Bill C-30 (Historical)

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures

This enactment amends the Canada Grain Act to permit the regulation of contracts relating to grain and the arbitration of disputes respecting the provisions of those contracts. It also amends the Canada Transportation Act with respect to railway transportation in order to, among other things,
(a) require the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to move the minimum amount of grain specified in the Canada Transportation Act or by order of the Governor in Council; and
(b) facilitate the movement of grain by rail.

Rail service

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take steps to provide an increased level of rail service throughout Canada by: (a) recognizing that an increase in rail service and capacity is essential to the livelihood of Canadian agriculture; (b) recognizing that the ongoing review of the Canada Transportation Act provides an opportunity to rebalance the system and improve capacity and service; (c) making sure that all sections of the industry convene, with their own operational ideas, to increase effectiveness and efficiency of our transportation system...; (d) recognizing that changes to legislation are needed to address the imbalance of power along the logistics chain; and (e) making sure that all stakeholders work together to build a world class transportation system, including effective legislation and regulations.

He said, Mr. Speaker, on the domestic front, last winter we were faced with a severe crisis within our agriculture sector to effectively recognize the interests of producers and the struggle to get their record crop to market. Harvests across the prairie provinces, the world's top canola producer and second-largest exporter of wheat, jumped 14%, to a record 90 million metric tonnes, as reported by the government.

To put it simply, the system failed farmers last year, and it failed them badly. There is a responsibility throughout the logistic chain—the railroads, the grain companies—and then we had the cold weather to boot.

However, if the system failed, then we must asked ourselves, “Who designed the system? Who put it in place? Who set it up for failure? Who imposed $8 billion in costs and losses to prairie farmers?” The answer to that question is the current Conservative government. This disastrous system, the one that has failed so badly, is the one that was designed and implemented over the past three years of this current government.

Now, the current Canada Transportation Act review could not be more timely. The winter of 2013-14 saw a transportation crisis that impeded the growth and credibility of our export economy. Real hardship was experienced by farmers due to the failures of the system. For both the producers and the consumers of Canadian grain, our transportation system could not be relied upon. Shippers had to place car orders and had no idea when those orders would be fulfilled.

Of all our Canadian exports, more than 50% are reliant upon rail, and more than 70% of those exports go right to the United States. As Canada grows, the country needs a rail system to evolve, matching these trends.

In 2009, Canadian trade exports were valued at $367 billion. By 2013, they went to $479 billion, 75% of which went to the United States. When we look at 2013-14, it displayed a system that failed to adapt to the growth, especially in western Canada.

The 2012-13 grain harvest, considered a once-in-a-lifetime crop, was topped again in the following year. The farmers are getting better out west; they are getting better varieties and growing more crops, and the world needs those crops. Canadian exports of oil by rail are up over 160,000 barrels per day, from 50,000 barrels in 2012.

As Canada's economy continues to grow, our transportation system needs not only to grow alongside it, but to improve as well. A system as complicated as Canada's transportation system needs to be built upon the spirit of co-operation. The number of stakeholders and the demand on the system is going to continue to grow, which is good. It is good for the people out west; it is good for all of Canada, and it is good for the people who need our products around the world.

The Canadian Wheat Board had a variety of functions in the system. Some of them were set out in legislation, such as the single-desk seller function. Some of its functions simply developed by way of the evolution of the grain system in western Canada. It became a safeguard of the system, helping to direct traffic and providing some overall coordination.

When the Conservatives came in and made the decision to eliminate the single desk, what was going to replace that system? It was their policy decision to make, as a government.

That ship has sailed; it is over, and there was nothing put in its place to help that coordination and to get things going. We saw ships waiting in Vancouver harbour last year that had to turn around and go to other countries to buy grain.

However, Liberals do not believe that they thoroughly considered the collateral damage here, and some of the collateral damage was the total elimination of any coordinating function, oversight function, and an ability to try to use limited assets in the most cost-effective, business-like fashion. That is what is missing in this system now. It is not an issue at the moment of a single-selling desk. That is not what we are here to talk about. It is about an issue of absolute chaos in an uncoordinated system and a lack of synchronization. That is what is happening, with nothing to fill it.

Rail transportation is a very complex system. One has to get the grain from the right delivery point to the right terminal on to the right boat to the right customer in an appropriate amount of time. That did not happen last year. It happened late, and as I stated, there were billions of dollars lost by farmers out west. A very intricate and complex number of parts have to work together to make this happen. What we have seen over the past year is the Conservatives' inability to bring proper coordination to the system. They have not made the best use of our limited assets in the most cost-effective way so that we do not have a colossal mix-up. We need a smoothly functioning system that will get the most money for farmers because their product is delivered at the right place and at the right time.

In November 2013, just when the farmers were finishing their grain harvest—and they were very optimistic, as it was a great harvest and they had customers—I had the opportunity to take an agriculture outreach tour throughout western Canada to meet with farmers and identify areas that are important in my role as agriculture and agri-food critic. After visiting various farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, even early in the fall months it was evident that our grain handling system in Canada was not providing the capability to meet industry demands.

Along with the member from Winnipeg, we witnessed first-hand the mounds of grain that were piled right to the rafters. The bins were full at the McRae's farm, at St. Andrews, in Manitoba. He was optimistic at that time, but throughout the winter things changed for him. The situation became worse.

Initially the minister suggested cash advance payments—I wonder what good that is if their crop is not moving—and a working group to look into the disaster. As the months were going by and they were losing more money, it was too little and too late. Ships remained idle in Vancouver, resulting in millions of dollars in demurrage charges and on-farm operating debts being unpaid. Grain prices were dropping, and farmers were losing that window to sell their crop.

That all came as a direct result of the Conservatives' Fair Rail Freight Service Act, Bill C-52, introduced in the House before 2012. They had the opportunity. It was supposed to rectify the imbalance in market power between the farmers and railroads. The Conservatives took the Wheat Board out and had an opportunity to put something else in its place, and they did not. Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, was a great opportunity. We could have had a real rail act then. There were recommendations made, and we would not have had the $8 billion loss that we had to deal with.

In the continued spirit of an open and fair market, a need exists for an oversight to ensure that complaints against parties can be addressed in an appropriate manner. There is a strong need for the ability for shippers to seek solutions to problems arising during their interactions with the railroads. In order to effectively address issues that occur in the fulfilment of service level agreements, the complaint mechanism must allow not only for shippers to seek arbitration efficiently and fairly, but also for each party to be on equal footing. That is very important. Everybody has to be on equal footing to make this system work because everybody is accountable.

During the passage of Bill C-52, the Coalition of Rail Shippers made several recommendations, which we in the Liberal Party supported. However, none of those resolutions were passed back in 2012.

Many prairie groups agreed that the legislation needed to be amended to make it easier to hit the railroad companies with fines over transportation bottlenecks. If it had stuck then, the railroads might have complied with it last year.

This eventually brought forward Bill C-30, which was the bill we dealt with just last year, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures. That was introduced by the government in March of 2013. The measures being imposed will expire in another year's time.

As I said, there is no long-term solution for the farmers. The government is putting band-aids on as we go along. There is no long-term solution that will keep the same situation from happening again and again. The crops are going to continue to do well, they are going to get bigger, and there is no solution.

Many agronomists and public servants at the agriculture department have said that these harvests are only going to get bigger and better, which is great, but we have to get those crops to the Asian markets especially and to the United States. The bill does not attempt to find a long-term solution for farmers.

The fact that the measures will expire demonstrates yet again that the Conservatives see this as a political short-term issue, while in reality, this is a structural issue farmers are faced with. The problem could very well resurface at the next harvest.

This year, as bad as it was, there are still bottlenecks, and it is not working well. Farmers are still shipping grain that was produced the year before, and last year was just an average year.

The minister has brought forward pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to the issue rather than leading the way, on the agriculture front, on a long-term solution. It seems that members only have a chance to debate agriculture-related bills in the House when something is going wrong. There is no long-term vision. When something happens, then it is brought to the House. It seems that this is what happens every time.

The most recent grain transportation crisis is a prime example. The government waited months and months before acting. Then it scrambled together a bill that could help farmers get their grain moving. The government only acts when it needs to, and it delays action as much as possible, because it is all politically driven.

Farm lobby groups in Saskatchewan and Manitoba say that fines levied against Canada's two largest railroads stemming from the provisions in Bill C-30 do not reflect the damage caused when the companies failed to transport the minimum required grain volumes last year. The railroads are going to be fined, but even if they get the money from the railroads, it will go to the government. It will not pay the farmers who are losing money while the crops are stored in their buildings or bins.

Norm Hall is president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan. He represents a lot of farmers in Saskatchewan. He says that farmers are frustrated about the fallout from months of railway backlogs following last year's bumper grain crop. He stated:

“There's also some relief that the federal government did step forward, but there's still frustration. The one thing that bothers us most about this is that fine, that money, goes to government [instead of the farmers who are losing the money]. It in no way goes to those that were hurt...be it the producers or the grain companies.”

He also said that the fines are a drop in the bucket for the railways. He is a representative of the farmers in Saskatchewan.

Also, Doug Chorney, who represents many producers in Manitoba and is head of Keystone Agricultural Producers in Manitoba, said there needs to be a way to compensate shipping companies and farmers who are adversely affected by rail delays. He stated:

A fine of such [a] small amount really doesn't reflect the kind of damage poor service is impacting on shippers and farmers. We've always had challenges with reliable and adequate service from railways because of different planning issues, not always because of capacity. We do have fundamental challenges in terms of making sure we have a system that's well-co-ordinated. ....we can't be left to wait months and months for rail service.

In March 2014, the Minister of Transport said fines against rail companies could total up to $100,000 a day. What happened? She came out with $100,000 a week. That is a big change, from $100,000 to $100,000 a week.

To wrap up, what the government has done is not working for farmers. It is not working for customers around the world who need our grain so badly. We should have a long-term plan, and that is why I am bringing this motion forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be back at this committee. I'm joined today, as you said, by the deputy minister, Andrea Lyon; Greg Meredith, who is the assistant deputy minister of strategic policy; and Pierre Corriveau, assistant deputy minister of corporate management. This committee continues to do very important work for producers and processors in the broader Canadian agricultural industry as a whole.

We're meeting at a time of tremendous opportunity for our sector. It's estimated that farmers will need to produce 60% more food by 2050 to feed an anticipated population of some nine billion. In China alone the middle class is projected to grow by as many as 35 million people every year over the next decade. That's more than the population of our entire country on an annual growth basis.

Canadian farmers and food processors are well placed to address this growing demand, and the world is knocking at our door. Last year our agricultural exports topped $50 billion for the first time in our nation's history and they're 14% ahead of that pace this year. A recent study by Farm Credit Canada shows that Canada is now the world's leading agricultural trader per capita. That's a great track record, but we know our competitors are not standing still on global market access. That's why we're working hard across our great industry, across government, across the world, to keep Canada out in front on world markets. The supplementary estimates you have before you reflect that, with $4.9 million to CFIA to undertake activities to improve market access for Canadian agricultural products, and another $2 million to support the establishment of a Canadian beef centre of excellence to showcase our Canadian beef advantage to the world.

We're continuing our aggressive trade agenda. We were in China three weeks ago with the Prime Minister—my third trip this year—and a number of industry leaders. We were able to secure some key market gains, including an agreement finalizing access for Canadian cherries, valued at up to some $20 million a year; progress on access for Canadian blueberries, valued at $65 million a year; and a new contract for Canadian canola oil, valued at $1 billion. This builds on market gains achieved during our China mission in June, valued at some $400 million by industry members. In fact, our agriculture and food trade with China has increased fivefold since our government took office in 2006. China is one of a number of priority markets identified in collaboration with industry, through the Market Access Secretariat, which takes a holistic approach, bringing all government industry to the table to focus and grow our trade.

Hand in hand with our ground offensive, we have our government's aggressive trade agreement agenda. Since 2006, the government has successfully concluded negotiations on free trade agreements covering no fewer than 38 different countries. As a result, Canada now has trade agreements with more than half of the entire global marketplace, a total of 43 countries, while continuing to protect the pillars of our supply management system. The historic trade agreement with Europe will open the doors to the world's single largest market for food and food stuffs, boosting our agriculture and food trade by an estimated $1.5 billion per year. The agreement we signed with Korea, which is now reaching final agreement in the Senate, levels the playing field with our competitors and gives Canada its first ever foothold in the Asia-Pacific region.

Of course, if we are able to serve these markets, we need a predictable and reliable supply chain here at home. That's why, when the grain backed up last winter, we moved quickly with an order in council mandating minimum volumes for CN and CP, and with Bill C-30 to strengthen accountability information sharing throughout the system. I want to thank this committee for its hard work in moving Bill C-30 forward while ensuring we had a fulsome debate.

The Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act puts into law clear and achievable solutions for the short term to ensure Canadian shippers have access to a world-class logistics system that gets Canada's agricultural products and other commodities to market in a predictable and timely way. Grain is moving. Exports are up some 25% over last year, and 32% over the five-year average. Deliveries using producer cars are also at all-time highs. As for the minimum volume requirements, we've said all along that the order in council will be there as long as it is needed. Our government will be making an announcement on any future requirements very soon, so stay tuned.

At the same time, we continue to work to ensure our logistics system is strong for the long haul. We accelerated the review of the Canada Transportation Act by a full year to focus on long-term structural issues affecting all rail transport including grains. The CTA review panel has been very busy through the fall meeting with a number of stakeholders to get a clear picture of the challenges facing the western Canadian grain handling and transportation system. A discussion paper was released in September, and we are encouraging industry to vet their thoughts by the end of this calendar year. We'll continue to work with Transport Canada and the whole value chain to manage future challenges, and create a rail supply chain that has greater capacity, predictability and accountability for the industry, and most importantly, for our global customers.

Transportation is one piece of this government's plan to modernize Canada's grain sector to stay in line with emerging 21st century realities. We're now working to build on reforms passed in 2012 to the Canada Grain Act as part of our commitment to marketing freedom.

We're also encouraged to see that the Canadian Wheat Board remains a viable and voluntary option for farmers who choose to use it as their marketing tool. The CWB is leading the process toward its own commercialization. The act requires the CWB to submit a plan to government, and we're certainly encouraged to see that they have actively moved forward to become a private, independent organization that can meet farmers' needs in this competitive sector. A viable and voluntary CWB, along with our aggressive trade and innovation agenda, will mean a stronger farm gate and a rich harvest for Canada's economy.

The other key to competitiveness is, of course, innovation. Farmers must have the latest tools to compete in the global marketplace. That's why we're updating plant breeders' rights under Bill C-18. The agricultural growth act will strengthen intellectual property rights for plant breeders so Canada can catch up with the rest of our competitors. This is supported by every relevant farm group across Canada. Aligning our regulations will not only level the playing field for our producers but it's also expected to encourage foreign breeders to release their varieties in Canada. This will give our farmers access to new varieties that their competitors are already using.

Entrenched in Bill C-18 is, of course, the right for farmers to save, clean, and use seed for their own operations.

Finally, Mr. Chair, innovation takes investment, and that is reflected in these investments, with the allocation of a further $41.7 million for Growing Forward 2 cost-shared initiatives including innovation. Growing Forward 2, which is now hitting its mid-season stride, is backed by a 41% increase in funding on science and innovation throughout the agricultural sector. That's helped us almost double our support of the industry-led research clusters to some $125 million and to add four new clusters. At the same time, our business risk programs are there to backstop producers such as Manitoba livestock producers suffering feed shortages following another extremely wet growing season.

As always, expenditures are driven by demand. Business risk management programs can fluctuate depending on the needs of Canadian producers. This fluctuation will impact our spending numbers, which will be lower if demand for the BRM programs is lower.

To close, Mr. Chair, as does this committee, I remain very optimistic about the future for agriculture. Canadian farm cash receipts totalled almost $42 billion for the first three quarters of this year, which is an increase of almost 3% over the same period last year.

The long-term fundamentals of the industry are good with growing populations and incomes and great products to sell.

I look forward to working with you as we drive new opportunities for our industry and new growth for our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to any questions or comments.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, again I want to personally thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his great work on the file, to ensure that we are working together as a government on this matter.

We should also talk to the people out there who are the ones who are the beneficiaries of Bill C-30.

Brett Halstead, President of the Canadian Canola Growers Association stated:

This action demonstrates that Government is listening to farmers' concerns. We look forward to working with the Government and other industry stakeholders.

Quite frankly, the opposition is not in the game on this one. The government is the one that is dealing with this on a daily basis and is out front through the minister.

Motions in Amendment

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-13, which has already been debated for three hours today and has just come back from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

A lot of hard work has been done on this bill. I am thinking, in particular, of the many witnesses who appeared before the committee. I am happy to hear that good work was done in committee.

However, the results of that work are perhaps not quite what we on this side of the House expected. Unfortunately, the amendments that were made to this bill were not sufficient for us to be able to support it at report stage.

I must first say that this bill may be a rather sensitive subject for some people. It may hit close to home and be a sensitive subject for some people because it involves bullying and there is often mention of the unfortunate incidents that were reported in the media. It is vital that we remember the importance of the work we are doing as parliamentarians to try to address this issue, which sometimes has tragic consequences. Bullying is a problem in our society that has evolved over the past few decades. Obviously, the Internet is one of the elements that has changed the problem of bullying. It is becoming easier to bully someone online today because we can easily access the Internet with our cell phones and computers.

This problem has evolved and has become quite a significant issue for our youth and also for adults. As parliamentarians, we must discuss this problem and try to solve it, even though there is no magic solution. We have to consider the underlying causes. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île often talks about the underlying causes. Furthermore, we must not believe that the solution to the problem is to create a Criminal Code offence and that all of a sudden there will be no more bullying. It is never that simple. It is therefore important to discuss this problem and other ways of dealing with it.

We were also somewhat disappointed with the process that led to the drafting of this bill. Members will remember that Bill C-30 was also introduced in the first session of the 41st Parliament and that there was significant opposition to that bill from civil society and the different political parties. It is unfortunate that Bill C-13 contains some of what was widely rejected in Bill C-30. I am talking about the provisions concerning the electronic surveillance of Canadians.

My impression is that the government is taking Bill C-13 and the issue of bullying—which is a very important and sensitive issue—and integrating certain parts of Bill C-30, which was very controversial, as I said. It was abandoned by the Conservatives after the uproar that followed its introduction. It is sad that they are using this tactic and are trying to do indirectly what they said they would not do. It was abandoned. It is disappointing to see that it is now being included in Bill C-13.

This issue could have been settled quickly, or at least more quickly. I do not think that we are going to solve the problem of bullying overnight. However, we could have at least moved in the right direction.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a worthwhile bill. Unfortunately, it did not receive the Conservatives' support. However, one part of his bill did find its way into the Conservatives' current bill. I find that somewhat curious.

If I understand correctly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice seems to have an explanation. He says that it is all well and good to add an offence to the Criminal Code, but it is also important to grant investigative powers to the police.

I do not remember when exactly during the process of studying the bill this happened—it may have been the day after it was introduced—but the Spencer decision provided some clarification. Unfortunately, the bill did not change, even in light of the decision, which defined the limits that can be placed on electronic surveillance and the amount of personal information Internet service providers can share about Canadians.

I believe that the government should have complied with the Spencer decision, but that is not the case, unfortunately. That is the main reason we are opposing this bill.

I would like to clarify the court's decision in Spencer, which had to do with providers sharing information. The decision clearly established that Canadians had the right to online anonymity and that the police had to get a warrant to find out Internet users' identity.

However, Bill C-13 creates a new policy that allows access to personal information with or without a warrant. This opens the door to obtaining personal information without a warrant even though the Spencer decision said the opposite. It said that a warrant was absolutely necessary to get personal information about a Canadian citizen on the Internet.

Internet service providers have access to that information. They can find that information and share it with law enforcement to investigate bullying cases, for example. The Spencer decision set boundaries for getting information by requiring a warrant. However, Bill C-13 opens the door to getting personal information without a warrant.

All of this is unfolding in an era when people have growing concerns about electronic surveillance because the government is monitoring our actions more and more. Not long ago, groups met peacefully to talk about issues or met in the streets to demonstrate. We know that the government, which has thousands of employees who monitor Canadians, would watch what such groups were doing during those completely peaceful meetings and demonstrations that could not have given anyone any reason to believe there was a threat to Canada's security.

This is unfolding in an era when people feel that the government is collecting more and more information about Canadians. We also have to set clearer boundaries about how this information is obtained and about Canadians' right to privacy.

I would be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at Bill C-30. It was introduced into the House on an urgent basis and passed by the House on an urgent basis. It increases supply chain transparency, it strengthens contractual mechanisms between producers and shippers and it helps to ensure that the entire grain handling and transportation system is working at its capacity. It obligates the rail companies to move one million metric tonnes of grain a week.

This system is working and it is serving our western Canadian grain farmers.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture showed tremendous leadership by tabling Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, to solve the serious grain transportation problems that were present in Canada. The bill was well received across Canada by stakeholders and right here in the House. It was a bill that was clear and unequivocal and it set ambitious but realistic goals.

The latest figures show that our government's efforts to get grain moving are working.

[Dr. Parry Aftab]

Yes, I wonder if there's any support that the telcos are responsible for this provision within the law. They're the ones who benefit. I find it unusual that they haven't commented on this themselves. I think that there is a matter of contract, and I checked the Rogers agreement, and it doesn't say they have the ability to turn over my information except under laws that require so.

So this is voluntary. It's not required in the way C-30 had been, so I think there would be a violation. If I enter into a commercial contract with a commercial provider, I don't think the government should be involved in giving one side a way out without giving me a way out of paying for my service or anything else.

Also, I indicated that it's a great marketing opportunity, and I hope if this is indeed televised, that Telus and Rogers and all of the rest are going to understand that, although the discussion of privacy has been very complicated in this bill, and there's lots of media and lots of things going on, I don't know how many normal grassroots Canadians understand some of the things going on.

Perhaps we haven't done a good enough job of explaining it and we get overly complicated, but if you turn to somebody in P.E.I. or Alberta and ask if he or she is going to use a telco that's going to voluntarily give away information without these standards, I think the answer is going to be no. If somebody says, “We'll stick with your contract, even though it's voluntary. We're not going to go down that road,” I think they're going to get a lot more customers right now. They'll certainly get me.

[Stephen Anderson]

I think one difference between Bill C-30 and Bill C-13 is that, thankfully, Bill C-30 mandated warrantless disclosure, whereas this bill doesn't mandate it, but it pretty much in practice means the same thing through the immunity clause.

In terms of accountability, I don't see a lot of difference there. There's very little in terms of accountability or oversight that I can see. I don't understand why there isn't any in here. I don't see why we would not add mandating subscriber notifications. I don't understand why we can't all agree that it's a good thing—record keeping of personal information requests so that we actually can look later and see what's happening and have a kind of data-driven process going forward, and a regular release of transparency reports by both government officials and telecom companies.

I would say that while there's been some progress and learning between Bill C-30 and Bill C-13 on the accountability and oversight side, I haven't seen much movement. I'm hoping that there can be some reforms made in that area. I would love to know if someone could explain why we wouldn't do that.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for all of his hard work on behalf of his constituents.

Today, I read an op-ed in the Manitoba Co-operator, where my colleague from Welland was quoted as saying that we all came together as parties to move through Bill C-30, the railway act. Here we had this instance of co-operation. It is something that often does not happen. All parties got together, the government listened, we made suggestions and, all of a sudden, we had a bill that benefited all Canadians.

This is a golden opportunity for this bill to go to committee and for the government to listen and not do what it did, for example, when I was on the agriculture committee studying the food safety bill. Both the NDP and the Liberal Party provided something like 25 amendments, and not one was accepted. That is not how government works and that is not how democracy should work. This is an opportunity.

I welcome the question from the member for Winnipeg North. I really hope that once it gets to committee, we will have this debate and strengthen the bill so it will be our bill on behalf of Canadians, not just the government's bill.

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

I absolutely think it will be. The one thing they're not telling you is that feed wheat, with the amount of volume there is in the world, is down about $100 per tonne. So at $40 extra to truck it, they're still saving $60. I know there were a certain couple of people who were saying if they didn't have feed in two to three days, they'd be putting down turkeys and so on. That was complete hogwash—pardon the crossover pun. When I talked to the feed mills in central B.C., they had six weeks' supply of grain, so the crisis wasn't quite as abrupt as it could have been.

We take it seriously though. In business, everybody relies on stability and predictability. So we take that seriously. One of the attributes of getting Bill C-30 passed is to have that ability on a corridor-by-corridor basis, and delivery of those types of grains and so on will be highlighted. That's never been done before under Quorum's oversight—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I'll have to talk really fast.

Thanks very much to the minister for being here. Since I joined the committee earlier this year, it's the first time we've had this opportunity.

I met with chicken farmers earlier this week, and they reminded me of how many jobs they support in the country—more than the oil and gas industry does—and how much they pay in taxes, which is $1.3 billion. One of the things they were very concerned about with Bill C-30 and the bottlenecks that have emerged is that they tend to get passed by when it comes to production for feedstocks for chickens. They've had to move a lot of their purchasing and shipping of feedstocks onto trucks, which they estimate costs them an average of about $40 per tonne. With feed making up over half their costs, this is a significant burden being passed over to the chicken farmers.

They're wondering when this will get resolved and whether that will be soon enough to actually save them from very serious costs.

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

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

I just want to talk to you about C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act. I guess we've said it enough. It shouldn't be hard to say but it seems to still be hard to say.

Anyway, I guess the fact that our rail capacity is challenged by all the commodities we have to sell is actually a good problem to have, because it shows that the world wants our commodities. Although it's a good problem, we still are faced with the fact that it is a problem. I just wanted to know, from your perspective, why it's important that this bill is passed and why it is good for our farmers.

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

That's a very pertinent question, and I'm happy to do that.

As you may know, the Senate passed Bill C-30 last night. As I understand it, royal assent will be put to that bill tomorrow at some point. When it comes to the regulatory package that goes along with that, as you know, the legislation is an umbrella that creates the ability to put regulations in place. We went that route because regulations are more flexible. They can be more timely and you can adapt and change them to what's needed on an ongoing basis, as opposed to coming back to the House all the time on legislative changes.

When it comes to any type of compensation for farmers, I guess rather than compensate farmers after the fact, which is what was done prior to this, this piece of legislation and the regulatory package that will be attached to it will actually see to it that farmers are not hurt to begin with. What this does is make sure that the railways deliver the product from where it's asked to be delivered from, and in a timely way, to whichever port facility the shipper wants it to go to. There's no more opportunity for storage of grains costs or demurrage costs along that chain going back to the farm gate. They are now stopped in the service level agreements between the shipper of record, whoever that may be, and the railway of record. That's the difference, in that it doesn't require compensation to farmers because they are now covered proactively under those service level agreements.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister and his team for their presence today at committee.

As you know, we've done a lot of work in dealing with the grain transportation crisis. I was wondering if you could update us on what is going on with Bill C-30 and the government's amended bill, and where money will be allocated. Because with the amendment that was accepted here at committee, we would just like to know where the money will come from when it comes to compensation for farmers.

[Michael Spratt, Member and Criminal Defence Counsel, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you. It's always a pleasure to be here.

As you may know, the Criminal Lawyers' Association is a not-for-profit organization comprising more than 1,100 criminal defence counsel from across Canada. One of our objectives is to educate not only our membership but also the public on issues relating to criminal and constitutional law. The CLA has routinely been consulted and invited by various parliamentary committees to share its views on proposed legislation pertaining to these issues. The CLA supports legislation that is fair, modest, constitutional, and supported by the evidence.

To cut to the chase, the CLA is simply unable to support Bill C-13. Quite simply, Bill C-13 is not only overly broad but is also likely unconstitutional.

Bill C-13 purports to be concerned with tackling cyberbullying by stopping the spread of intimate images that are disseminated without the subject's consent. The real tragedy of Bill C-13 is that those provisions are necessary, laudable, and should be proceeded with; however, in reality that aspect takes up only a small percentage of the bill. Bill C-13, in the balance, sacrifices privacy in favour of expanded police powers and liberal disclosure standards.

Bill C-13, along with Bill S-4 and Bill C-31, represents a dangerous and in our opinion unconstitutional pattern of erosion of privacy.

Let me speak of the cyberbullying provisions. They are important, are laudable, should be proceeded with, and are indeed necessary in the modern world that we live in. Largely, I don't have any objection to the small percentage of the bill that deals with those provisions.

Having said that, I would add that there is a legitimate argument that those provisions in and of themselves may be overly broad, in that the standard imposed for the mens rea is “recklessness”. That standard of recklessness may go too far, in that it may make individuals potentially liable who don't know or could not have found out the circumstances to which the images that are the subject of that provision relate. To that extent, the problem with the cyberbullying provision is not necessarily its aim but rather its execution in that one small regard.

The bill's aim is to punish those who transmit intimate photos sent to them, when the person who took those images has an expectation of privacy. That is likely to have significant public support, as it should; however, the scope of the provision is potentially overly broad, because it expands the mens rea element. By making “recklessness” one of the potential mens rea standards for that offence, the provision may catch not only the individual who was the original recipient of the image but also those down the line—the second-hand recipients of that image—who may have no knowledge of the circumstances in which that picture was taken or made.

Some caution comes from Don Stuart, a pre-eminent expert in the field of criminal law. As he points out in Canadian Criminal Law, the fifth edition, there is a risk that the recklessness standard can devolve into a far broader conception of fault than is desirable, and a more nuanced approach would involve defining recklessness as knowledge both of the risk and that that risk was likely.

That provision can be seen in other aspects of the code; for example, in item (a)(ii) of section 229, which deals with murder.

A modified recklessness standard in the cyberbullying provision would target the so-called “revenge porn” conduct, without drawing to the net those who simply pass on the photos without context and may not necessarily be as morally culpable.

If the provision is allowed to remain there without a clearer definition of recklessness, the section may attract some charter scrutiny. At that point, the issue would become one of over-breadth: does that section capture individuals who may not be morally blameworthy, but may nonetheless be captured under the recklessness standard? As I said, this is a minor issue with that aspect of the bill.

More troubling is the “lawful disclosure” aspect of Bill C-13. The bill announces itself as being about cyberbullying and protecting Canadians from online crime, but certainly it far exceeds those parameters.

I will start by saying that of course the most controversial aspects of Bill C-30 have been removed—the mandatory warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information. However, there are still some serious concerns. I'll deal with two issues.

The first is that there is simply insufficient judicial oversight in obtaining those orders.

Now, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered the standard for reasonable suspicion, which is the standard we're dealing with in the legislation, in the case R. v. Chehil. The court made it crystal clear that the standard of reasonable suspicion falls well below the normal requirement of reasonable and probable grounds. That's the normal standard we usually deal with. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that the state's interest in detecting and preventing crime begins to prevail over the individual's interest in being left alone at the point where credible-based probability replaces suspicion.

The data, which is the subject matter of the searches contemplated in Bill C-13, contains a great deal of personal information. It's a misnomer to simply call it metadata. That dilutes the importance and impact of that data.

I understand that a pre-eminent expert in this area, Dr. Michael Geist, will be testifying at this committee later this week, and I think he will agree that metadata is deserving of an increased level of protection. And indeed he's not alone in that view. When we look at reports in 2013 from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, both reports reveal the heightened expectation and the intimate information that can be revealed through metadata. I would commend you to read those reports. It's quite shocking what can be discerned about an individual's communications and basic information about the individual through simply an IP address or some of the other metadata that's discussed.

Metadata as a starting point has a heightened expectation of privacy, and that is something that has been echoed by the Supreme Court, which agrees seemingly with Dr. Geist and with the privacy commissioners. In the recent case of Vu, which dealt with metadata found on a personal computer, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's submissions—we intervened in that case—finding that ordinarily this information, metadata, can help a user retrace his or her cybernetic steps. In the context of a criminal investigation, however, it can also enable investigators to access intimate details about a user's interests, habits, identities, drawing on a record that the user created unwittingly. Of course, in modern times there's a capacity to store, catalogue, and cross reference this information, revealing more and more.

The Supreme Court's comments about the heightened privacy inherent in this type of data is simply incompatible with the proposed reasonable suspicion standard that's found in Bill C-13. That incongruity exposes this proposed legislation to charter scrutiny, and in my opinion supports a conclusion that there's not only charter scrutiny here but indeed charter infirmity. There's simply no principled and justifiable reason that the new warrant provisions contained in Bill C-13 should not be based on the traditionally and judicially approved standard of reasonable and probably grounds.

Next, moving to the issue of the incentives for non-judicially supervised disclosure, Bill C-13 will also likely lead to an increased request for a telecommunications company to disclose information without court oversight and the corresponding protections. Privacy in this regard should be strengthened and not abandoned. Falling back on section 25 in the current Criminal Code is no answer to this problem. If you read section 25 carefully, you will see that section 25 requires reasonable grounds, and no comfort can be found in the appeal legislation as it offers no protection.

Of course as we see with that existing provision in Bill C-13, it broadens the scope of disclosure. No longer will the requesting organization be under an obligation to actually be enforcing or administering an act. The room for those requests is greatly increased. And indeed we see codification of the civil and criminal immunity which isn't in section 25, and as I said, section 25 requires reasonable grounds, which is completely absent in this section.

The real concern is that the expansion of police power and limiting liability for the party agreeing to disclose will result in increased police fishing expeditions, and of course we have seen from some reports some very alarming information about current practices in that regard.

Indeed, it would have been preferable to have discrete legislation on both the cyberbullying and on the lawful access legislation. However, given the current formulation of Bill C-13, the CLA recommends that the standards for obtaining those warrants be strengthened and brought in line with what the current Supreme Court case law would suggest is appropriate. No one wants to see evidence excluded. No one wants to get it wrong at the outset, and years later find out that the constitutionally suspect legislation was passed, evidence was excluded, and prosecutions were jeopardized because things weren't done right the first time. The provisions respecting the voluntary disclosure should be reconsidered to ensure both fairness, respect of privacy, and ultimately, constitutionality.