ask the officials to comment on delisting and what types of processes are followed for delisting to occur.

[Alain Langlois]

There is currently a provision in the act, section 151.1, that talks about listing for CN and CP—those are the only two companies subject to this provision—to list provisions where producer cars can be loaded.

There is an obligation to list them, there is an obligation not to delist them until they follow a certain process. There is obviously no restriction on the railways to remove them from the list. It's a warning to the industry that they're going to remove them from the list. That's what the legislation currently does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Any other comments on the amendment?

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I appreciate the comments from departmental officials around how the system works, that they could list them and delist them, that they put them on a list, then there's a process.

The whole idea of this piece of legislation is to do something imminent and in a timely fashion, that then expires. That's why we see the need that they don't start; they actually start listing some; they actually don't do that. It's a temporary measure because there's a sunset provision. This legislation ends as a sunset piece.

Our belief is that the CTA will address the issue. I'm sure they will. Perhaps they won't, but I'm pretty confident that they'll look at all of the pieces because lots of players are talking about lots of different pieces along the way.

I feel comfortable that they'll probably do that. We'd like to give some assurance, we think, to the short-liners out there. Their sense that things may evaporate from them, I'm trying to give them that sense that, okay, we'll hang onto it for now. The big review will happen and then we'll see what actually transpires.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Maybe this is one that our lawyers can answer, but my reading of the way Bill C-30 is constructed is that if you were to accept this amendment, but not amend subclause 8.(2) to include subsection 169.31(1.2) that, in fact, the measure you're proposing wouldn't sunset.

Is that a fair reading, Mr. Langlois?

[Alain Langlois]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Exactly. So you actually haven't proposed a sunsetted measure, so I'm against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Just to clarify, Chair, at the end of the act it talks about certain clauses coming into force. Those clauses repeal clauses within the act. You're adding something that's not contained elsewhere in the act, so it would not sunset.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Shall NDP-8 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Shall clause 8 carry on division?

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

No, recorded vote.

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

We want a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 9; yeas 0)

(On clause 9)

We'll move on to amendment NDP-9, 6494473.

Madame Brosseau.

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

The amendment states:

That Bill C-30, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 5 with the following: “is $250,000.”

Basically, we want to increase fines to $250,000 for any failure by the railways to deliver on minimum targets.

I would like to also note that in the document that was sent April 4 by the Saskatchewan government, that they also ask for the same thing, and I quote:

Our government also believes penalties to railways for failing to deliver minimum car requirements should be increased to $250,000 a day. Fines collected from railways for failing to meet this target should directly benefit the producers who ultimately bear the costs of the system.

It's pretty self-explanatory. I think some witnesses also commented along the lines that $100,000 is not a big fine. I know we cannot depend on fines to deter this type of behaviour, but I think increasing the fines is something that a lot of people have been calling for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madam Brosseau.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

We put $100,000 in the original piece of legislation, so we think $400,000 is sufficient.

Thanks.