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.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask another question.

There's a package of initiatives contained within this bill, and yet you're singling out one that you want to extend. Is that what it is? There are a number of initiatives here that are particular to Bill C-30. All those initiatives will sunset in August 2016 unless the provisions are extended.

You asking for this one to be extended?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the opposition members for supporting the motion in the House to move this back to committee. As you know, we feel this is an extremely important clause that we want to insert into the legislation, Bill C-30. We also heard from our witnesses that this was a very important aspect of what they were looking for to improve rail service to grain shippers in western Canada in particular. So I think it is important that it's back here in front of committee with the authority of the House for us to be able to include it in the bill. I look forward to our discussion this morning and to accomplishing that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Good morning everyone. I want to call the committee to order. This morning, pursuant to the order of reference of the House of Commons, we are dealing with Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, but this morning we're actually dealing only with an amendment.

The committee did clause-by-clause examination of the bill back on April 7. As we will all remember, we had a lot of good debate on it and in the end there was a recorded vote of nine to zero in support of moving the bill forward to the House, which we did.

When it went to the House there was a point of order presented to the House that in turn has returned the bill to us, again on the order of the House of Commons. So we are here this morning because the amendment only deals with the Transportation Act. As a result, we will not be dealing with clause by clause again. We will only be dealing with the relevant clause 5.1, and as part of that we will also deal with clauses 6 and 15, which are consequential clauses.

With that I'll open up the floor for discussion on the motion that is in front of us.

Mr. Lemieux.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge my colleagues', and I say that in the plural, co-operation with respect to both Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, and Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, today. We appreciate that co-operation.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill C-33, the first nations control of first nations education act. That debate will conclude tomorrow and we will then proceed with a committee study of this important legislation this spring.

Monday shall be the fourth allotted day. We will debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

The Liberals will then get their turn on Tuesday, which shall be the fifth allotted day. I am still waiting to see a proposal from the Liberal leader on the economy. Maybe he is still finessing his newest definition of the middle class. I recommend to him the recent study from the U.S.A., the one that has been widely reported, which demonstrated that the Canadian middle class, according to his recent definition, that is the median income, is doing better than ever in history. For the first time, the Canadian middle class is doing better than its American counterpart. Perhaps we will see that on Tuesday as the subject of debate in the Liberal motion, since they claim that the middle class is their priority.

On Wednesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I want to take this time to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the procedure and House affairs committee. My friend was just talking about the hard work they have been undertaking and the difficult pressure they are under. Largely, it should be said, it is a result of the lengthy filibuster, of which the New Democrats were so proud, at the start, whereby the committee lost many days, when it could have heard witnesses.

Notwithstanding that loss of work, those delay tactics, and the obstruction by the New Democrats, the committee has got on with its work. It heard from almost 70 witnesses. It had over 30 hours of meetings. Now it has gone on to complete about a dozen or so hours of detailed study of the clauses of the bill and the government's reasonable and common-sense amendments to the bill. I expect that it will complete that work shortly.

Despite the long hours the committee members are putting in, I know that they will be keenly anticipating the appearance, before the next constituency week, of the Leader of the Opposition at that same committee. That will, of course, be in compliance with the House order adopted on March 27 respecting the allegations of inappropriate spending and the use of House of Commons resources by the New Democratic Party. There the hon. member for Outremont will have the opportunity to answer many important questions of interest to all Canadians, including, I am sure, some questions from his own caucus members, who have been dragged into the scheme the NDP leader has put in place.

Finally, on Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at report stage and third reading. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this was not a good month for this government: three of its bills were rejected by the courts because they were flawed.

Given that the government is routinely invoking time allocation and closure, the work on the bills has been sloppy.

This morning, another flawed bill, Bill C-30, was sent back to committee because this government did not do a good job in the first place. Mr. Speaker, you were obliged to reject the manner in which the government put in place this bill.

The government's process is not working. The courts and even the Speaker of the House have to call this government to order.

Now the government seems to be doing the same thing with Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. The committee was working to address many of the problems that exist in the bill. The NDP, as it always does, offered sound amendments to bring forward on this bill so that it would actually work for Canadians and Canadian democracy. However, we have the government now setting an artificial deadline. When the committee still has over 200 pages of the bill to scrutinize and still has hundreds of amendments to consider, the government is saying that the committee has to finish its work within just a few hours.

This is obviously going to be another bill that the government is going to screw up. How can the government expect bills to stand up to scrutiny if it will not allow proper scrutiny in committee and in the House?

My question is very simple. What will the Conservatives do next week to start restoring the confidence of Canadians that has been sorely lost by the amount of botched legislation we have seen coming from the government?

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pay attention to your comments.

The agriculture industry is a very important economic driver in Canada. As many of us know, it supports farmers, suppliers, food processors, and all other stakeholders in the food industry.

Grains are a big part of our agriculture industry, with 15 million hectares of wheat, barley, oats, and rye grown by farmers in fields right across this country, with the majority on our prairies.

In 2013, Canada produced over 52 million metric tonnes of these grains. Some of our largest commodities are canola—I think we are one of the biggest producers in the world—wheat, corn, pulse crops, and barley. From those yields, over 50% is exported, and the rest is used in our livestock industry. It is also used by millers and brewers, and there are many other uses, such as for biofuels.

As many of us know, this year was a bumper crop. It is because of the technology farmers used, everything from the tillage systems to the varieties. They had some good weather on their side also.

Last November, I had the opportunity to take part in an agriculture outreach tour in the western Prairie provinces in an effort to meet with farmers and identify important areas to tackle in my critic role.

After we visited farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, even early on in the fall, it was evident to me, and should have been evident to the minister, that the grain handling system was not proving capable of meeting industry demands. I witnessed first-hand the mounds of crops that were piled right up to the rafters. They were piled in garages and piled outside. It was amazing the amount of product that had still not been moved.

Upon returning to Ottawa, the situation after last fall, of course, got worse. We saw that with the big losses for some of these farmers, who could have been selling their product. Grain prices were going down. Even the government came out with an estimate that over $8 billion was lost to the prairie economy because of that.

Over the last few months, farm leaders from across this country have been meeting with our leader, the member for Papineau, and our Liberal agriculture team. Along with me, we have the members for Malpeque, Winnipeg North, Guelph, and of course, the member for Wascana, who was front and centre during the emergency debate and in keeping an eye on things.

The Conservatives were warned about the situation by the opposition and industry members a long time ago, not just by the farmers but in this House during the emergency debate the Liberals pushed forward. One would think it would have come from the Conservatives. Their members, coming from the grain region, should have been pushing for an emergency debate. However, we pushed for it on this side, and we appreciate that the Speaker allowed us that late night of debate on the situation.

The minister responded through the winter with some cash advance payments and a review panel to look into the disaster, but it was too little too late. Ships were idle at the ports. We all know about that. We had ships from Japan that were turned around. They had to go to Seattle. They had to go to the United States, imagine, where they were loaded up in a day, while they were waiting here for weeks to be loaded. It was a bad reflection on us.

There were also meetings in Singapore. One of the biggest issues among all the producing countries was, “What is going on with Canada? How come Canada has such good growers but cannot get their grains to market?” We were really getting a black eye on the international scene.

On farms, they were operating, and their debts were going unpaid. It took a lot to put that big crop in and harvest it, with the price of fuel. Meanwhile, they were not moving their grain.

It is blatantly clear that the Conservatives need to take another look at their failed rail act, Bill C-52. That was introduced last June. They scrapped the Wheat Board, and all of a sudden, there was nothing to protect farmers after that. Bill C-52 would have been the spot for that. There were amendments recommended, which they refused to put in.

What happened after that? There was nothing to help the imbalance in the market power of farmers and railroads. Many prairie farmers agreed that the amendments to this legislation were needed to clearly define service levels and to make it easier to fine rail companies for transportation bottlenecks. However, all our proposed amendments, which would have strengthened the position of the shippers and farmers, were unanimously defeated.

As a result of Bill C-52's deficiency, farmers watched their big bumper crop sit in their backyards, as customers around the world wanted our number-one quality product. We also saw customers in Canada and in the United States looking for our product and not being able to get it.

This winter in the House of Commons, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives take action. The Conservatives finally came forward with this emergency legislation on grain transportation, which we are talking about today. We know it as Bill C-30, and it is to fix the shortcomings in the previous bill.

As mentioned by other members, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the new bill, and although it was rushed, it provided a tremendous opportunity to improve the legislation. Many witnesses came from across Canada and many good ideas were brought forward. After hearing the testimony of dozens of farmers and stakeholders, it was obvious that this new law needed some adjustments if it were really going to enhance the entire supply chain on a long-term basis.

The bill also failed to define what rail service levels should be, to create an objective measurement of rail performance, to provide for damages payable to farmers, to clarify farmers' grain delivery rights, or to create reciprocal penalties when obligations are not fulfilled on any side.

These are the same complaints we heard last year, but once again, the Conservatives unanimously voted against all opposition amendments put forward to strengthen the bill and address the ongoing concerns.

Although this has been delayed and is weak legislation, the other problem, as many farmers know and the House knows, is that the sun will set on the bill in two years. Therefore, this is really only a short-term step to help out. How will farmers or anyone in the supply chain look at the future if this is only going to last two years?

With good farming practices and climate change, I believe that we are going to have more and more bumper crops. This is not going to be a totally abnormal year. This could be a year that is going to be the norm. If that continues to happen, there has to be something in place that will guarantee that farmers are being taken care of.

The bill is a small step in the right direction, and our party will be supporting it, because this has been delayed long enough. Farmers are out planting now. They have grain still in piles in their backyards. They are trying to get money to pay for fertilizer, seeds, and chemicals. What is happening? The grain in the bin is not going to pay for those supplies. The legislation has not passed yet.

We have to have some signal for the international community that is buying our grain. I mentioned what happened in Singapore. We have to show that the House of Commons in Canada is serious about making some moves to help move grain shipments. Every time a disastrous backlog like this develops, our international reputation as a reliable grain shipper suffers, and we lose customers.

I alluded earlier to our own processors and farmers. We have a very large livestock and food processing industry in this country. We ship a lot of our grains and oats to the United States. Most people do not realize that Cheerios come from Canadian oats. They were concerned in the United States that they would not get enough oats. What was happening did not affect just our international reputation.

At committee we heard from the former chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council, Garnet Etsell. There is a billion dollar industry in the Fraser Valley. Their poultry industry is amazing. It is one of the largest concentrations of poultry in Canada. We were told in committee that poultry farms were only a couple of days away from running out of grain. Imagine having that size of livestock industry with a couple of days of grain in the bins and seeing the trains go by and not even helping out the local farmers.

Some of them were forced to buy trucks, costing them $100 extra a tonne to ship in grain from Alberta. Their returns are fixed, and they are not going to get more because they have to ship products in. It was not really addressed in this bill how we are going to help local farmers who consume that grain.

It is key that the federal government have a long-term strategy so that our high-quality grains will be able to get to our customers around the world and around the country and so that this does not happen again. We will be going back to the drawing board. If the government is wise, we will sit down after this legislation goes through and look at a long-term vision for our farmers and our country so that we continue to be a number-one supplier of grains in the world.

We realize that there are other products out in our western provinces that are doing well, such as potash, coal, and oil. We do not believe that they should all of sudden stop shipping their products because we have a good crop. We have to look at investing in our transportation system. We have to sit down with the railroads to make sure that this is happening, but right now it is not happening.

I am looking forward to a time when the farmers' biggest concern is getting the crop planted and harvested and having buyers. They should never have to worry about getting it from their grain bins to the consumers around the world. It is our obligation as the federal government to always be there for them and to make sure that it happens. In the last few years, we have. I say that we have, because it is technically the Conservatives, but at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the House to make sure that it does not happen again and that the system is in place to help farmers succeed.

If a young person is looking at getting into agriculture, there is great opportunity out there. However, to see what has been happening in the last year would discourage any young person from getting into it, knowing that they could do everything they could to produce a product but that they could not get it to the customer.

I will leave it at that, and I will open it to questions from any other members in the House.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to whether the hon. member believes that the Canadian Transportation Agency is, in fact, the right body to issue compensation or whether claims for compensation ought to go to a different tribunal, court of law, or arbitration? Why does he believe that the CTA has the expertise to adjudicate claims when, before the amendment to Bill C-30, that was not something the CTA had ever been called upon to adjudicate?

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to report Bill C-30 back to the House.

The bill addresses the immediate needs of Canadian farmers, bulk shippers, and our overall economy. Our government knows our economy needs a supply chain that works today and tomorrow, with the capacity to move what is produced.

I was proud to speak to the benefits of this bill at the agriculture committee last month. I understand the committee had a very extensive series of meetings, including testimony from over 20 stakeholder groups. The committee heard from the entire supply chain from farm to port, and from a wide range of commodity shippers, from wheat to oats to barley, as well as from fertilizer, mining, and timber groups.

I was pleased to see a strong will around the table to work toward industry-led solutions focused on service and private sector responsibilities.

This is a piece of comprehensive legislation, and opposition and government together appreciate the non-partisan work of the committee to date, along with all of the witnesses that came forward. By working together, we were able to strengthen the bill, which, I would like to note, passed through the committee with unanimous support. I thank the committee members for that.

It was extremely unfortunate that the member for Edmonton-St. Albert turned a deaf ear to those farmers and shippers by attempting to deprive them of meaningful service level agreements, or SLAs. His point of order accomplished nothing but delaying the much-needed measures in the bill.

I want to be clear that these parliamentary games, while unfortunate, will not deter our government and the opposition from amending Bill C-30 to include service level agreements with reciprocal penalties. Testimony shows that the majority of stakeholders support the bill and what it sets out to accomplish.

During the committee's consultations, shippers of all commodities applauded this legislation, but they also asked the government to go further. They asked us to put more teeth into service level agreements to bring day-to-day accountability to the railways. Responding to this feedback, my parliamentary secretary introduced an amendment at committee on behalf of the government.

The first part of the amendment would give the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to

...order the company to compensate any person adversely affected for any expenses that they incurred as a result of the company's failure to fulfill its service obligations...

By “company”, of course, we mean railways.

The amendment allows shippers who enter into service level agreements to be directly compensated for any expenses they incur as a result of the railways' failure to meet those service obligations. This includes compensation if the shipper is out of pocket for costs such as demurrage, contract defaults, or penalties. It goes further than the reciprocal penalties that many in the industry have requested, because it applies to any level of service complaint under the Canada Transportation Act. This is a market-based solution that would help get all bulk commodities moving and continuing to move.

The second part of the amendment reads:

...or, if the company is a party to a confidential contract with a shipper that requires the company to pay an amount of compensation for expenses incurred by the shipper as a result of the company's failure to fulfill its service obligations, order the company to pay that amount to the shipper

This measure is equally important, because it allows compensation to be paid within a commercial contract. It would encourage the shippers and railways to come to the table and set their own terms and agree on SLAs with reciprocal penalties, should they so desire.

The goal is to level the playing field and provide better tools for shippers when railway companies breach their service obligations.

We are working to continue to improve the efficiency, reliability, and predictability of the entire supply chain. I am pleased to say that strengthening SLAs has the support of industry, the provinces, and the opposition, and I thank them all.

Industry groups that support this needed amendment include, but are not limited to, the Inland Terminal Association of Canada, the Barley Council of Canada, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Cereals Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, and the Freight Management Association of Canada. It covers all of the spectrum.

The importance of the bill cannot be understated. I recently returned from a trade mission to South Korea and Japan, where, alongside Canadian industry, I spoke directly with international buyers of Canadian grains about problems incurred in our immediate past. I assured these buyers that our government was not taking this situation lightly and explained the details of Bill C-30 to directly address their concerns. These buyers were pleased to hear that our government was taking this needed action to ensure Canada's reputation as a reliable grain shipper, and they thanked our government for acting quickly.

Farmers and all shippers need our government to pass the bill, as amended, as expeditiously as possible. Our economy and Canadian jobs are relying on us to act.

Crop yields show every sign of continuing to grow through better technology, higher yielding, more disease-resistant varieties and better agronomic practices.

Shippers of all bulk commodities that rely on rail are growing their businesses exponentially and are demanding increased capacity to get those products to a burgeoning marketplace. That is why we must move forward to strengthen the supply chain now for the next crop year and beyond.

Bill C-30 holds solutions that would benefit the entire supply chain. I urge everyone in the House to work together to pass this important bill, with this needed amendment, as quickly as possible.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-33—Time Allocation Motion

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you heard a lack of noise from this side when the House leader from the government moved the closure motion, because it is so usual for us to hear that.

The minister suggested that somehow we oppose everything. Let me remind the minister that today Bill C-30 will come before us and that it was this opposition, this New Democratic Party, this critic of agriculture, who said to the minister opposite, “We will help you, sir. We will help you get the legislation through. We will help you at committee. We will help you bring it back, because it is an emergency.” We intend to continue to do that.

Unfortunately, as you heard earlier in the Speaker's ruling, the government brought forward amendments. What happened in its rush to do all of that? The government was ruled out of order. When we rush, we make mistakes. That is a human frailty. It is not necessarily a Conservative frailty, albeit the government is the one that brings closure all the time. Clearly, its frailty is probably more obvious than anyone else's when it comes to making mistakes.

This single piece of legislation is immensely important. I do not sit on that committee, so my opportunities to speak to this legislation are limited to this place. By doing what the government has done 60-odd times, it limits the opportunity for those of us who do not have the opportunity to go to committee. Some would ask why we do not just substitute in. That would be an opportunity. However, I can imagine that the government would come up with some sort of ruling that there could only be so many substitutes, because if we all tried to substitute in to listen to committee hearings, the government would say that it would take too long as well.

There are times we need to take the time to study. In this case, the minister should reconsider. I do not know why he wants to rush this through. Education is important for every child. We agree with him that first nation children deserve to have the same education and the same opportunities as everyone else, but let us get it right in the first place. Let us not make mistakes.

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 10, 2014, by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, regarding the admissibility of an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for Bill C-30, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures and reported to the House on April 8, 2014.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their comments.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert claimed that an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-30 is inadmissible, because it aims to amend a section of the Canada Transportation Act that is not contained in the bill. He argued that, in so doing, the committee had exceeded its authority and went beyond the scope of the bill that had been referred to it.

On April 28, 2014, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered the points made by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert. He asserted that the amendment in question was relevant and consistent with the subject matter of the bill, and respected the rules and usual practices of the House. He explained that the amendment aimed to modify the Canada Transportation Act, which is under consideration in Bill C-30. He also reminded the House that the amendment was considered without procedural objection and was adopted by a recorded vote without dissent.

In a Speaker’s ruling delivered on April 28, 1992, which can be found at page 9801 of Debates, Speaker Fraser explained the restrictions faced by committees when considering amendments to a bill. He said:

As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

In relation to the Speaker’s authority with respect to amendments adopted in committee, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 775 states:

The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

I have reviewed the amendments adopted by the committee, and particularly the amendment that gave rise to this point of order, which created the new clause 5.1 in the bill. It amends section 116 of the Canada Transportation Act, a section that was not originally amended by the bill, to provide an additional power to the Canada Transportation Agency.

The parliamentary secretary referred to several procedural authorities to support his arguments. Most notably, and helpfully, he quoted from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 766 on the issues of scope and relevance. However, in the same paragraph that he quoted from, a critical element went unmentioned. At pages 766 to 767, it also reads:

In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

This is sometimes referred to as the parent act rule.

The Chair has no difficulty agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Indeed, as a fellow Saskatchewan MP who represents a large number of grain producers, I can certainly agree on the importance of this issue. As Speaker, however, not only can I not simply act according to my personal beliefs, I must respect House of Commons precedents which, in the case before us, are only too clear. Relevance is not the only test to be applied in judging admissibility. As the amendment in question reaches back into the parent act to modify a section of the act originally untouched by the bill as passed at second reading, long-standing practice leaves the Chair no choice: the amendment and those consequential to it are inadmissible.

The procedural jurisprudence is clear. I am therefore obliged to rule that the amendment, and the two other consequential amendments adopted by the committee, are null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am directing that the bill be reprinted without these amendments.

Let me close by recalling how the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has reminded the House that this bill enjoyed all-party support at second reading and that the specific measures this ruling addresses were unanimously agreed to in committee. In light of that, the Chair would be remiss if I did not, in turn, remind the House that, should there still be a clear will on the part of all parties in the House to effect these changes in the law, there are several very simple and straightforward procedural options available.

I thank honourable members for their attention.

[David Marit, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before the committee.

I'm the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and we've appeared before the committee in the past and appreciate the ongoing relationship we have with the members.

Today, I'd like to provide you with a summary of the current and future challenges facing rural Saskatchewan regarding rail safety. These issues are of great importance to SARM and our member municipalities. Rail transportation service is an issue of vital importance to our province. Our small, yet growing population, large volume of agriculture, and oil and potash production right in Saskatchewan mean that a significant amount of our products are exported. The distance to ports and the landlocked nature of our province make rail the only mode of transportation currently available to haul our products to export position.

As a result, our province’s economic advantage is very much dependent on a competitive rail transportation system. The recent rail disasters have clearly raised questions about the safe transport of dangerous goods via railways through our municipalities across Canada. We'd like to begin today with comments on grade crossing regulations.

Proposed changes to rail crossings currently being consulted through part I of the Gazette raise issues of concern about both safety and cost for municipalities. SARM supports the intent of the proposed grade crossing regulations; however, their current direction is unclear. SARM is concerned with safety and emergency service access to communities and the length of trains. We understand that there will be a move to two-mile trains and this will block crossings and cause unintended consequences for communities. The continuous obstructions of grade crossings by trains is a large concern for municipalities.

SARM recommends that guidance be provided by the Department of Transport to municipalities on how to address these issues at the local level to increase safety.

The costs for municipalities to upgrade crossings are unknown, and the long-term maintenance can be expensive. It is required that all crossings be upgraded to meet the indicated standards. There remains a possibility that smaller municipalities will face significant costs, ones they cannot afford. Not maintaining crossings will result in closures as a result of municipalities being unable to meet the expense for upgrading sight-line requirements. This would have tremendous impact on local ratepayers and the rural municipalities.

SARM recommends that additional funding be provided to ensure municipalities can comply with the requirements.

It is our understanding that there will be some flexibility in meeting the requirements within the final regulations. SARM recommends that a reference guide be developed that outlines the flexibility that local authorities have to comply with the regulations.

In consultation with the Saskatchewan Shortline Railway Association, SARM has made a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency on third party liability insurance coverage regulations. The Lac-Mégantic tragedy was a rare case in which no reasonable requirements for third party liability insurance would have provided adequate coverage. After an internal review and consultations with industry stakeholders in our province, we don't believe there should be additional or different third party liability insurance requirements related to the transportation of certain commodities such as dangerous goods.

Our recommendations include the following.

Provincially regulated short lines are a lot different from the high volume, high speed railways that are federally regulated. If minimum requirements for liability insurance are imposed, SARM recommends that the short-line railway requirements be less than those of class I railways.

We also recommend that adequate consideration be given to the level of risk posed by provincially regulated short lines and that, if regulations are imposed on them, they correlate with the level of risk. Because railway operations vary in terms of the volume of traffic, commodity mix, scope of operation, and number of crossings, minimum requirements should be less on shoreline railways and based on individual risk assessments, past history, and length of service.

Short lines have become integral to the transportation network, moving Canada’s mining resources to local and regional markets. Our concern is in regard to increased liability and whether or not the requirements for class I railways will be downloaded onto short lines. The shoreline sector is essential for providing a continuous railway network across federal and provincial jurisdictions; therefore, additional costs in obtaining higher third party liability insurance could be detrimental to their business. SARM recommends that these additional costs remain with the class I railways.

With respect to rail shipments, SARM has always advocated that an effective rail transportation system is critical to the competitiveness of our agriculture sector and other rural-based industries in Canada, including oil and potash, which we will see being transported via rail more regularly as pipelines hit capacity and potash production increases.

The poor level of rail service for the grain industry has been affecting grain profitability across Canada. The rail capacity to handle increased grain exports is vital to supporting the Canadian economy and to the competitiveness of our agriculture and food sector.

SARM supports the efforts the federal government has made to improve grain movement throughout our province, and supports the amended version of Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act. We are, though, disappointed that the legislation did not include more substantial penalties on the railways and failed to increase the number of grain cars that railways are required to deliver.

With regard to stiffer penalties and minimum grain cars, in order to ensure that a similar backlog does not reoccur in future years, SARM recommends that mandatory levels of rail service agreements be legislated, with much stiffer penalties imposed when levels of service are not met, and that legislation be implemented to ensure that the railways move a minimum of 13,000 cars.

In closing, SARM recommends the following to ensure that rail transportation service continues to sustain Saskatchewan’s growing economy.

If costs for municipalities to meet the proposed grade crossing requirements prove to be too expensive, additional funding should be provided to ensure that municipalities can comply. Guidance should be provided to municipalities to address safety concerns regarding obstruction of grade crossings, and a reference guideline should be developed that outlines the flexibility that local authorities have while attempting to comply with the regulations.

Second, third party liability insurance requirements should be lower for short-line railways than for class I railways, and additional costs should remain with the class I railways.

Finally, to improve the overall current level of rail service for the shipment of products, stiffer penalties should be imposed when levels of service are not being met to ensure that the minimum cars will be moving grain.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression, and in fact we had been advised, that the Chair would be delivering a ruling on my point of order raised in the House on April 10 with respect to the amendments passed by the agriculture committee regarding Bill C-30.

The Chair is not in a position to offer a ruling now, but I was curious if you might be able to advise the House when that ruling might be forthcoming. As you can appreciate, I, the government House leader, and, I suspect, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are very anxious to hear your ruling.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the warrantless production of documents and the warrantless search is now a thing of the past, and that this element of Bill C-30 is not present in Bill C-13. However, there is something in Bill C-13 that would provide immunity to Internet service providers and telephone companies when they produce records at the request of law enforcement authorities. In order to make it easier for them, this immunity would apply to both criminal prosecution for the production of these records and any civil suit.

Given that the member's position is that there are no longer warrantless searches, is it not the case that there is now an incentive for co-operation among Internet service providers, or at least a disincentive has been removed, which is tantamount to having warrantless searches all over again? What the government is doing indirectly is what it tried to do directly, through Bill C-30.

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to respond to the point of order raised on April 10 by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert respecting the amendments to Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, contained in the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food presented on Tuesday, April 8. The government disagrees with the assessment offered by the hon. member.

The amendment in question, which adds clause 5.1 to the bill, is relevant to the subject matter of Bill C-30. It respects the rules and usual practices of the House. It would amend a part of the Canada Transportation Act, a law that is already under consideration in Bill C-30.

The summary of Bill C-30 clearly states that a goal of the legislation, and in particular the part which would amend the Canada Transportation Act, is to “facilitate the movement of grain by rail”. This amendment would provide the tools required in the supply chain to make sure all parties are committed to making this happen.

The sponsor of the bill clearly believes that this clause is relevant and consistent with his policy intentions or he would not have asked his parliamentary secretary to propose that amendment.

Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill followed an ambitious and full series of meetings by the agriculture committee. Many witnesses with interests in this legislation appeared and gave evidence. The government heard what witnesses asked for. In response, it drafted an amendment to fulfill the desire of witnesses.

Furthermore, I understand that the amendment was considered at committee without objection. Not only was it considered without procedural objection, it was adopted by a recorded vote of nine to zero. Every member of the committee voted for and supported the amendment. A competent and informed decision was made when each member reviewed, considered, and voted for the amendment. The unanimously adopted amendment aids and advances the bill's purpose of facilitating the movement of grain by rail.

As the Speaker knows, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 766 states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill...Similarly, an amendment which is equivalent to a simple negation of the bill or which reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading is out of order.

An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill...

Erskine May's Parliamentary Procedure, 24th edition, helpfully defines the scope of a bill at page 6564:

Any amendment (or new clause or new schedule) proposed to a bill must be within its scope. The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope.

Bill C-30's long title is An Act to Amend the Canada Grain Act and Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures. Clearly clause 5.1, which would amend the Canada Transportation Act, meets this threshold.

Let me add from page 565 of Erskine May:

An amendment which is outside the scope of a clause may be admissible if presented as a new clause, provided that it is within the scope of the bill.

As I have previously mentioned, clause 5.1 joins other amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to facilitate the movement of grain by rail.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, addresses the admissibility of amendments to legislation at citation 698. Let me quote from some of the paragraphs of this citation. Paragraph (1) says:

An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope, or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived.

That is not the case here.

Paragraph (2) reads:

An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.

This amendment complements and enhances the purpose of the bill. It absolutely is not inconsistent with the bill.

Paragraph 5 informs us that “An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to at the second reading stage is not admissible.” However, this is not applicable because the amendment does not overturn the principle of the bill. I could offer even more quotes from citation 698 to make my case, but in the interest of time, I will not.

Let me take a brief moment, especially as a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, to acknowledge and thank the opposition members for the work they did; and in fact the non-partisan work they all did, as well as the cordial approach taken during the committee's work to see this important bill considered promptly, expeditiously, and thoroughly.

Members of the House understand extremely well that this amendment is important because it gives tools to the shippers who enter service level agreements. In fact, the proposed amendment further facilitates the movement of grain by rail through the creation of a better balance and accountability between shippers and railways and the strengthening of the strong foundation provided for effective and reliable service. The amendment is something that many witnesses from all commodities have asked for at the committee. The Alberta Wheat Commission said this recently:

AWC would like to recognize the members of the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the amendments made to strengthen the legislation and the potential for effective Service Level Agreements between railways and shippers. [...]The need for financial penalties was identified by AWC as a necessary component for Service Level Agreements.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that you should find it easy to reject the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert and find in order the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act.