Bill C-52 (Historical)

Fair Rail Freight Service Act

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration)

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act to require a railway company, on a shipper’s request, to make the shipper an offer to enter into a contract respecting the manner in which the railway company must fulfil its service obligations to the shipper. It also creates an arbitration process to establish the terms of such a contract if the shipper and the railway company are unable to agree on them. The enactment also amends provisions related to air transportation to streamline internal processes and certain administrative provisions of that Act.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Chair, interswitching sounds...[Inaudible—Editor...]cabotage for the airlines.

Officials, thank you for appearing this afternoon.

I'll start first of all with what was Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act. I try not to say that too quickly because I can't say it five times fast.

Bill C-52 in part attempted to address the issue of service level agreements which are voluntary, as you know, by making some improvements. The first was the creation, if you will, of administrative monetary penalties which would be imposed, if I recall correctly, by the Canadian Transportation Agency after arbitration. It would be per violation. That was some attempt to establish the punitive measures for breach of obligations for services.

Is that a fair representation of what was done with Bill C-52?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you to our ministers for appearing today.

With respect to the idea of penalties, I presume, Mr. Chair, not only are the complaints from shippers not something new—they've been complaining about railways since Confederation—but if the idea of penalties was so simple and so popular, it would have occurred a long time ago, presumably.

The Canada Transportation Act, for example, is not new. It certainly isn't ours either. It was brought forward under a previous government and this issue has not been addressed there. I presume that's because, while it may be popular, it's not necessarily simple. I think the approach of having this done under review is sensible.

We did take a look at this with respect to Bill C-52 at the transport committee. There were a number of issues raised at that particular time. I guess what we're driving at is the difference between penalties for failure or breach of obligations versus liquidated damages.That's where the nub of this issue broke down in the committee.

Our government, of course, with Bill C-52, put in place the administrative monetary penalties to deal with issues of breach of service. The liquidated damages in commercial contracts are actually uniformly dealt with in courts. Is that not the case? Right.

In fact, it's difficult to presume a full range of potential penalties for a full range of potential situations and then enshrine all that in a piece of legislation. I think that's the issue of what I understood in your statements earlier today. Is that a fair enough assessment?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Let me start with the last point first. I've had meetings with Lyle Stewart as late as Thursday afternoon, talking about the way forward.

At the table on day two we also had potash, which is a major commodity in Saskatchewan. They're very concerned that their own provincial government is going too far in grain and it's going to affect their capacity to move.

That's why we're putting forward a balanced approach, working with the numbers the railway say they can do without disincenting, say, potash, or coal, or timber, or all of the other bulk commodities.

I would say penalties don't move grain. It will maybe get somebody's attention, but it's the regulations we put in play, it's the transparency along the full supply chain that is fully missing.

You made reference to Bill C-52. There's much more comprehensive enhancement of the full supply chain in here and it actually builds on the foundation that Bill C-52 provided.

I would say to my colleague Minister Stewart that penalties don't move grain, and by expanding this or that isn't necessarily going to do it. It's the full package we have here all dovetailed together.

When you talk about damages paid to farmers, I look at it from a different direction, Mr. Eyking. I look at it from farmers not paying the bills for things they don't control: demurrage and storage and all of these other things that pile up when they've already sold their grain. They've dumped it in the pit at the elevator. It's no longer theirs, and yet they're held hostage at this juncture by the shippers, by the railways, by the ports, by everybody all the way along. We saw it this year in a stretched basis. They were offered far less than what it was worth in the world price.

I'm more concerned about the bills the farmers are forced to pay than damages accruing and paid to farmers. That's very hard to administer. If we can put service level agreements in play that allow the shippers and the railways to work out their differences, then those costs don't continue to hemorrhage down to the farm gate. That's the point I want to make on that.

On the regulations and amendments, of course we'll look at any amendments that come forward. That's the nature of the committee hearing. You are masters of your own destiny. I know the right amendments will come forward at the end of the day from what you've heard.

It's hard to write the regulations ahead of time when you're not sure exactly what all the amendments will be. I've done a number of round tables, I'm not even sure how many now, in different areas across western Canada in the last two months. I have a pretty good idea what a lot of people are going to say. I know they're fine-tuning their asks. All of the shippers are starting to coalesce around the crop logistics working group that I put together in 2011, looking at logistics as we made changes to the single desk of the Wheat Board.

There's some fine-tuning being done in that respect, so I'm not going to predetermine what those regulations will be, or predetermine whether or not an amendment will be acceptable.

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

Thank you, Ministers, for coming here today.

I guess it's too bad you have to come here today. When you look at the rail act of last year, Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), was a great opportunity and we could have had a rail act then. There were recommendations and we wouldn't have this $8 billion loss right now. That being said, we have to go forward over the next few days in our committee and roll up our sleeves to try to get some recommendations to you.

I have three questions. I'll ask the three of them and then you can figure out how you are going to answer them.

First, will your government accept the amendments that farmers are going to be bringing to the table here over the next few days? Are you open to these amendments?

My second question deals with regulations. We talk about regulations, but Bill C-30 creates more of a legal authority to produce regulations. I'm guessing that you have more draft regulations on hand. Will those regulations be given to our committee so we can look at them before we vote on the bill?

It was already mentioned about how the government will deal with the shippers and the railroads and try to lay out a precise definition of what service levels the railways are expected to deliver.

The third question is how will the performance be measured? How will damages be paid to farmers if those services have failed?

Minister Ritz, perhaps you could comment on the comments from the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan who said that it is too late of course, but there's not enough teeth in there and not enough penalties or compensation in this framework to go back to farmers.

Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Ottawa Centre for putting forward this bill. In the past, we have had bills before this House that have dealt with corporate and social responsibility. It is an important issue, and I am most pleased to speak to it today.

I want to read one part of the bill. This is, “An Act respecting the promotion of financial transparency, improved accountability and long-term economic sustainability...”. That strikes me as almost the Conservative mantra, when I see that.

However, the reason I am particularly interested in this bill and pleased to have the opportunity to speak to it today is that in my capacity as critic for international human rights for the last eight and a half years, I have had numerous delegations. In fact, in a one-month period about a year ago, I had indigenous groups from Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, the Philippines, and Mexico, all of whom accused their governments of removing their communities from their traditional lands to allow mining exploration and development, some of which was conducted by Canadian mining interests.

I know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe that Canadian mining interests would operate and function with the values that we hold dear about human rights in Canada. Unfortunately, from time to time that has been called into question. This bill would require that Canadian mining, oil, and gas corporations submit annual transparency reports that disclose all payments provided by them or their subsidiaries to a foreign government for the purposes of further mining, oil, or gas activities.

We know there have been Canadian companies called into question around Libya and other countries. We have some court cases that are underway. This type of legislative responsibility is important, not for the good mining companies, not for the people who follow the rules and have some pride in what they do, but for those companies that we would call into question their activities and how they proceed in foreign lands.

I spent time in Saudi Arabia, in the 1970s, and in that country at that time bribery was a huge undertaking. Nearly anything one needed or wanted to get done had a bribe attached to it. That is a culture that needed change. Part of the change is that countries that provide workforces to a country that functions on bribery have a responsibility to start that change.

From the reports of abuses that I heard from the indigenous groups who visited me, it is clear that part of the equation for change in those countries is contained in this bill. Clear reporting on those transactions will ensure that Canadian companies continue to use the proper due diligence in those countries with murky governments, and we all know what we are talking about here. There are governments out there that will use torture and will attack their own citizens. Members of the leadership of these indigenous groups are physically at risk as a result of standing up for what should be rights to their own traditional lands.

New Democrats have long supported transparency and accountability by Canadian corporations overseas. The member who sponsored Bill C-300 is with us here today. In fact, in that bill we had an opportunity to further corporate and social responsibility in the world by having Canada become a leader. Unfortunately, even though it was a minority Parliament, we lost, if I recall, by some 12 votes. We see that this bill further complements legislative efforts that the NDP members and others have made in this House to encourage that kind of responsibility and sustainable and transparent management practices in the Canadian extractive sector, which is then used around the world.

We also believe that the responsible management of natural resources means that part of the arrangement must provide the people of these countries with social and economic benefits. Rather than having all of the profits skimmed off, when they have a corrupt government that is practically willing to give away the resources in these countries, there must be some responsibility to ensure that the people who have lost their land receive the benefits.

It is clear to NDP members, as well, that corporate transparency about payments to foreign governments should further Canada's national foreign policy objectives, and we think it would do that.

Part of our goals as a country, for many years, has been to encourage the development of democracies around the world. Part of that, particularly, is governmental accountability. If there is a trail of transparency where we can see where the monies have flowed, when those get off base, it would be something that we could identify and act upon.

With this bill, Canada would join the growing international community that is starting to move toward disclosures of this nature. Another speaker earlier quoted the Barney Frank initiative in the United States. We also believe that enforced regulations would create a more level playing field for all Canadian companies.

In these countries, we know bribery happens and huge amounts of money are fed to governments under the table. When Canadian companies are abiding by the rules and being responsible but have been defeated in getting a chance to explore for a certain resource because someone else outbid them under the table, we have to develop international rules and regulations to ensure it does not happen.

Today, the EU, Australia, and the U.K. are considering standards similar to what was just imposed in the United States. Bill C-474 would put Canada on the path to joining those nations that believe their companies must show a commitment to corporate and social responsibility when dealing with resource development, particularly in the developing world. It would ensure that Canadian corporations are accountable for the payments they make, as I have said over the last few minutes.

The bill complies with the corporate standards of the extractive industries transparency initiative. Payments are required to be identified, under this initiative, and separated according to the specific extractive projects to which they apply. It is very direct, maybe in some terms simple, accounting for what people do, but if that payment is not linked to a specific reported project, it must be listed separately. If a payment that is listed generically is believed to apply to a specific project, the bill would authorize the Minister of Natural Resources to launch an investigation. That is what I would call true accountability.

The Transparency International bribe payers index ranks the oil and gas and mining industries as the fourth and fifth most likely sectors to issue bribes. Consider that for a moment, because Canada is a leader in resource development in both of these areas. We do not want our companies tempted or compromised into feeling they have to pay bribes in these other countries.

Two-thirds of the world's poorest people live in countries rich in natural resources. As I said before, if Canada is party to the extraction of those resources, it is part of our responsibility to ensure that those poor people benefit from that extraction and the sales of their resources. Note that I said they are their resources. Effective environment and labour standards in developing countries often depend on advocacy and activism by local populations; thus the groups that visited my office over last summer.

This bill would make sure local people are aware of the payments made to their governments by Canadian extractive companies. Beyond that, it would show where the give and take has been in those agreements and where the principles have been tested for the Canadian companies. We hope to be able to say that this bill would encourage those Canadian companies to the point where we will never see on record any evidence that they have bribed, been part of any coercion, or had anything to do with it. My belief is that companies do not do it, but this would ensure that it is not done and it would ensure direct accountability.

When the leaders of those nations see that there is an accountability chain that could cause Canadian companies to withdraw from their country, perhaps that is just the one lever that might be needed to start the change to where they treat their own people with dignity, they do not push them off the lands for exploration, and when the lands are taken and the delivery of the resources is done, the people benefit in a true way.

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, what farmers asked for a couple of years ago was the opportunity to market their crop at the time and price and place of their choosing. We did that with no help at all from the opposition.

We have moved forward on that rail review. We had Bill C-52 a year and some ago. The opposition did help us in that one, and that was welcome, but we also briefed them yesterday on the next steps: a piece of legislation going forward that will address a lot of what the member is asking for.

I am not sure just exactly what he misinterpreted from that yesterday. I thought we were very clear and very succinct in exactly what that piece of legislation would do.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the so-called emergency action announced today on grain is little more than what the railways had already projected to do themselves in the weeks ahead.

Second, the government needs to fix the useless railway service legislation, Bill C-52, designed by the government, which fails to define service, fails to measure performance, and fails to impose damages payable to farmers.

Third is compensation. The system designed by the government has imposed costs and losses of $5 billion over the last five months. Will farmers get any of that money back?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

You know what? I'm going to answer all your questions, because I think it's a good opportunity to explain, from our point of view in Transport Canada, what our analysis is of what has occurred.

In order to learn how to fix going forward, you have to understand the problem, and there seems to be a focus on amendments to the Fair Rail Freight Service Act from last year, which is a different conversation, and not the one that addresses our problem here right now.

The railways provide a capacity for a normal year, a five-year average, and they do so when they're putting their business plans together. Unfortunately, and fortunately, because this is a two-sided coin here, we have a great harvest and the farmers did extraordinarily well in bringing in production. We do expect that rail should have the capacity to have a surge, a swing, on how much they can provide.

That was exacerbated by the weather we've seen this year. Minus 25 degrees and below causes trains to have to be shortened, and there are concerns with respect to the health and safety of people working in operations.

We ended up having the situation of a huge crop, 33% more, which, if you take a look at it, is 20 million tonnes more than we normally see. That would mean 10 million tonnes for each railway to carry, because they're about fifty-fifty in grain in the country. That exceeds the entire potash industry, for example, in one year, in one fell swoop.

As for what we've done, we met with the CN and CP CEOs on Saturday and went through what they can do and how many cars they can move. They understand the urgency. Of course, I have met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and I've met with the grain companies.

The Fair Rail Freight Service Act was passed last year for the purpose of having shippers and railways communicate with each other in order to ensure that we have a smooth system. That legislation has not been utilized by grain or by the railways up to this point, and that's a difficulty. We'd like to see that utilized. More importantly, we'd like to see the railways start accelerating how much they're moving in the Prairies right now, and they've indicated that they would do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a $5-billion disaster in the Canadian grains industry. It is not the farmers' fault. It is the utter failure of the Conservative government's rail bill, Bill C-52.

The law must be amended to better define rail services, to measure proper performance, and to compensate farmers with liquidated damages when the railways fail.

Liberal amendments to Bill C-52 would have fixed all these mistakes. Why did the minister and all those western Conservative MPs vote against these amendments?

Grain Transport

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the transportation committee when Bill C-52 was discussed, and it was clear that the grain shippers were not happy that they were not going to be able to negotiate certain aspects, which they are feeling now. The aspects of that bill they cannot negotiate are what they are being hit with: these big expenses.

In addition was the demise of the Wheat Board. While it was cheered wildly on the other side of the House, there was one thing the Wheat Board was able to do that is not possible now without it. That was to pay farmers and subsidize the transportation of grain eastward through Thunder Bay and Churchill in order to go westward. The Wheat Board did that as a regular part of its business, because it knew full well that the port of Vancouver could not handle a bumper crop. The port of Vancouver cannot transport all the grain that comes off the prairies to China. It just cannot do it. It is physically impossible, and here we are.

We knew it was going to happen, but the Conservatives are discovering it for the first time. We are having what is called an emergency debate, because there is an emergency. Farmers are not going to have money this year. They are not going to be able to plant crops next year if they do not have money this year.

The government has indicated that it wishes to use its legislative authority against Canadian National Railway. Will it do so, not just for the workers? Will it use its legislative authority—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.