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.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are both veteran members on the agriculture committee, and we are on the same page on a lot of issues: trying to study the TPP at committee, looking at the Emerson report, and making sure that some of the provisions in Bill C-30 actually stay in place. However, when it comes to supply management, the TPP, and CETA, there was a compensation package announced by the previous government, and we did not see a follow-through by this government. There is so much uncertainty.

I knew the Canadian milk producers were going to be okay if there were some kind of compensation, but that is not on the table anymore. We have been dealing with milk proteins for the last few years. The situation is getting worse. There are companies that have built up in the States and have a lot invested in it. There are millions of dollars at play.

We have to stand up for Canadian farmers here. I am standing up for my constituents and for the supply-managed sector. We need to see the government standing up for farmers and taking care of this milk proteins issue, because we are going to see farmers sell their quotas, close up their farms, and leave.

Therefore, we are asking for the government to take concrete action, confirm to us today, with a date, when it is going to stop milk proteins coming into Canada, and reassure Canadian farmers instead of letting us be had by the Americans.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just like to add my voice to that of Chris. I think I said it a little while ago. It's kind of funny to be agreeing with the Conservatives so much.

How committee used to work is we tried to find consensus on a lot of issues. We used to have great studies at ag committee and we were able to produce reports and recommendations for the minister. The minister would come in and meet with us quite often. I really thought that after the election we would get along and we would find consensus at committee, but that's something we haven't been able to find at committee, sadly, after a few months.

I was happy that we were able to look at diafiltered milk and talk about milk proteins at committee, but they were two short meetings. We could have written a report and sent it to the House.

We have witnesses here and I'm sorry they haven't had a chance to speak yet.

I just want to reiterate the importance that we do maybe look at other subjects that are more important and more pressing, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I've said it before and I'll say it again: consulting Canadians is important. This is an important trade deal. It's vast, thousands of pages, and it does impact the ag industry, and having an in-depth study on that with recommendations to Parliament would be important. Tomorrow we're going to be looking at milk proteins in the House of Commons and eventually we'll have to vote on my motion dealing with milk proteins and applying the rules already in place.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is important. Yes, the international trade committee is travelling and it is doing consultations, but the ag piece is really important. We could hear from different commodity groups. I do think we had a really great meeting earlier this week. I can't wait to hear the testimony from the witnesses we have today.

I think Chris mentioned also the importance of looking at grain transport. Bev and I were on the same committee when we were looking at C-30. We know how important it was for all parties to get consensus and work on making that piece of legislation the best it could be. The NDP put forward quite a few recommendations. Some of the provisions, four provisions, will be sunsetting on August 1. I think all of us have heard from different stakeholders about the importance of making sure that some of those provisions do not sunset. They're going to be going fast, right? We're getting into crazy season. We've seen it today, with votes occurring in the middle of a committee meeting. It's only going to get worse in May and June, with time allocation and pushing forward certain bills that need to be dealt with before we leave for the summer.

Grain transport was something that, on this side at least, we really wanted to have dealt with at committee, have witnesses come and talk about the importance of keeping some of those provisions and making sure that the government gets recommendations from this committee, because it will take an Order in Council and then it will take a motion in the House. We have lists of people and groups that would want to come in and talk about how they were negatively impacted a few years ago and talk about maybe infrastructure investments that could be done to make sure that rail is moving and people are on a level playing field when it comes to grain transport and the transport of all commodities.

It's frustrating and it saddens me a little bit to see that we've made it to this point, and Growing Forward, we will look at that. The committee did look at that, Growing Forward 2, in the past. We spent a few weeks at least—I could probably ask the analysts how long we actually spent on it—but we had great witnesses come in and we submitted recommendations. But we're not getting much clarity from you right now on what that'll look like and we don't have much information on what the structure will look like for Growing Forward 3. There are so many issues that we need to be dealing with instead of Growing Forward right now. There is grain transport. There is the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Chris talked about busywork. I saw a lot of busywork in other committees. I know what it smells like and looks like, and this kind of smells like that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Chair, that's the disturbing thing. We have members across the way saying to just stop talking. It was those same members last committee who were telling my colleague in the NDP that it was inappropriate that she moved a motion during the hearings. Now today, they've done the same. I'm disturbed, Mr. Chair, not only because they've done this, but now they're telling me to stop talking.

They're doing that in the House right now. They've now allocated a day for a debate on an important and substantive bill. They've talked about being open and transparent, being welcoming to the views and opinions of others, and yet what we have is members are now chastising us, telling us to quit talking and to quit supporting our agricultural producers across the country who have asked us to bring other issues to the floor.

If this motion passes, let's be clear. The Liberals have talked about having 20-some meetings that would take the entire rest of this session of Parliament for this discussion. We have issues of grain transport. Provisions of Bill C-30 will expire in the summertime. On August 1, when Parliament is not sitting, those provisions will expire. Farmers and shippers have asked us to call on the government to extend those provisions. If it is the Liberals' intent to stop us from having a discussion and supporting our agricultural producers across the Prairies who have demanded and asked for us to bring this conversation forward, if we're going to hear again and again to quit talking about the things that matter to farmers, well that's disturbing.

We're seeing them engage in those behaviours in the House. They decried the procedure in the House to limit debate in the last Parliament, but in those cases, there had been five and six weeks of debate sometimes and then there was a procedure to move to the vote. Now they're shutting down debate after a single day on a substantive and a comprehensive bill. What we're seeing again in this place is they're saying, “We're going to move this motion, so quit talking, because we want you to talk about nothing else for the rest of this session of Parliament”.

Well, I'm going to talk more about grain transport. I'm going to talk about the necessity of passing the TPP and addressing the concerns of agricultural producers. I'm going to talk about diafiltered milk. I am going to talk about the things that producers are asking me to talk about. I'm going to talk about the necessity for labour supply in slaughter facilities. I'm going to talk about building supply chains that support our agricultural industry. I'm going to talk about the things that farmers have asked me to talk about, and if the Liberals want to shut me up, I think what they're going to find is that I'm going to talk even more and defend farm families who are depending on this side to educate that side, apparently, about the priorities that the farm families have.

What I would ask is for the Liberal members opposite, rather than telling us to quit talking, to embrace our conversation, embrace the needs and the desires and the expectations of farm families across this country and do some heavy lifting and do some good work to ensure that farm families have the support that they need from their government and from the minister.

We as committee members have an important and great role to play. We have the opportunity of bringing forward concerns that farmers have asked us to bring forward. This motion would limit debate on all of those things for the rest of this session. There are provisions and elements within industry, which affect farm families, that cannot wait for months and months while we debate a program on which we have been told by the minister that we will have next to no say.

So, if we're looking for busywork, this is exactly what the Liberals are trying to pass. But I will not shut up. I will continue to talk about the things that farmers and commodity groups have asked us to do. The more that they tell us to quit talking, the more we're going to talk.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

May I suggest with Bill C-30 that you sit down with the chair of the agriculture committee and come back with a report to the committee with next steps?

Second, with respect to the Emerson report, I'm just dying to get into that report. I think we all are, after reading it. It's quite an exciting time for the country with a lot of the recommendations and/or discussion and dialogue that will happen with respect to next steps. I don't think it's all that realistic to think that we'll get into that before we rise in June. I think the fall time frame will be more realistic, and I think it allows us that. Nevertheless, I think it will take a lot of our time, as it very well should. It very well should because it's very important to get through it. I personally would like to see a national transportation strategy come out of that, and I think for the most part the minister is very aware of that.

To repeat myself, Madam Chair, I would suggest, if I may, that Bill C-30 be dealt with by your meeting with the chair of the agriculture committee and coming back with a report to the committee. Second, we can look at the Emerson report following all this, more than likely in the fall, and we can proceed then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll do some communication and see what we can find out as to where we go.

We'll go back to your Bill C-30 issue, Mr. Badawey.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I have one other suggestion, Madam Chair. I'm wondering if we could discuss or entertain an idea of establishing an ad hoc subcommittee to discuss Bill C-30, and the opportunity that there may perhaps be to extend the four provisions in that act that are due to sunset during the summer. The minister has indicated that he's going to be taking the summer, and possibly into the fall, to review the Emerson report. We know that this other legislation is going to sunset. Many stakeholders have indicated that it would be really good to have those provisions extended, and then, depending on what happens with the review of the Emerson report, you could turn around and do something different. But I asked the minister a question about this in the House last week and he indicated that he was looking at it very seriously. So I think that might give us an opportunity to provide some input to the minister as he makes his decision.

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

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations today, but also welcome all the women who are here. It's so nice to have such a strong presence of young women. I hope you're finding the committee very interesting.

Claire, I know you represent some member growers of canola, grain, cereals. I'm sure you remember very well that few years ago, we had a problem with grain transportation in Canada. It doesn't matter how many trade agreements we have, if we can't move the grain and fulfill our commitments, it's very harmful and can be damaging because our reputation is very good. We have amazing products and that year we had a bumper crop. I know there were so many circumstances that made it impossible to get things working appropriately. I'm sure you're well aware that Bill C-30 came before the ag committee and some measures within that bill will be sunsetting in the next few months. I think it's August 1. I think everybody who comes to the committee will be very favourable to the TPP, except if you're in the supply managed sector.

I was just wondering if you could talk about the importance of transportation and of some of those provisions not sunsetting. I'm not quite sure how much you know about Bill C-30.

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

I have a question.

I know that at the last meeting you said you were going to follow up on a discussion you were having with the chair of the transport committee. I'm wondering if you could tell us whether the discussion has progressed, because, clearly, on the other side there doesn't seem to be an urgency to deal with Bill C-30, [Inaudible—Editor] the only option open to have experts here.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

To answer the question I was asked from across the way, I would love to have all of the input that I possibly could in terms of the framework. However, I do know that if you're going to the negotiation table in June, by the time we got into this it would be April, and if we haven't concluded.... If the minister doesn't know what his framework is at this point, we have to wonder what he's going to the table with in June. He's not going to wait for us to contribute to that before he prepares for the table.

The first meeting is in June. If somebody across there wants.... Look, I'm ready to drop everything and go out and study this or get feedback from farmers on Growing Forward 3. If there's a particular area that the minister needs some assistance with—it needs some hearings—we'll go do that. But tell us what that is, because if we are just going to do busywork....

If we look at the time frame, we can't do a comprehensive study of a Growing Forward 3 study before the minister would have all of what he needs to be prepared for that first meeting. I know that the ministers in respective provinces have already started to compile their information. They've been given the framework by the minister, what they expect to negotiate at that first meeting. I'm not sure what exactly we would be involved with. I don't understand.

I recognize that we're enthusiastic to put our oar into the waters of the negotiation that others are engaged in, but I'm not sure exactly what we hope to accomplish or contribute to the minister on a negotiation that has the first table meeting in June.

Look, I have great ideas, and I'm certain that if we travelled the country, farmers would have some great ideas as to what they'd like included in that. But we don't have that kind of time. What is it specifically that the minister is inviting us to contribute for that discussion? If it's just busywork that this committee is engaged in, I think we're all going to be disillusioned with our jobs.

Let's do effective work. Let's actually do stuff that's going to impact and benefit farm families across this country. On the grain transportation provisions that will sunset this summer, an essential thing for us to decide as a committee, if we're going to recommend to our minister and the Minister of Transport whether or not they would be extended, I believe strongly that they should be. I believe that every tool in the tool box of the Minister of Transport to protect farm families is absolutely paramount. I think that's effective and good use of our time to ensure that farm families are protected.

I just wish somebody across the table could tell us what piece of information the minister is missing that he would like us to consult on with Canadian farmers before he goes to that table in June. If he doesn't have a clue what he wants the program to look like, then we have bigger problems, and maybe we should go immediately into a study. We can tell him what we think should be included in that. We could meet with farmers across the country. We could leave tomorrow, if in fact he hasn't got that, but I suspect that's not the case. I suspect that the minister has a very good idea as to what he is expecting because he's already spoken to his provincial counterparts.

What is it that the minister needs our help with defining for those negotiations? Before we just decide that we're going to do busywork, let's actually find out what he wants us to do, what we could do to be useful, and what we'll actually contribute to a better program. If somebody from across the way could tell me that, I'll cancel every meeting that I have henceforth to make sure that we get the best program to move forward.

If we don't have something that we're being asked to contribute to, then we have stuff that will have a meaningful impact for farm families across this country. There are a number of motions, a number of things that stakeholders across this country have told us, so we have the necessity to make sure we deal with the C-30 provisions that will sunset this summer.

We've heard from the produce growers who need provisions relating to PACA, the provisions of bankruptcy protection that don't exist today because of the challenges that have developed as it relates to the Americans. That's on what we can do to make sure that bankruptcy protections are there to protect farm families and ensure they can get their commodities to market.

We've heard from countless organizations that have very specific requests of this committee.

If the minister wants us to travel or to hear from farmers, as it relates to Growing Forward 3, we need to have an idea as to what we're doing and that it's not just busywork, because we have real work that needs to be done.

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

I would like to echo the comments that Mr. Drouin just made. It takes a while for the government to make decisions sometimes.

I think from the witnesses we just had today, and from meetings I think we've all had individually with farmers and different stakeholders, we know the importance of the past Bill C-30 and of maybe looking at the four recommendations that were in the Emerson report.

I was on the agriculture committee before. We did go over Growing Forward 2. We made recommendations.

I know that governments have changed, and you guys want to work together a little bit more. I'm really hopeful and optimistic that if we do make recommendations, they might be adopted a little more than they were when it was you guys back then.

This is a pressing issue. I think we could still get to Growing Forward 3 in due time, but I still think we should absolutely concentrate on grain transport. There were billions of dollars of losses for farmers, huge losses, and this could happen again. We're shipping less oil. They had a bumper crop, yes, but this is a pressing issue. I'd be very uncomfortable going forward with Growing Forward 3 or whatever it gets named, because this is an issue that needs to be acted on now.

We could ask the ministers to extend the provisions and not let them sunset, but we can't force their hands to do it. That's why I think it's important to have witnesses, experts. You know, we meet with farmers, but I'm not a grain farmer in the west. I represent a dairy, pork, and heavily supply managed area in Quebec. But I meet with people across Canada, farmers across Canada, and they're telling me they're worried, they're concerned. They want the government to act.

I think it would be a great opportunity for us to study this at agriculture committee. Transport is not necessarily the best place to do it. They're busy with rail safety. This is an ag issue. We need our farmers here. We need our commodity groups. We need them to come and tell us why it's important for the interswitching, why it's important for MRE, why it's important for the four recommendations. We have to make this legislation right.

I was on committee. I fought to have a lot of these things kept in place. I fought to make it the best piece of legislation it could be. Sadly, I'm sorry, you guys voted down—remember, Bev?—a lot of the things we recommended that were based on witness testimony.

So it's a plea. I'm kind of asking, I guess, that as committee members we find some consensus and go forward with a study on grain transport, because that is an issue that will help farmers right now.

Cultivons l'avenir, Growing Forward, will come in due time and we will do a study later. We will make recommendations to try to make that better, but this is an issue that I think we could deal with and put farmers at ease. This is a huge, huge issue for them.

I guess I'm just pleading that we do a study on grain transport and the Emerson report and look at keeping some of the recommendations that were made by our experts who came to committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

That concludes our presentation by the witnesses. I want to thank both of you, Mr. Tupper and Ms. Duff, for coming over and talking to us about the grain transportation system, and also Bill C-30. Thank you very much.

We will take a couple of minutes' break, and then we will return with committee business.

[Shawn Tupper]

I want to reiterate that these are two separate activities. The consultation and the move forward through to the fall with respect to the review is a different thing than the government's ability to extend the elements of C-30.

The minister has certainly heard from the agricultural sector. He's heard from other stakeholders in the transportation sector. The government is seized with the issue about what to do with the coming July dates and the sunset of C-30. I think I need to leave it to the minister and deputies to make that announcement.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I do appreciate this conversation. I think it's an important conversation.

There's been a fair bit of discussion as to whether Bill C-30 went far enough or did everything. It was intended as a stopgap measure for a period of time but also to be in place until such time as the CTA review was completed. That was the second step to the program, to allow the minister to continue to have tools in his tool box if in fact the circumstances redeveloped, whether it be weather, if it be another bumper crop in the west. Those circumstances, those conditions, could easily re-present themselves this winter.

I'm hopeful. I'm the son of a farmer, and farmers are forever optimistic that the next year will be better and might be better. So I do think that is a possibility, and, of course, who can tell what the weather will be? We do know that the minister has said there is a time frame for the replacement legislation. The timeline is such that we know it will be consulted on through until the fall. We know the process for legislation, and sometimes it takes years to get legislation fully complete.

In your view, is there any danger, any harm, in maintaining the provisions of Bill C-30 until such time as replacement legislation is in place? Is there any encumbrance that that extension would place on anybody?

What I should say is, giving the minister the tools.... Obviously the rail companies are very uncomfortable with the interswitching provisions. I get that.

We're at the agriculture committee; I guess I should say I'm here to defend my agricultural producers. Will the farmers be poorly served by the extension of the provisions of Bill C-30 until the legislative replacement from the review is in place?

[Shawn Tupper]

As we've indicated, Bill C-30 was put into place to deal with a very specific situation. That situation has now passed. We've returned to more normal operating parameters.

Again, I think the act and the advice we got from Mr. Emerson and his panel allow the government to move forward in that exact conversation: what are the needs for the future, whether it's regulatory policy or investment?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Very good. I'm hoping that climate change will be something that we're able to discuss in further detail in other meetings. With an extended grain season, what does that mean for the crops? The pulses are up and wheat is down. We're going to be seeing a really dynamic change in the market.

I'm wondering whether Bill C-30 is in the way of any of that or whether it prohibits the modernization of the transport. Is it something that was a good stopgap but really needs to be re-addressed? Do you have any thoughts on that?