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.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your welcome.

I'm glad to be here tonight with Mark Eyking and other colleagues, and certainly with these witnesses who are providing us with some very helpful and important information.

I have three basic areas that I'd like to question on. Perhaps I'll ask all three questions at once and then leave the maximum time for the witnesses to answer.

First of all, would it be helpful as we're dealing with Bill C-30 to actually see what the draft regulations might look like? For the most part the act creates the authority to create regulations, but the regulations are not yet in the public domain. I wonder if that would be useful to actually see at an early stage what the government has in mind for the drafting of those regulations.

Second, with respect to the contracts between grain companies and farmers, which are referred to in the legislation, and the possibility of regulations being promulgated under the Canada Grain Act,should those regulations spell out damages or penalties to be paid to farmers if and when specified delivery opportunities are not provided by the grain companies as had been contracted for? Should there be consequences if you can't deliver when your contract says you ought to be able to deliver, and what would those consequences be? As well, should there be regulations that would impose some kind of transparency and potential limits on the calculation of the so-called basis, the deductions that appear, anecdotally at least, to be consuming about 50% of the international price of grain? That's being absorbed before it even gets to the farmer, so how can you bring transparency and some kind of limit on this calculation called basis.

Third, with respect to the other type of contract that's referred to in the legislation, the service level agreements between shippers and railways under the Canada Transportation Act, do regulations there need to be very clear in specifying the service levels that the railways are expected to provide? Do the regulations also need to be clear in specifying the way in which performance is to be measured, have the railways in fact provided it or not, and about the payment of damages to farmers if the service isn't what was specified in the service level agreement?

Should those three things, first, definition of service, second, how do you measure it, and third, what is the consequence if service fails, be in regulations or should they in the act itself?

Finally, with respect to the Canada Transportation Act, beyond this vague phrase that's been there for a hundred years, “adequate and suitable accommodation”, are our witnesses telling us here—and I think this is what I heard—that railway service obligations need to be defined as performing in such a way that the railways actually meet the needs of their customers? In other words, the rules are designed to service customers, not service railways. That would certainly change the paradigm in Canada of the last 143 years.

I wonder if I could just leave those questions, Mr. Chairman, and see what our witnesses have to comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Matt. I appreciate your comments and your time.

Before I start the round of questioning, I want to welcome Mr. Goodale to the committee tonight as we talk about Bill C-30.

The first round, Madam Brosseau, for five minutes.

[Matt Sawyer, Chair, Alberta Barley Commission]

Good evening. On behalf of the Alberta Barley Commission and the Grain Growers of Canada, I’d like to thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, the short title of which is the fair rail for grain farmers act.

I'm Matt Sawyer, chairman of the Alberta Barley Commission. I'm here on behalf of Alberta Barley's 1,000-plus barley farmers, as well as the 45,000 farmers represented under the banner of the Grain Growers of Canada, of which I'm also the vice-president.

The reason I am in Calgary today and not with you in Ottawa is I cancelled all of my appointments this week as I had the hopes of hauling grain. Last night at five o'clock I received the call that the train once again didn't show up, so I've been pushed back another week on a February contract for 20,000 bushels of canola and 60,000 bushels of wheat. So, once again these February-March contracts are being pushed back, and I'm pushed back once again.

But I certainly am honoured and thankful to be here today to speak with you, but I really wish that I were hauling some grain.

I certainly can’t emphasize enough that this crisis is real with major consequences for my farm and for farms across the country. I know that I am not alone.

At Alberta Barley, our mandate is to grow our barley industry and its profitability. Profitability is key to doing business, and if you can't make a profit, there’s no point in doing it.

What's troubling to me is that farmers are up against a transportation system in Canada that prevents competition and holds us back.

It's frustrating to me that our transportation system has left farmers to bear all of the costs of its failings. We are nearing $3 billion in lost revenue this year due to the basis and other items that will only grow as long as we go without a long-term solution to this pressing problem.

With the transportation system the way it is, my life will continue to be on hold. That, I guess, is what being a farmer in Canada was like in the past: your life is on hold in the hopes that you possibly get the call to deliver grain. And when you get the call, you just go. You drop everything. You don't argue; you just go because you'll miss your delivery opportunity.

Basically, to make an analogy, receiving a call this year to haul your grain is kind of like waiting for an MRI appointment that you've had booked for the last two years. If you miss that MRI appointment, you're going to miss your opportunity. That's basically what it is. This is what it's like for farmers in western Canada; when you get the call to deliver grain, you go.

This past year, due to the failures of our transportation system, grain deliveries have largely been put on hold. This is why the farmer members of Alberta Barley and the Grain Growers of Canada support the changes to the legislation to ensure grain deliveries are a priority over the next two years.

Canadian farmers grow exceptional crops. I believe they are the best in the world. We have a well-earned international reputation for growing a high-quality premium product.

Unfortunately, we have developed another reputation as a country that can't get our grain to market in a timely manner. Nine out of ten farms in this country are dependent on exports, and Canada is the fifth largest agrifood exporter in the world. Our economy depends on maintaining the trust and faith of our buyers around the world.

Our country was built on the railways. For nearly 150 years, the trains have been key to making Canada work. Our railways are posting significant profits while farmers are not able to get the grain to port in a reliable manner to our customers.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that the problems with the railways aren’t limited to farmers. Everybody is affected.

We're not asking for grain to be shipped at the expense of other commodities. However, due to the size of the crop last fall, farmers are in a cash crunch. We need to move this grain. Chemical, fertilizer, loads of machinery payments are due, and we're sitting on mountains of grain that we can't deliver because once again we didn't see that train coming and it's not coming down the tracks.

The reason legislation is needed to fix this problem is that there isn’t just one factor at play. We can’t simply fix the weather and ensure that grain deliveries will increase. We need legislation because we can’t simply implement stronger contracts between the grain companies and railways today and hope that they will be enforceable tomorrow.

In order to get the grain moving, and keep it moving while farmers are already planting their next crop, the legislation is key. Otherwise farmers have to hope for the best out of a system that we know is broken.

That is why we welcome the government's efforts to review the Canada Transportation Act. We support the work being done throughout the industry to identify gaps. For example, the north-south corridors are just as important as the east-west corridors.

As you'll hear from my colleagues throughout the industry, we have some specific ideas on how to improve the grain transportation system in Canada, and these include the following. The definition of adequate and suitable accommodation and service obligations within the legislation needs to be made clear. To be frank with you, we need a bill that has teeth. While we appreciate the drive for more accountability, we also need real and tangible measures. Currently, there is no statutory guidance on how a railway is to fill its service obligations and the words “adequate and suitable” are ineffective in providing that.

The current level of service complaint remedy and particularly the definition of “adequate and suitable” have been ineffective for shippers. Regarding service level agreements, we believe that the mandatory reciprocal commercial penalties should be incorporated into service level agreements during the regulatory process. If you have two parties willing to commit to a deal, it will mean the producers can finally get their grain to port. Reciprocal penalties simply mean that everyone is accountable, which is the key to having a reliable transportation system.

We are all in this together, and from my perspective, asking a farmer how to solve the railway issue is kind of like asking an accountant how to fix a combine. My message is this. Farmers have always been willing to step in and fix the problem. This past winter, we had many meetings where we sat around and discussed with politicians and chemical representatives and industry participants about how we're going to fix this. How are we going to air up a train? How are we going to get it to the coast? It's too cold. Well, bottom line, we've all had to make improvements in our system to get the wheels rolling, and I certainly know that if it were up to me, I'd make sure it happened.

But it shouldn't be up to farmers to fix this problem, and it's not up to us to figure out how to make the rail system more efficient. We just want to ship our commodities, and through processes like this we can ensure that we can create efficiencies in the system so that this can happen.

I am thoroughly disappointed that the rail transportation crisis has cost us around $2.5 billion as well as our reputation as a reliable shipper of our products. The Grain Growers of Canada and the Alberta Barley Commission support the proposed changes, and certainly look forward to a more secure future for farmers. We see this as a good first step to ensure the railways remain responsive to Canadian business and we look forward to participating in future discussions.

Thank you very much.

[Rick White, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you.

My name is Rick White.

The imbalance in the commercial relationship between the railways and the other stakeholders in the grain supply chain has been fully exposed this crop year negatively affecting producers and to the ultimate detriment of our national economy and our reputation as a reliable supplier of food products.

We agree that the focus on market-driven solutions and longer term statutory frameworks are the preferred solution over temporary market intervention by government. Simply stated, a framework of balanced accountability to drive commercial behaviour in the supply chain will come from two primary sources. The first one is service obligations and the second is contractual relationships.

On the first point, a proper definition of adequate and suitable service in the common carrier obligations contained in the Canada Transportation Act is required. Railway service obligations must meet the transportation needs of the shipper.

Section 113 currently states that the railway will furnish “adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of all traffic offered for carriage...”.

Defining adequate and suitable service as that which meets the shipper's needs inherently addresses the capacity issue in a way that is not specified by government edict, and would clarify that the rail service provider is statutorily compelled to do what they need to do in order to carry the traffic presented to them.

This needs to be added to Bill C-30. The current definition is too vague and it requires tightening to leave little room for misinterpretation or legal wrangling.

Now with the current proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, the increased forecasting, supply chain coordination, and reporting are all very positive elements. Capacity planning needs to begin now for the 2014-15 crop year. Input from commodity groups is critical to receive predictive information regarding both near term and longer term production levels in marketing. If required, future shipping requirements made of the railways need to be corridor specific to ensure that product is moving to where it needs to go, as opposed to what is the most expedient to fulfill statutory or regulatory volume obligations.

The proposed extended interswitching limit is a positive action that has the potential to inject increased commercial competition across the west for both grain and other shippers. Expanding system capacity is critical. We need to assure capacity is expanded if we are to, first, meet the needs of all supply chain participants across all commodities, and second, to meet future obligations and capture Canada's export growth market opportunities.

On our second point, there must be explicit provision for the element of reciprocal penalties in service level agreements. CCGA and other shippers have been stating this since the rail freight service review process in 2009. The current contractual framework is extremely weak and practically ineffective. Service level agreements that include the mandatory element of reciprocal penalties for non-performance when service obligations are breached will increase the accountability between parties in the supply chain and hold them financially responsible to each other. Ideally, this will also allow for penalties to flow through to producers, who currently contract their grain with grain companies and receive no consideration when there is a service failure between the grain companies and railways.

The shipping community continues to support that the six amendments presented to government in 2010 by the Coalition of Rail Shippers remain central to effecting meaningful change in the service level agreement mechanism. Those amendments need to be incorporated in this act. The experience this year has clearly demonstrated that the railways operate in a privileged position where statutory common carrier obligations can be skirted as they please, punishing the Canadian agricultural producers, shippers, and ultimately the national economy.

Several implications of this for the grain and oilseed sector are going to be: unprecedented carry-out stocks that will impact the markets for several years to come; a sustained wide basis as grain companies signal producers to hold product; and our greatest fear, a shrinking or loss of international markets and relationships due to the perceived vulnerability and ineffectiveness of the Canadian supply chain.

It is time to re-balance the commercial relationships within the supply chain and increase accountability through meaningful and effective contracts on service and performance. Bill C-30 presents us an opportunity to do just that.

We are committed to working with the government to make sure we capture this opportunity for the benefit of our growers and supply chain participants in all commodities.

We appreciate being here to address the committee this evening and look forward to taking your questions. Thank you.

[Brett Halstead, President, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm Brett Halstead. Good evening to everybody there.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to speak with you today about Bill C-30.

The Canadian Canola Growers Association is a national association that represents the voice of Canada's 43,000 canola farmers. With more than 90% of Canada's canola ultimately destined for export markets, canola farmers critically rely on the service of Canada's railways to help get our products to customers and keep those products competitive in world markets.

The competitiveness and reliability of our industry, which currently contributes $19 billion to the Canadian economy, is highly dependent on the railways' providing predictable, timely, and efficient service. As we look forward 10 years, we see further rising demand for our products. In the future, supply chains and rail logistics will be even more important as our industry strives to meet new goals of 26 million tonnes of canola production per year.

This crop year, canola farmers harvested a record 18 million tonnes of canola. This, coupled with relatively good canola prices, meant that canola farmers were feeling optimistic about their prospects. However, producers were not fully able to realize the economic benefit of this bumper crop because of a breakdown of the transportation system, specifically of the movement of product by rail from country elevators to terminals.

Not only have we lost market opportunities, but in many cases, farmers who had well-established grain marketing plans now face severe cash flow challenges as their canola continues to sit in their grain bins because of lack of delivery opportunities.

CCGA appreciates the government's ongoing commitment to resolve both short- and long-term service problems with Canada's rail transportation system, and particularly its responding to this crisis in the grain and oilseed sector.

The government has announced several measures to improve grain logistics, including better monitoring. These measures are all steps towards making the logistical system commercially responsible. We would like to underline that through this process, we have been striving to ensure that the framework is fundamentally restructured to benefit all shippers, regardless of commodity or geography.

With Bill C-30, we have a tremendous opportunity before us to rebalance the commercial relationship that historically has been heavily, and I repeat heavily, tilted in favour of one party, the railways, which form only one component of the value chain.

CCGA fully supports solutions that modernize the relationship between shipper and railway under a framework of balanced accountability.

Rick.

[Greg Cherewyk, Chief Operating Officer, Pulse Canada]

Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here tonight to discuss Bill Bill C-30 and its implications for the ag industry. We don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to focus on the areas that are priorities for our members.

Pulse Canada represents the interests of over 30,000 farmers from Alberta through to Ontario, and over 130 processors and exporters of pulses and special crops that are members of the Canadian Special Crops Association.

In the quarter that ended yesterday, March 31, our members who are participants in our performance measurement program received 49% of the hopper cars they ordered and 43% of the boxcars they ordered. Week to week, the aggregate order fulfillment range was between 20% and 60%. This represents a further deterioration of service relative to the first half of the shipping season. What's even more staggering is that during the first 30 weeks of the shipping season, 50% of the shippers in our program experienced weeks when they received no hopper cars at all.

With the introduction of Bill Bill C-30, the government sent a message to Canadian agribusinesses and their customers around the world that this type of performance simply isn't good enough. It's now clear that if service providers aren't prepared to meet the needs of the industry, there will be intervention.

With respect to some of the important and high-level components of the bill, I want to start by saying that we appreciate the commitment to advance the review of the Canada Transportation Act. With that we stress that, while we support the launching of the process more quickly, we still expect a comprehensive review that includes a thorough assessment of facts, broad consultation, and a commitment to act on the facts.

We also appreciate the strong statement made with respect to the importance of enhanced public performance reporting, and look forward to the expanded role of the grain monitor.

While I'm on the theme of having access to data on system performance and the importance of evidence-based action, I'd like to address an issue that is a top priority for our members right now. In an effort to prompt greater responsiveness from the railways to the needs of the grain industry, the government issued an order in council establishing targets of 5,500 cars per railway per week, and the requirement to move 500,000 tonnes of agriproduct per week. Bill C-30 will give the government the authority to continue to issue these orders through to August, and again into the fall peak shipping season.

Our members are being told by their railway partners that the order in council and subsequent measures will have a detrimental effect on their service, particularly through the eastern corridor to Montreal through to U.S. destinations and into Mexico.

With no additional rail freight capacity put into the system over this shipping season, and an OIC that establishes weekly car and tonnage targets, our members are being told that corridors that allow for tight cycle times and the greatest turn on assets will be prioritized.

Members are being told that they cannot service their customers in the U.S., Mexico, or through the eastern corridor and the port of Montreal.

While railways tell us this is the inevitable outcome of an order that has imposed ill-advised and unreasonable targets on the carriers, I'd like to direct your attention to some key facts that warrant your consideration.

On a Q3 earnings call in 2012, during a period of time when the government was considering the introduction of Bill C-52, CN reported:

On the asset side we’re moving cars 8% faster than last year. [...] In fact in September we set a record for car velocity reaching an average of 217 miles per day. These velocity gains are being achieved while handling record volumes. This quarter was our busiest of any third quarter in CN's history averaging over C$1.050 billion GTMs per day, up 8% from last year. So overall very solid performance on the operational side of the equation. [...] rest assured we've not lost any of our passion for...efficiency but at the same time we’re making a meaningful difference for our customers and our supply chain partners pushing forward on our Service Excellence agenda.

In the third quarter we met 96% of unconstrained orders placed by our customers and provided the cars on the day requested 89% of the time.

Within this report CN also specifically highlighted their enhanced service to the grain industry, proudly stating:

The trust and dependability we've developed to establish in this robust pipeline has allowed CN to sustain a record of spotting...in excess of 5,000 cars per week for the last six weeks, which is a record for CN.

While the railways would have their customers in other sectors as well as customers within agriculture believe that the OIC that establishes targets of just over 5,000 cars per week will have a negative and unanticipated consequence on their service, I would point out that you have evidence that they are capable of hitting these targets while achieving efficiency objectives and delivering a reasonable level of service to customers across all sectors and throughout the agriculture community.

That being said, in order to ensure that the OIC achieves its objectives and meets the needs of the grain industry, we know that it must go beyond establishing a broad target. It must also establish clear expectations for movement of all commodities through all corridors to all destinations, to ensure that the implementation of the order results in fair and equitable treatment to all shippers, be they small, medium, or large.

We recommend that a discussion be held immediately with Quorum, the official monitor of the grain handling and transportation system, so that additional guidance and direction related to the order in council and follow-up measures can be structured in a meaningful way to ensure that performance can be measured and monitored over the coming days, weeks, and months.

This leads me to my final point. As we head into an expedited consultation on regulations related to service level agreement provisions, it is absolutely imperative that the regulations be established with clear guidance in the legislation. Building on the language found in section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act, under our national transportation policy, we must state clearly that the system is in place to meet the needs of its users. This simple but extremely important statement is widely regarded by the broadest range of stakeholders in the shipping community as key to ensuring that service levels are established in a manner that supports the competitiveness of Canadian companies and the overall growth of the Canadian economy.

With that direction, we begin to break away from capacity and performance levels that place the efficiency of the rail network ahead of the needs of its customers. With that direction, we can begin to ensure that economic growth is not governed or constrained by the rail network. With that direction, we can get back to focusing on the top priority of every one of our members: to be and to be seen to be the most consistent and reliable supplier of the products that we produce and market to the world.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I'd like to call the committee to order, please. We're here pursuant to order of reference of Friday, March 28, 2014, Bill C-30, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures.

Tonight we have three different panels, from 6:30 to 7:30, 7:30 to 8:30, and 8:30 to 9:30. We're going to try to keep our times fairly tight so that we can get as much information out as we possibly can during our time scheduled.

Tonight on the first panel, we have Greg Cherewyk from Pulse Canada. Thank you very much for joining us.

By video conference we have from the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Brett Halstead and Rick White.

Also by video conference, from Calgary, Alberta, we welcome Matt Sawyer, the chair of the Alberta Barley Commission.

We will enter into opening remarks. You have a maximum of 10 minutes each, and then we'll move into rounds of questions by our committees.

Greg, I'll give you the opportunity to start with your opening statements.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wascana has pointed out a portion of the new legislative package, Bill C-30, and the regulatory capacity under that. As he well knows, witnesses will be there all this week at the SCAAF committee, talking about this very issue.

What we have in mind is for the ability of farmers to have some reciprocity when a contract is issued by a grain company, so they actually have some power to push back. Right now, there is only buyer's preference. We would like to see something from the farmers' perspective that would give them some leverage as well.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-30, the government seeks to regulate contracts between farmers and grain companies, but it is not clear what kind of regulation. They should in fact table the draft regulations.

One problem is the so-called basis calculation, meaning how grain companies discount world prices to set the actual Prairie price paid to farmers. Farmers call this deduction “tookage”, and it has never been bigger than it is today.

Would Bill C-30 force transparency and put some limits on this grain company cash grab that is gobbling up about half of the farmers' price?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

One of the issues raised by the opposition and certainly raised also by shippers during the discussion on Bill C-52, and we're hearing it raised again here in the discussion of Bill C-30, relates to punitive damages, liquidated damages, compensation for shippers. If I understand the opposition, and I'll try to frame this appropriately what I think I'm hearing, they're suggesting to make service level agreements mandatory, define their operational elements in the Canada Transportation Act, and add a penalty regime. It's essentially the resurrection, if you will, of the arguments made on Bill C-52. There were a number of persuasive arguments on why that was somewhat difficult. It certainly wasn't simple, and it may have some unintended consequences.

First of all, is there any other commercial regime for addressing commercial contracts where in fact liquidated damages are set out beforehand in a piece of legislation? We're dealing with commercial contracts here.

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

Thank you, Ministers, for coming here today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I'd like to call to order the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 28, 2014, we are considering Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures.

Colleagues, we have with us today the Honourable Gerry Ritz, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport.

Welcome to our ministers and to those who are here with them: Greg Meredith, assistant deputy minister at the strategic policy branch, Agriculture Canada; and Scott Streiner, assistant deputy minister in group policy with the Department of Transport.

We welcome you to our committee on a very important but also significant act that is now before this committee. We will be setting up meetings throughout the week to deal with as many witnesses as we can. I appreciate that you would take the time today, right at the start and from the get-go to be a part of that.

I'll turn this over to Minister Ritz to make an opening statement.

Minister, you have 10 minutes, please.

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to add a few comments in the debate on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act. I certainly support the motivation behind this bill, and I am most mindful of the problem that exists in the prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. However, I want to place a couple of concerns on the record and ask whether there may be some unintended consequences of the bill. I support the bill and will keep my comments short enough so that this bill can be moved expeditiously to committee before the end of the day.

This bill seems to be based on a premise that it is the railroads, and the railroads alone, that are responsible for the inability of farmers to get their grain to markets. Although there may be some truth to that statement or that moral blameworthiness, I think it is an oversimplification.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture talked about the extensive consultation with the railroads before the implementation of the order in council approximately three or four weeks ago and the tabling of legislation. The railroads claim that there was a lack of consultation. CP president Hunter Harrison stated in the media that he was very concerned about the speed and the lack of consultation by the government in making such significant changes. Canadian National, which forms the southern boundary of my riding of Edmonton—St. Albert, has expressed similar concerns with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt know, being a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, that this is a complicated supply chain. For grain to be moved to market, it requires the co-operation and coordination, as the member for Wascana just indicated, of multiple moving parts, including grain cars, elevators, and inland terminals. Of course, the railways are a big piece of the puzzle, but there are also ports, ships, and weather. All of these things have to work together if grain is going to be moved in an orderly manner from the field to the bin to the elevator to the railcar to the port and to markets.

We had a bit of a perfect storm last year, in a good way. There was a bumper crop. Crops have been estimated to be anywhere from 50% or higher than average yields, and that created a problem. The railroads have also had some weather experiences this winter, which was a very significant amount of snow and cold weather over the prairie provinces, and all over Canada as a whole. As a result, their ability to move grain was comprised. The government needs to be mindful of that.

I am always concerned when the government's solution to any problem is to bring in heavy-handed regulation, especially if the railroads are correct in their assessment that the regulations were brought in without adequate consultation. In fact, there is some suggestion in some editorials today that a solution like this may have unintended consequences that could cause more problems than it would solve. They may get grain moving; they may not. We always have to be mindful that there is not infinite capacity for the railroads to move product. There are only so many rails and so many cars. We also have to be mindful of other conditions, such as weather, and something that I do not think we have talked about today, which is safety.

The year 2013 was horrific for rail accidents. The most tragic was the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, in July 2013. However, there were also derailments in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where products, including dangerous products, were derailed and caused fires, though thankfully nothing as catastrophic as was experienced in Quebec.

Nonetheless, if we are going to put extra pressure on the railways to move more product, does that mean they are going to have to move trains faster? Does that mean they are going to have to use longer trains? Has anybody properly considered what that might mean for the safety of moving product by rail? There are those who live in communities that surround railroad tracks, like I do. I live less than two blocks from the Walker Yard, which is the main switching yard in western Canada for CN Rail. I hope the government takes into consideration that it is a complicated chain.

Another problem with the weather this year, as I understand it, is with respect to the Great Lakes and moving product through Thunder Bay and that region. The ice is not allowing for the free flow of water, and perhaps the government needs to consider using icebreakers to help break up the ice so that more ships with grain can move through the Great Lakes.

The problem is much more complicated than simply blaming the railroads. There is no doubt they have major responsibility and are a major part of the supply chain, but the supply chain is larger than they are.

I will resume my seat and take questions in a moment because I want to see the bill go to committee before the clock hits the bottom of the hour, but I would ask the government to consider what some of the unintended consequences of bringing in more regulations to the railways might be.

The last thing I want to say is that rail is responsible for moving other products besides grain. There is potash. There is oil. If the railways are forced by threat of a $100,000-per-day fine to put priority on grain over other commodities, are we going to be standing up in the House three months or six months from now debating a potash fair transport act or an oil fair transport act? Those products are going to become compromised if grain becomes the only priority.

I support the intention of the bill. I am very sympathetic to the farmers who are unable to move their product and who have grain in their bins that could conceivably rot and spoil if left there too long, so I support moving the bill to committee today. However, I ask the government and the committee to consider some of the unintended consequences to the railroads as the bill moves forward to committee and back to the House. The railroads are only one part, albeit a big one, of the supply chain.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We have heard some very interesting things in the House today.

About 80% of the riding that I represent is made up of farmers. The area has a lot of farmland. We do not grow a lot of grain, but I know quite a bit about the situation and about how important it is to discuss Bill C-30 and to hear from as many witnesses as possible in committee.

I do not know how the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food works. I know more about other committees. However, I do know that, unfortunately, over the course of this session, the Conservatives have not wanted to discuss issues. This is becoming customary. I would like the member to expand on that.

Does the member really believe that the government will accept the amendments proposed? Does he think that the Conservative government will be able to accommodate the many witnesses who want to testify regarding Bill C-30?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and say we are all on the same page here. I want to clarify that the NDP is ready to work as long as it takes on the agriculture committee to accommodate all the witnesses who would like to come before our committee.

We recognize there is not much time to get this done. We have about two weeks, which means four meetings, but we are ready to work as long and as hard as permitted by the government. It will be up to the Conservatives to agree to how much we can dedicate to the witnesses coming before committee for Bill C-30.

I wonder if the member could comment on Saskatchewan's agriculture minister, who wanted targets set to 13,000 cars a week with daily fines of up to $250,000. Right now we have fines up to $100,000, but that is up to $100,000 and it is not paid to farmers who are being so heavily hit because they have done a great job. They have a bumper crop, but if they are not able to move it, they are not being paid. Could the member comment on some of the suggestions by the Saskatchewan agriculture minister?