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.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may split my time with Mr. Warkentin if I run out of questions.

To start, I have some comments. Most of my questions would go to the policy people, actually, but those aren't for you.

I'll go back a bit just so the committee really understands the significance of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. When that came in, there were more issues than just the significant issues around getting grain from the farms, from those that had specific grains. Some grains would move, but specific ones that were sold couldn't get moved. As a committee, we also wanted to make sure that this was not just about farmers tramping on top of other shippers, because we had also forestry, mining, minerals, energy, and the fertilizer industry.

In terms of the grain farmers act, it was brought in with the co-operation of and full consultation with other shippers. It was interesting, and obviously we learned a number of things, one being that it wasn't just about grain. This act came forward with a lot of discussion, particularly at the agriculture committee, about how we were going to improve the Grain Act.

When I look at the sunset clauses from that time that are set out here, I see that they're almost here right now. July isn't very far away. It seems like it's a long way when it's -20°, but it's not very far away in terms of how acts and legislation take place. If we were to let that sunset.... I caution our committee on this, and I submit to the government that this cannot happen. These sunsets cannot be left out there and not be acted upon. It will take us back to where we were before the grain farmers act. The reason it had some timing in it is that the Transportation Act review was needed, and it was agreed on by the committee that we needed that to take us to this point.

I'm looking at a question that I might ask you, though. Those were my comments. I know that all of us, just from the comments that have been made around the table, know the significance of making this protection be put back in place. Many of us have listened to many of the producers who are raising four or five major issues with the report, and I think this committee needs to be able to come alongside and reinforce the support that they are talking to us about.

One of the things—and it's likely just because I don't understand all of it—is that one of the recommendations is to redefine “producer car shippers” as just “shippers”. I'm wondering what that means in terms of the change in rights that would come with taking away “producer car shippers” and making those rights the same rights that “shippers” have. Help me with that.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

All right.

At the time, how was Bill C-30 received by agriculture? Were they pleased with the outcomes at that time?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses. I am really pleased that we are studying grain transportation in Canada.

A few years ago, my colleague Mr. Shipley and I participated in a study on Bill C-30 at this committee. Producers were facing huge losses in revenue when goods could not be delivered by rail. Something had to be done. All three parties reached a consensus in the committee, which was very interesting.

I hope the committee will once again be prepared to undertake a study like that, in order to provide a report with recommendations to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who are both responsible for handling this situation.

In the report there were four recommendations, and from what I understand, the minister can go through with an order in council. I think a motion would have to be put before the House, if we wanted to keep some of these provisions in place.

Is that right—an order in council and then a motion before the House?

[Lenore Duff, Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport]

All of the provisions in Bill C-30 collectively will expire. The defining operational terms, the interswitching, the grain volume requirements and...I'm missing one of them.

The permanent ones are the Canada Grains Act amendments that relate to contracts, and the data requirements under the regulations, which are continuing.

I'm just missing the last one.

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

We studied Bill C-30 at committee, and we had experts come in. They explained to us the importance of interswitching and many of the technical terms. When I meet with farmers in different commodity groups, it is grain transport that keeps coming back, and the TPP.

I would thus like to put forward a motion that we continue with the 13th, Wednesday, on the grain transport numbers and report; that we do that for one hour, but then we extend it, maybe until the middle or end of May, in a study on grain transport; and that we make a report with recommendations.

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

I agree that this is an agriculture issue, but it touches trade and so many other ministries. When we had the grain crisis, the bill, I think Bill C-30, did come to the ag committee. We tried to amend that bill. I've actually gone back and read it and looked at all the amendments brought forth by the three parties.

I think this meeting coming up on the 13th is important, but I really think we should concentrate on trying to get this right. The TPP is not going to change if we put it back a few more weeks. I think we need to really move forward on looking at the grain issues and having witnesses come in and submit their recommendations. When it comes to MREs or interswitching, I think that's something we need to do.

How does it work, Mr. Chair? Do we have to put a motion, or are we just going to be agreeable on what we're going to do moving forward?

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

I was at committee when we had the bill—I think it was Bill C-30—to help facilitate grain transport. You did mention that some provisions will be sunsetting in August and that it has to go before Parliament. Does it have to come before Parliament in order to keep those changes in place? Or could it be done by a directive from the minister to keep some of those provisions?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Getting back to the scenario, as a result of putting out the review...that's why I want to get the review out really quickly, so that people could comment. The comments that have been made to you have in fact been made to me and to the Minister of Agriculture.

We have not made a decision on whether or not to extend Bill C-30. It is certainly a bill that addresses some of the points that you're talking about, the MRE, the interswitching, those kinds of issues. We are studying this at the moment.

Remember that we've only had this report for a short time and we want to take the best possible approach to making sure that grain moves efficiently—it's an important resource—but in the larger picture, that we're also moving potash efficiently, that we're moving pulses, that we're moving coal, that we're moving all products including containers—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm not hearing an indication of a major shift, and you can be sure I'll pursue it. I know what rules and regulations are. I know what self-audit is, and it has to end in this sector.

I only have a few minutes left, I think. This is a huge portfolio. I wish I had more time but I do feel obligated to raise some concerns of the agriculture community.

I have met with organization after organization that are deeply concerned about the recommendations in the Emerson report. They would like a commitment from you that you are going to extend the deadlines under Bill C-30 which sunset in August 2016.

They are very deeply concerned about calls to end the MRE without additional protections in there for our grain producers. They also are very concerned about the proposed changes to interswitching. I know that's between you and the agriculture minister.

I would appreciate clarification on what kinds of measures are going to be taken to make sure that our agriculture producers can participate in the trade opportunities.

Rail Service

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for their work. Every member wants to promote the smooth functioning of the agricultural system and the emancipation of agricultural industries. I would also like to commend the member for Sydney—Victoria for moving this motion, which just received the government's support. I would therefore like to thank her once again for getting the government's support for her motion.

On February 5, I moved a similar motion at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That motion had the same objectives as those we are talking about today. In fact, I asked the committee to immediately examine the problems that currently exist with the transportation of agricultural products by consulting all of the stakeholders. In that motion, I said that given recent reports on the deterioration of rail service, ongoing problems with the provision of cars to transport grain and the specific impact of ongoing transportation problems in the agricultural sector, we proposed that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food immediately examine the problems that currently exist with the transportation of agricultural products, establish long-term projections for 2015 and consult all members of the grain supply chain, including producers, elevator operators, grain companies and rail companies.

Unfortunately, the government refused to step up to its responsibilities, and that could happen with this motion too. However, once again, there is good news. I hope that this will change things.

A year ago, I was here to talk about the same problem in the context of Bill C-30, which was designed to resolve the grain transportation crisis farmers were experiencing. I do not need to paint a picture to make the point that the Conservatives' decisions have not solved much of anything in the past year and that farmers are still in the same boat. I am proud to express my support for this motion.

We need to talk about the context and compare the situation to last year. As I said, and as happens so often with government bills, I get the feeling I'm going through exactly what happened last year all over again.

Last year, farmers' growth was hampered by inefficient CN and CP services. At the time, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that rail companies were providing adequate service, but thousands of farmers were exasperated by the fundamental flaws in the grain transportation system.

How are things now? About the same. Rail companies delivered over 11,000 orders late. That is about 11% of their orders. Ongoing delays have cost the Canadian economy over $8 billion. What is more, in the past six months, fewer than half of all orders were delivered on time.

What did the government decide to do? It decided not to renew the requirements that CN and CP transport a minimum volume of grain. We also found out that, after having rejected an offer to purchase from an association of Canadian farmers, the Conservatives offered up a majority stake in the Canadian Wheat Board on a silver platter to foreign interests. That is another Conservative decision that shows a lack of support for Canadian farmers.

Again, a year later, farmers have lost $8.3 billion. They have received nothing, apart from compensation under Bill C-30, which puts them back into a similar situation today.

I deplore the fact that there still has not been any compensation for the losses suffered by producers, especially for the crises and problems that occurred in previous years. A responsible government is able to prevent such situations, instead of always finding temporary solutions to these messes.

In other words, Bill C-30 had very little impact in the medium and long term. It simply brought everything back to square one.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we here? For the same reasons that the opposition always has to go over the flawed bills introduced by this government, which, despite the warnings of my colleagues and stakeholders, refuses to listen.

We are in the same situation because in enacting Bill C-30, the government did not listen to all the stakeholders. A number of them were critical of the government for getting rid of the CWB and said that the board was useful when it came to grain transportation. However, the government did nothing about it, and today it is encouraging the sale of the CWB to foreign interests.

The stakeholders were calling for a mechanism to evaluate the performance and quality of rail freight services, but the government rejected that idea.

Today, the stakeholders are claiming that service is still bad. They say they are frustrated by the persistent delays, whereas the government is still saying that everything is just fine.

As usual, things were done too quickly without any plan or long-term vision. The government disregarded our amendments, which took into account all the requests of all stakeholders, not just those of the corporations and the major producers. The government did not implement enough of the necessary sanctions to ensure the efficient transportation of grain by rail.

In closing, the situation is critical because this government mismanaged it and the minister keeps saying that rail companies are doing just fine.

What should have been done and what should we be doing now?

Adopting the proposed amendments would have addressed the root of the problem. My party fought to have Bill C-30 consider the interests of farmers and not just those of major producers.

Our amendments would have implemented mandatory reporting of the price of grain throughout the transportation system, required adequate service in rail transportation corridors and ensured that producers in all affected regions would be consulted about the regulations.

That could have prevented the current crisis, but it is pointless to talk about the past. We have a mess in our hands and we have to deal with it.

We have to examine this crisis and take action to establish new communications protocols and new penalties for non-compliance with delivery agreements. We must also ensure that producers have information about exports and ships and establish the mandatory reporting of price throughout the grain handling chain. All producers, even small ones, must have equitable access to rail infrastructure, and we have to think long term by developing a strategy for the future of rail service that will consider the growth of the agricultural sector.

The minister needs to step up and admit that he failed in his obligations. He must admit that he made a mistake by abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board, by supporting the sale of this former crown corporation to foreign interests, by refusing to be transparent about exports and by refusing to bring in performance standards for rail transportation.

In addition, the Minister of Transport needs to impose the fines she promised to impose—$100,000 per day and not per week—on the companies that do not comply with the agreements.

It is time that the government started listening and started working with all stakeholders in order to resolve the grain transportation issue once and for all. That is why I support this motion and why I will vote in favour of it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 550 put forward by the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I find it rather interesting that we are talking about a motion that deals with what we ought to have done, but it does not actually include anything that says how we should have done it. Be that as it may, it would have been helpful if the member had actually put in some of the amendments we tried to get through the agriculture committee that talked to how to make the system work, because ultimately, it is about trying to make the system work.

I do applaud the member on his efforts at least to hold the government to account to some degree, but it would have been nice if it actually had some real teeth in it. Something we had talked about was that it should have the fines that were there in the first place.

If we had done that, perhaps it would have been doing something rather than what the government eventually did in a sort of clandestine way when they literally changed the numbers. What was supposed to be a fine per incident turned out to be a fine per week, which I found rather unusual and slightly disheartening.

We helped the government with the legislation. I know that the other side has a hard time believing we help with these things, but when it comes to Bill C-30, we did help with that legislation. We tried to move it along swiftly, because we understood the plight of prairie farmers coming out of the winter of 2013. It literally was a bumper crop. It was stuck on the Prairies, because according to the railroaders, it was too cold for them to move grain. The rail system seems to not work in a Canadian winter. It was almost as if somebody had brought some folks up from Florida, with no offence to the good folks from Florida, and transplanted them into Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba in the middle of winter, and they did not know what to do because it was cold. The railroaders decided that was an excuse for them not to do what we felt they ought to be doing.

Unfortunately, the folks who suffered the most were the farmers. Ultimately what we saw was the price for them was not as lucrative as it may have been if the grain had actually been moving.

This speaks to the whole sense of how the system operates and how it should operate, and who is responsible to make sure it does operate. Clearly, it was not operating.

Many times we asked the minister in the House why over 40 ships were sitting in the port of Vancouver waiting for grain that was stuck on the Prairies. It was costing literally thousands of dollars a day.

The port manager at the port of Vancouver said that they were like car jockeys, except the problem is they were working with big ships. They are brought out of anchor, put at the dock, and when they find out there is no grain being delivered, the ship has to be moved off the dock because another one wants to come in. He said that every time an anchor is pulled up and a vessel comes in, it is a $10,000 move. That is a heck of a lot more money than someone who jockeys cars for a living, which might be $10.

Those were issues facing the farmers. That cost ends up going back through the system, and it is the farmers who pay, because they get less for their grain. At a time when they should have been getting a good price, in fact one might say they should have been getting a great price, they were getting less because the system was not working.

There are farmers who fill their own hopper cars, what the trade calls producer cars, which is simply a small railroad somewhere owned by a group of farmers who got into a co-op and decided to pool their resources. They get the short-line railroad and bring the cars down to the main line. When they put in orders for producer cars, they were not seeing any. They were being told that they should just truck their grain to an elevator. The problem was the elevators were full. The elevators were saying not to truck it to them because they had no space.

It ends up being stored. Many farmers had contracts. The government was always good about talking about forward contracts, that if they were forwarded out, they could make some money. The problem was they had forward contracts, but that time would come and go, and they could not move anything, because there was no room in the elevator. The elevators were still full because the railroaders were not getting an opportunity to move the grain, because of the cold winter, they say.

Ultimately, the folks who paid in all of this were indeed the farmers on the prairies.

We saw the order in council come through, and then Bill C-30 came forward. We tried to work with that. We tried to push some amendments on what the fines should be like. We actually agreed with Premier Brad Wall. We thought we should double the fine. The government proposed $100,000. We thought it should be $200,000. We actually agreed with the Premier of Saskatchewan. Many people out there would probably not believe that we would agree with Premier Wall on that particular issue, but we did.

We also pushed forward a number of amendments on how we could have some sort of transparency in the system so that farmers could follow whether the ship was in port, whether the grain was moving, where it was stuck, what the final price was, and why the farmers got a particular price when they sold to the elevators.

Many of us in the agricultural field know that there is a set price for grain travelling west to the port of Vancouver. The railroads charge a set price, so it is easy for farmers to calculate if they know the final price at the port destination. Farmers can calculate how much it cost to send it to the elevator, how much it cost for the elevation of it, and how much it cost to transport it.

Some reports, one of which came from a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, said that the farmers were basically losing $160 per tonne because of the way the system had plugged up. That being the case, the opportunity for farmers to take a bumper crop and turn it into a bumper financial crop was wasted because of what happened with the railroads.

The motion talks about making sure that this does not happen again, but what we need to see is that the government makes sure it does not happen again. We need a system of fair rail and a system that allows those who ship to make the railroads accountable.

I talked about agreeing with Mr. Wall, but I suggested in an amendment at committee that we should have open rail. Two companies in this country do not want open rail, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which I find ironic, because they do not mind asking the United States for open rail. They do not want to see competition. We actually think that if we had competition in the system, if we had transparency in the system, like they do in the U.S., where they can actually tell what the grain price is at the port of Seattle, farmers would know if they were not getting a fair price. It would give them more leverage and more information, and information in the marketplace is important when they make those final decisions to sell now or sell later or to contract it. Ultimately, we have seen a system that does not function well for farmers.

Another amendment we pushed was to make sure that now that we have to move a million tonnes, it will be fairly distributed. What we saw justified our fears. The railroads figured out how to turn it around fast. Basically they chose the elevators closest to the western port of Vancouver, and the rest, who were further east, suffered.

Many of us who have kids or grandkids who like Cheerios will remember that the Cheerios factory was going to shut down. Why did that happen? It was because the oat farmers in this country supply all the oats needed in the United States to make Cheerios. However, there were no trains moving north-south. They tried to take the shortest route back and forth through the western corridor and did not run north-south at all.

I spoke to an oat farmer not long ago. He said that there is still an issue trying to get trains to come and serve them. Clearly this is a government that did not actually get the job done, even though we had Bill C-30. We suggested that they do not sunset the clauses in it. The Conservatives decided that they would sunset the clauses in it.

I would say to the government that if it is to do a rail review, it should not worry about the carrot; it should get out the big stick. If it is to bargain with two railroads, they will bring big sticks, and if the government does not bring a big stick, it will lose.

Then again, there will be an election, and by that time, we will have the big stick, when we sit over there. We will make sure that the railroads deliver service to farmers across the prairies and that they get the service they deserve.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

It would be my pleasure.

Of course, the review that's being undertaken by Mr. Emerson is at arm's length from us, and that's the way it should be. He has a secretariat, and he has a panel that is receiving submissions from across the country. What I understand is that there have been numerous submissions made, which is good news. Indeed, when I speak at events, I always encourage the stakeholders in the room: if they have an opinion on something, they really should bring it forth. This is our opportunity to take a look at what we currently have and how to change it for the better for the future.

I know that the panel is seized with the issue with respect to grain delivery. I know there are concerns not only about the costs associated with transportation, but with the levels of service as well. We've been through a number of reviews of service levels in the rail system in the past number of years, and we of course passed the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers bill last year, which was very important too. It added to the tools that I would say shippers have with respect to ensuring that they get good and fair rail service to their place of work.

That said, we still do need to take a look at it in the bigger picture of what other commodities are involved. If you say that there's going to be a minimum volume of one commodity, do the other commodities worry that they're not going to have the same kind of service? We've been balancing those as best we can.

What I look forward to, coming out of the panel's review, the panel's analysis, and some recommendations for the future, is what the system will really look like in a world where we are developing and signing more free trade deals and we want to expand and open up markets. We want to increase the goods that we're shipping out of the country and the goods that we're shipping into the country as well. They're all connected by that rail line. That ribbon of steel is incredibly important, and we want to make sure that whatever we put in place is going to positively enhance our ability to move a good supply chain.

The department as well has some good round tables with respect to commodity supply chains, where we bring the parties together to talk about it. I've met with the Mining Association of Canada. My colleagues have met with the agricultural aspects of the rail shipping lines. We need to continue to come up with the bigger-picture solve on this, and not just try to think where we should be going, but really understand fully where we want to be and get there. I do believe that it's Mr. Emerson and his committee that will help us get there.

Rail service

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today to speak to the motion.

Since the motion addresses agriculture, I would like to recognize my much older brother Alan on his Groundhog Day birthday as well as his outstanding career as a rancher, grain farmer and businessman. He was my first farming partner from a time long ago when we were both teenagers.

Last year, Canada's 60,000 grain producers exported some 40 million tonnes of world-class grain products worth over $20 billion. That is important for agriculture because it represents about half of all agriculture and food exports, but it is also important for Canadians who live in cities. A strong agriculture and food sector drives one in eight jobs in our country and almost 7% of our gross domestic product.

Canadian grain farmers depend on exports to sell 70% of their wheat, 75% of their pulse crops and 85% of their canola. That is why the rail service is so critical to Canada's hard-working grain farmers.

Regarding today's motion, our government has taken steps to address each of the five points, namely: recognizing that improved rail service is essential to farmers' livelihoods; recognizing that the ongoing review of the Canada Transportation Act will provide an opportunity for improvements; the need for all stakeholders to sit down together; the need to correct the imbalance of power along the chain; and ensuring government and industry work together. We have addressed these points and we continue to do so. Let me elaborate.

We recognize our rail service is essential to the livelihood of Canadian farmers. Likewise, we have moved to address the imbalance of power along the logistics chain.

Canadian farmers pay over $1 billion to move regulated grain by rail. On the prairies, grain travels an average of 1,400 kilometres to reach a port position. Our farmers and our economy depend on efficient, effective and reliable rail service to move those crops off the farm to our valued customers in Canada and around the world. That is why a year ago our government took action when our farmers were facing the prospect of moving a record crop.

First, we introduced an order-in-council mandating the railways to move a minimum volume of one million tonnes of grain a week, backed by penalties. Two weeks later we introduced Bill C-30.

The Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act has put into law clear and achievable solutions to ensure grain and other commodities get to market in a predictable and timely way. The act amended the Canada Transportation Act to include the authority to set volume requirements in order to mandate that certain grain volumes be moved. The legislation also gives us the ongoing flexibility to monitor and adjust volume requirements as needed. The act also created the regulatory authority to enable the Canadian Transportation Agency to extend inter-switching distances for all commodities on the prairies.

Bill C-30 amended the Canada Grain Act to strengthen contracts between producers and shippers. The amendment will provide the Canadian Grain Commission with the authority to regulate grain contracts between farmers and grain elevators.

Bill C-30 also enacted regulatory power to add greater specificity to service level agreements as requested by all shippers.

In addition, we required additional, timelier and more detailed data from the railways to increase the transparency of railway, port and terminal performance across the supply chain.

In August, the regulations came into force and we renewed the minimum volumes to ensure continued movement through the fall.

In December, we did the same, while committing to increased monitoring throughout the winter months.

These measures are concrete and comprehensive and they have been delivered. The grain is moving faster than last year and faster than the five-year average.

Speaking to the second point of the motion regarding the review of the Canada Transportation Act, this process was up and running in the summer. We accelerated the review by a full year to focus on long-term structural issues affecting all rail transport, including grains.

A discussion paper was released in September for industry comment. Since then, the CTA review panel has been busy throughout the fall and winter, meeting with a number of stakeholders to get a clear picture of the challenges facing the western Canadian grain handling and transportation system.

We will continue to bring the whole value chain together to manage future challenges and create a rail supply chain that has greater capacity, predictability and accountability for the industry and, most important, for our global customers.

As far as urging industry to work together to improve the system is concerned, we have delivered on that as well. We have established a number of opportunities to bring together all the players to develop solutions for the longer term. We have also formed the Crop Logistics Working Group, bringing the entire industry together to focus on the performance of the supply chain for all crops in this new and exciting marketing freedom environment.

We moved forward on recommendations from the working group around performance measurement and government support, with a $3 million industry-government investment in a study on supply chain improvements. We also launched the commodity supply chain table, with stakeholders from the agricultural, forestry, chemical, and petroleum industries, as well as railways, ports, grain elevators, and shipowners. The group is exploring solutions to the challenges facing Canada's rail-based supply chain. Together, these initiatives will ensure that Canada's grain industry can to shape a strong logistics system for the future, one that responds to the needs of the Canadian grain sector.

However, we are not stopping there. This government has an overall plan to create a modern and competitive grain industry that will open up new opportunities for farmers in the 21st century. The cornerstone of our reform is marketing freedom. This landmark legislation restored to farmers a basic business freedom they had been denied for 69 years, the freedom to sell the crop they paid to grow to the buyer of their choice, the same freedom that helped create the canola and pulse industries, which made them juggernauts of Canada's farm economy over the past two decades. The overwhelming majority of western grain farmers have embraced the opportunities opened up by marketing freedom, which allows them to make decisions at the speed of business.

In the post-monopoly era, Canadian wheat is finding new customers in Asia, Africa, and South America, where sales of Canadian wheat in 2013 and 2014 surpassed the previous five-year averages. Meanwhile, instead of one buyer for farmers' wheat, there are now dozens of grain companies competing for their crops, as we saw with the deregulation in Australia. Since marketing freedom came into force, the number of grain dealers licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission has risen significantly.

In December, we took another key step for Canada's grain industry when we introduced BillC-48, the modernization of Canada's grain industry act. This proposed legislation builds on major reforms we made to the Canada Grain Act in 2012. It would modernize the regulatory framework for the grain industry to reflect current practices. It would enhance producer protection and grain quality and safety assurance. Enforcement of the act's provisions would be improved and less burdensome. Efficiencies would be realized in producer protection. This proposed legislation would benefit producers, the grain industry, and all Canadians in a big way.

Trade is also critical to the competitiveness of Canada's grain industry. Internationally, we have continued our aggressive trade agenda by pursuing free trade agreements and ensuring a science-based approach to trade issues, like low-level presence of genetically modified crops. We have concluded major agreements with 38 countries, including the European Union and South Korea, opening up key markets for our producers and processors.

Once the trade agreement with the EU is fully implemented, our grain farmers will have virtually tariff-free access to half a billion consumers from Italy to Scandinavia. To give traction to these trade agreements, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to travel with industry for face-to-face meetings with our customers in key markets. These missions help to promote the qualities of Canadian grains to every corner of the world, while bringing back valuable feedback from our customers to ensure that our grains continue to command a premium in the world.

The other key element in our grain modernization plan is innovation. We are keeping our wheat producers on the leading edge of innovation through investments in the wheat genome and disease-resistant varieties. That includes the national wheat improvement cluster. We have matched funds, bringing in investment up to $25 million. We have dealt with the Western Grain Research Foundation, again bringing all of these things together to help our farmers.

In conclusion, the future is bright for Canada's grain industry. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that over the next 35 years, farmers will need to increase their annual production of cereals by a billion tonnes. To meet the world-class demand, they need a world-class transportation system. This government remains committed to ensuring that Canada does, indeed, have a world-class transportation system.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that the official opposition will be speaking strongly in support of the motion entered today by the member for Sydney—Victoria.

The motion talks about the need to identify increased rail capacity, rebalance the system, and make sure all sections of the industry are convened. We take that to mean that the farmers will be sitting at the table and be strongly involved in enforcing service level agreements and ensuring fair access and adequate compensation for farmers.

It is pretty obvious that it is time to get the railways moving. There is not the level of sophistication and coordination that is needed within our system. It is “absolute chaos”, to use the term used by the hon. member, and we really need to get back to it. It is costing our farmers billions of dollars.

It is no secret. We can ask any farmer what needs to be done, and there are five things. One, we have to increase pressure on rail companies, including through implementing and enforcing rail performance standards, which I will be talking about. Two, we have to ensure that export and vessel information is accessible to producers, and that mandatory price reporting is available throughout the grain supply chain. Three, we have to make sure that grain producers have fair access to rail infrastructure in order to move their products wherever they are. Four, there has to be a full costing review of producer rail service in Canada. Five, we have to develop a strategy for future rail service that accounts for the kind of sustained agricultural growth we have seen in the last few years.

I talked about enforcement. We heard the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talk about the weather as if the cold weather last year was some sort of excuse. He is quoted as saying:

I noticed the cold weather did not stop them from moving thousands of additional carloads of oil.

Obviously that has been fine. He went on to say he does not blame them, stating:

The first duty of any company president is to maximize profit for his shareholders, and that's what the railways are doing. They can make more money hauling oil than grain, and so that will continue to be their priority. ... If I were a railway president, I would probably do that same.

We had a start with an order in council a couple of years ago that talked about administrative monetary penalties of $100,000 a day. How many of those were issued? Zero. Then, in Bill C-30, the law was changed to contemplate administrative penalties of $100,000 a week, but there was still no action.

In the words of my colleague for Welland, the excellent agriculture critic for the New Democratic Party:

You need a big stick to get their attention. But the fines were supposed to be levied by the day, and the government obviously lost its nerve and made the fines weekly. Their big stick is actually a twig.

That, of course, is the point. The government is not serious about enforcing the rules. The Conservatives huff and puff, go from crisis to crisis, lurch here, lurch there, but when it comes to coordinated action, there is not the kind of single-desk action that we used to have when we had the Canada Wheat Board. It is not longer here. It is every farmer for himself or herself, and that seems to be the way the current government believes our precious grain industry should be treated.

I live on the west coast. Every day in Plumper Sound, I see sometimes 40 ships sitting for months waiting and indirectly costing farmers a lot of money. They are waiting for deliveries that never arrive and end up turning around and going back. This is no way to run a railroad, to use the hackneyed phrase, and it is certainly no way to run a sophisticated modern grain delivery service.

We have had record crops, but here is the irony: people cannot sell it. It sits and rots in grain elevators. Individual farmers have to come up with money to store the grain because they cannot get it to market. They are what are called in economic terms “captive shippers”. They really have nowhere to send it. They often have only one of two monopolies, CP or CN, and they are not able to meet the minimum volume requirements under the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act.

Again, there are no penalties if there is any problem in doing what the minister has said they should do, which is to increase volume. Penalties are lowered, and there is no enforcement. That seems to be the way that the government has dealt with this crisis on our prairies.

The NDP fought for certain amendments, but those amendments were ignored. The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria made the same observation. We fought together, and the amendments were ignored. We fought to have real consideration for farmers' interests included in the emergency legislation, the so-called order in council, such as establishing a system of mandatory reporting for the price of grain throughout the transportation system at specified points along the delivery chain. That was not allowed. We fought for the requirement for all corridors to receive equitable service. That was not allowed.

We fought to ensure that all producers in all affected regions were consulted about the regulations, but no. We fought for the requirement that the government work with the provinces to develop and implement a plan for open access running rights to ensure effective competition in the rail service, but no. We fought for the requirement of a moratorium on the closure or delisting of producer car sites and for increasing fines and directing those revenues to compensation programs for producers. That was not allowed.

We also have serious problems with service level agreements. I would like to cite Senator Mercer, from the other place, who talked about the importance of addressing this service level agreement issue head-on in Bill C-30. He said:

Bill C-30 really does not do a lot to establish or enhance existing service-level agreements between shippers and the railways. All it actually does is permit the Canadian Transportation Agency to regulate elements in those negotiated service-level agreements.

Many stakeholders agree that the amendments were needed to clearly define “service”. What do the words “adequate” and “suitable” mean? What does the phrase “service obligation” mean? Obviously, they are too ambiguous to have any meaning. They are too subjective. Therefore, we need language that clearly defines the rights and obligations of all parties. They need to be nailed down. That is something that is clearly needed if we are going to get anywhere in nailing down these service level agreements that are so critical.

As I said in my remarks earlier, in the past the Canadian Wheat Board gave farmers a dependable place, a single desk that was involved in this marketing. Now, it is every farmer for himself or herself. As was pointed out by several of the stakeholders, a lot of farmers just do not have the time or the interest to sit around at night figuring out the market. They used to have someone to do that, but now, of course, the coordination function that was performed by the Canadian Wheat Board has been lost.

This lack of coordination is a problem, as my hon. friend mentioned. It means that we leave ships in dock or sitting out there in Plumper Sound. The port terminals are competing with each other for handling. There is no coordination of the kind that we used to have. That means that they are grabbing rail shipping capacity and having grain delivered without considering the demand.

There have been enormous increases in the amount of oil shipped by train, but the problem is that increased oil shipment creates a lack of capacity for grain producers. It is obvious to everyone, but the lack of coordination is equally obvious, and the need for action is urgent.

When I look at the people who have spoken on this matter, and they are legion all across the prairies. Doug Chorney, the president of Manitoba's Keystone Agricultural Producers, said that the backlogs could be blamed on “abysmal service” by Canada's two major railways. Mr. Paterson points out that those railways are now often controlled by foreign interests. Some 73% of the shares of CP are American-owned. The two men shaping CP's recent history are CEO Hunter Harrison and activist shareholder Bill Ackman. Both are American. CN Rail is roughly half Canadian-owned and half American-owned.

That inadequate service is something we have all seen. It is great to have free trade, but if we cannot get the product to market, it is of no value.

We salute the member for bringing forth this important motion today. We need to get on with it and get our grain moving.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Sydney—Victoria. I congratulate him on a motion that we will certainly be supporting as the official opposition.

When the member uses words like “disastrous system”, “absolute chaos”, and “real hardship”, we concur entirely. Again, I would thank the member for this important motion.

He mentioned in his remarks that he wished to put shippers and the railways on an equal footing. I would like to ask whether the member would agree that better enforcement of surface level agreements requires a better explanation of terms in Bill C-30, such as adequate and suitable “service obligations”. The terms are too ambiguous in our view. We need language to clarify rights and obligations. Would the member agree?