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.

Admissibility of Amendments in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

The point of order concerns the report that was just tabled: the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage respecting Bill C-10. I would respectfully submit that several of the amendments contained in that fifth report must be struck out because the committee exceeded its authority.

Last Monday, June 7, the House adopted a time allocation motion limiting committee deliberations to only five further hours. The part of the House's order that is relevant to this point of order says, at pages 104.3 and 104.4 of the Journals:

That, at the expiry of the time provided in this order for the committee stage, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the said bill shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

At the committee's second meeting, on Thursday, June 10, those five hours had expired and the Canadian heritage committee proceeded to the disposal of the committee stage of the bill, in accordance with the House's order.

The chair of the committee, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, informed the committee that, by the terms of the House's order, the amendments that had been placed on notice could not be moved and therefore could not be voted upon by the committee. The Liberal-Bloc-NDP majority on the committee, however, then overturned the chair's ruling, thereby forcing the committee to consider these amendments without any debate, without any opportunity to question expert witnesses from the department of Canadian Heritage and without any opportunity to hear the wording of the amendment read aloud.

Those events are recorded in the relevant minutes of proceedings for the committee's second meeting on June 10. The amendments subsequently considered by the committee are recorded in those minutes of proceedings, as well, for the committee's meeting on Friday, June 11. Both sets of minutes, as noted in the comment in the fifth report immediately preceding the chair's signature, have been laid upon the table, among others.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition says, at page 779:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

That is why I am rising today on this point of order. In overturning the committee chair's ruling and forcing amendments that had not been properly moved to be voted upon, I respectfully submit that the committee exceeded its authority by contradicting the House's order, which required that “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.”

To be clear, the questions necessary to dispose of the clause by clause consideration of the bill are questions on the clauses themselves, not amendments that have simply been placed on notice.

The Chair has previously considered a similar case, from which I believe in the current circumstances a distinction may be drawn.

On November 29, 2012, Mr. Speaker, one of your predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, made a ruling at page 12,609 of the Debates, concerning the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance respecting Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. In that case, the committee had adopted a time-tabling motion concerning its study of the bil. It contained language that was similar to that which the House adopted last week in its time allocation motion concerning Bill C-10.

In the case of the finance committee, the chair made a similar ruling to the one made by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, again, the committee had overturned that ruling.

Following a point of order in the House concerning the finance committee's report on the former Bill C-45, the former Speaker did not set aside the committee's report on the bill. The distinction between these two cases, I would argue, is that the finance committee was interpreting a motion that the committee itself had adopted. In the current case, seven members of the Canadian heritage committee substituted their own judgment for how an order of this House, voted upon by the entire House, should be interpreted.

We often refer to committees as masters of their own proceedings, but Bosc and Gagnon put that in a very important context at pages 1057 and 1058, which state:

The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized or empowered to do so by the House.

While the case of former Bill C-45 was of a committee majority preferring its own interpretation of a committee motion, the current case of Bill C-10 is of a committee majority seeking to override the House's instruction. It was, to borrow the words of Bosc and Gagnon, taking an action that it was authorized or empowered by the House to do. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the amendments made to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10 must be ruled out of order and therefore struck from the fifth report.

I would further ask that the committee's consideration of amendments after the proceedings had been interrupted under the provisions of the time allocation order be disregarded by the Chair for the purposes of applying the note attached to Standing Order 76(1)(5) respecting the criteria considered by the Chair in the selection of motions at the report stage.

I do not make this point of order lightly. In fact, one of those amendments that I refer to was sponsored by my own party and several others were voted for by my colleagues, but that is beside the point. Our rules must be followed. Parliamentary procedure is not a body of play pretend rules that can just be set aside at the first moment of inconvenience. It does not matter whether these flawed decisions were taken by majority vote or even with unanimity because the rules of the House must be followed.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, in a different ruling on May 1, 2014, at page 4787 of the Debates, concerning Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, found that amendments that were adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, without procedural objection and without dissent, had to be struck from the bill because the committee had acted outside of its authority in adopting them, commenting:

The Chair has no difficulty agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Indeed, as a fellow Saskatchewan MP who represents a large number of grain producers, I can certainly agree on the importance of this issue. As Speaker, however, not only can I not simply act according to my personal beliefs, I must respect House of Commons precedents which, in the case before us, are only too clear.

The correct place to put forward the amendments to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10, in light of the proper application of a time allocation order, is at the report stage here on the floor of the House.

Additionally, and in the alternative to the matter I have already raised, I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment known as amendment LIB-9.1 that was made by the Canadian heritage committee to clause 23. The Chair ruled the particular amendment out of order for exceeding the scope of the bill and that it breached the so-called “parent act” rule, which is explained by Bosc and Gagnon at page 771, by proposing to amend a section of the Broadcasting Act which was not touched by the provisions of Bill C-10. The committee, however, voted to overturn the Chair's ruling in that regard as well.

In that particular case, the Chair may simply have to regard the fifth report and note that the amendment on its face does something which the committee was not permitted to do and therefore should be ruled out of order and struck from the fifth report.

The solution for the government here is, like the case of the former Bill C-30, to propose an amendment at third reading to recommit Bill C-10 to the Canadian heritage committee so it may, once properly instructed and empowered, make Liberal-9.1 amendment in the proper manner.

[Steve Pratte]

To some degree, there is that....

In the post Bill C-30 environment from several years ago, the government struck the commodity supply chain table, which semi-annually brings together all parties—railways, shippers of all commodities, including grains—to that table to talk about forecasting, growth, and near-term and longer-term issues.

There is a step in that direction. I'm not sure if that's going to have the optimal outcome. It's run by Transport Canada with the Department of Agriculture in the background, and then there are stakeholders, small commodities, talking with the railways in front of senior officials about growth and future plans—near term and long term.

[Steve Pratte]

That is one of the positive silver linings of 2013-14 and the Bill C-30, the Bill C-49. I think the kind of communication and information sharing is on a new level, a new playing field, but certainly there's always room for incremental improvement.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We put Bill C-30 through immediately and own-motion powers.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of that committee, I can certainly vouch for the parliamentary secretary's comments. It was extremely collaborative. Many of the amendments brought forward were wordsmithed and shaped in order to bring this forward.

One of the primary things we tried to do was understand what the previous government had tried to accomplish with Bill C-30. We discovered that the interswitching provision of 150 kilometres, in spite of the difficulties being faced by grain shippers in the season it was brought forward, was never actually used. It did not work.

Although the intention was there to improve the system, our committee focused on ways to take that concept and make it a lot better. I am going to give my hon. friend another opportunity to really underscore the value of the reciprocal penalties as being a far more potent tool for shippers to have, and through the shippers, the producers, in order to get compliance and co-operation from the railways.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time on questions in this debate about the role of Bill C-30 versus the long-haul interswitching included in Bill C-49. Bill C-30 provided a short-term solution to respond to an immediate need, but it did not solve the long-term problem of the transportation of western Canadian grain. It also did not provide any solution for the rest of the country in different industries and different regions.

Although I lived in Alberta for about five years, I am proudly Nova Scotian. I am curious if the hon. member could offer some thoughts on the importance of extending efficiencies in our transportation system to different sectors of the economy and to different regions, to make sure that our transportation system works for everyone and brings the greatest growth to the Canadian economy.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our shadow minister for transportation for all the incredible work she has done on what is an ominous and very difficult bill to try to wade through.

She is exactly right. We cannot underestimate the financial impact of inaction on Bill C-49. We went through this in 2013-14 and the impact on the Canadian economy was in excess of $8 billion. That is why we put forward Bill C-30 to ensure we would never have those types of issues again.

We are certainly hearing from our stakeholders that this has not only impacted this year's harvest, but will very likely impact next year's harvest. They have nowhere to store their product. Their bins are full now. Until things start moving, there is not going to be anywhere to store their products.

Nutrien in Saskatchewan has shut down an entire potash mine because it cannot move product. There is no demand for those inputs because farmers are at a loss as to what to plant this year, or if they will be able to plant. They have full bins and road bans are in place. This has caused such stress among our agriculture sector. I really want to highlight the fact that the implication this has had is not simply a matter of frustration. It has really impacted people on the ground and their families.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-49 and the motion put forward by the government.

The message I want to get forward today is really about what brought us here and whether Canadian agriculture had to go through all this pain and suffering when we really did not achieve much at the end. What is disingenuous with the entire process is that over the last several months the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture were telling our producers, stakeholders, and shippers to hang on and be patient, that once Bill C-49 was passed it was going to resolve all of their problems and we would not have a grain backlog in the future.

I am going to speak more on the agriculture side than I will on some of the other elements of Bill C-49.

The inaction by the ministers and the government on this issue for almost a year has been mind-boggling. Last June my colleague, the shadow minister for transportation, put forward a list of amendments that would have addressed many of these problems we are facing, but they were turned down. Now we have them back on the table from the Senate. They went through the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and again through the Senate. Now they are here, and the Liberal government is saying it will be supporting a number of those amendments. I am not sure what changed over those 10 months; the Liberals could have supported those amendments last June, but they did not.

It was the start of time after time when the Liberals were given numerous options to get Bill C-49 through the process as quickly as possible, as well as to address many of the problems that our grain farmers across western Canada have been facing. Every time the Liberals were given an option to address the situation, which became a crisis in January and February, they did nothing.

Last summer, we encouraged the government to extend the provisions of Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which extended interswitching and mandatory minimum volumes, a process that we had in place in 2013-14 when we went through the previous grain backlog. This addressed many of those problems. Our stakeholders, producers, grain terminals, and shippers were satisfied. They were quite pleased with that process. It gave the rail lines some accountability to ensure that they were able to move grain as well as other products, whether it was lumber, mining, or oil and gas. We want to make sure that all our producers have an opportunity to get their commodities to market.

In the fall, when Bill C-49 was first brought to the House, we saw that it was a massive document and that it was going to be extremely difficult to get any sort of consensus on a bill that dealt with everything from video recorders and locomotives to an air passenger bill of rights to interswitching. How were we possibly going to be able to find some sort of satisfaction among all stakeholders and within all the different points of view in our industries, let alone here in the House of Commons or in the Senate?

At that time we saw that this was going to be an issue. With the size and the scope that Bill C-49 entailed, we knew that getting it through that process with any sort of expediency was going to be nearly impossible. Once again we provided what I thought was a thoughtful resolution to the Liberal government, which was to split Bill C-49 into two bills. We would take many of the aspects of the bill that had to do with grain and grain transportation through the process as quickly as possible. Some of the other contentious issues that had to do with airline rights and other issues would take longer to go through the process, but we knew there was no time crunch or time sensitivity of the kind that there was on the grain side.

Last fall, with a larger-than-average harvest and the challenges CN and CP were facing in terms of meeting the contracts, we saw the rail line numbers dipping with each weekly report that was coming out.

We raised the alarm bells last fall that this was going to be a problem. We encouraged the government to split Bill C-49. I recall being in this House last October making almost the same argument that we were not going to get Bill C-49 through this process in a timely fashion to prevent another grain backlog. Again, it fell on deaf ears.

The result of that inaction last October, before we got to this point, was rail service that put us in a grain crisis. It is a crisis that still exists today. I do not think we can miss that point. Although we are here now, no problem has been resolved. We have road bans across the western provinces. We have more than 30 transport ships off the coast of British Columbia waiting for product. Those demurrage costs of $10,000 a day and up are now being passed on to the producers. Who will pay those additional costs that are now being passed on to our farmers across western Canada?

We have to keep that in mind as we have this discussion and this debate today. The crisis our farmers have been facing since last fall is still there, and it is not going away anytime soon. It is going to impact their fall season. They cannot move grain right now. Many of them are finally in the fields seeding. Road bans are in place in many of the western provinces, inhibiting their ability to actually transport grain to the terminal.

They are watching us today with a lot of focus on the decision we will be making in this House. How are we going to address the problems they are facing? The crisis has become so bad that our most recent report says that almost half a billion dollars' worth of grain is sitting in storage bins across western Canada. That is grain that our producers and our farmers cannot sell. They are unable to sell their product and get it to the terminal and then to the coast.

These same farmers who are unable to sell their product still have bills coming in. There are mortgage payments, lease payments on land, equipment purchases, and input costs as they try to get ready to start seeding. There are programs in place through Farm Credit Canada and the advanced payments program, essential programs that are in place to help in these times of extenuating circumstances.

I know that our producers do not want to have to rely on those assistance programs for a product they work hard all year to plant and harvest and are now trying to sell, but are unable to because of logistics.

As my colleague from Guelph said, we had an emergency meeting of the agriculture committee. I want to commend my colleagues on that committee for agreeing to have that emergency meeting with many of our stakeholders.

One of our witnesses at that meeting was a young farmer from Saskatchewan. I thought he put it quite well. He said, “We have to face so many uncertainties when we are in agriculture: uncertain weather, uncertain input costs, uncertainty when it comes to the commodity prices. The one thing we should be able to rely on is a reliable transportation system, which we do not have right now.”

One of the key issues with Bill C-49 is that it does not resolve those problems. We have gone through this entire process. As I said earlier, the Liberal government, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, through this entire process, have said that we should be patient, because Bill C-49 would address all the problems. Then just a few weeks ago, we had both ministers admit publicly that Bill C-49, indeed, will not resolve a lot of the problems that have been raised.

The government is asking our producers to suffer through yet another grain backlog, which should never have happened. The government had all the tools in place to address this problem, yet it did nothing. I can understand the frustration of our producers across the western provinces. They are looking at us today to take action to ensure that they never have to face this sort of issue again.

We have had many of our grain, barley, and pulse growers here over the last couple of weeks as they have had their days on the Hill. They have raised some other points that I do not think we have talked enough about as we have gone through this process. Not only is this grain backlog causing them to suffer because they are not able to sell their product, it is tarnishing our reputation as a reliable trading partner around the world. A lot of our producers are not getting a premium price for their product, because for all intents and purposes, Canada does not have a reputation for being able to get their contracts out in a timely fashion. We cannot meet our commitments to other countries. When prices are high in the fall, in October, November, and December, we should be selling our crops. We are not getting them to market, to the terminals, and to the west coast until the spring, sometimes a year later, so we are missing out on those premium prices, because we have an inept logistical system and an inept transportation system, a transportation system that has very little to no accountability.

Earlier today, the Minister of Transport was talking about one of the amendments the Senate had brought forward, which I think is critical. It is on “own motion powers” for the Canadian Transportation Agency. That was an amendment brought forward at the standing committee for transportation. It was an amendment brought forward by many of our stakeholders. They want accountability for the rail lines. If there are issues, and our stakeholders see issues, the Canadian Transportation Agency, once it receives a complaint, or even if it does not receive a complaint, can take action to try to address some of those key issues. It is a key part of Bill C-49.

The Minister of Transport earlier today spoke very highly about this part of the bill when he said that we are giving the CTA its own motion powers, which will make such a critical difference for our producers. In fact, in the amendment the Liberal government has put forward, there are no own motion powers. It states in the amendment that the authorization goes to the Minister of Transport. He will be the one who decides if the CTA can take action and put forward some guidelines, a template, on what action can be taken.

Let us put that into a perspective that I think all of us in the House today can understand. That is like my parents saying, “You know what, son? You can do whatever you want with your life, as long as it's okay with mum and dad”. That is what the Liberal government's own motion powers are in Bill C-49. Who is going to give that any credence? There is supposed to be some accountability in Bill C-49 for our shippers. However, this only comes into effect if it is okay with the Minister of Transport. It is okay for people to make their own decisions, but they have to ask the minister first. That has nothing to do with own motion powers. It is really quite hollow hearing that this is going to be a critical part of the bill, because it is taking the arms of the CTA and tying them behind its back.

As we have gone through this process, every step of the way we have offered the Liberal government a solution. My colleague, the shadow minister for transportation, has offered another solution today. She has brought forward an amendment that will concurred the Senate amendments to get this bill passed as quickly as possible.

We are not saying that we agree with every aspect of Bill C-49. In fact, I think we have heard in the debate today that there are still some significant issues with the bill. We also listened to our stakeholders. They need something that will give them some piece of mind that there is going to be some sort of legislation in place to help them address some of the problems they are facing.

We have had stakeholders like the CFA. They represent 200,000 farm families. The Grain Growers represent 50,000 active producers, and they are asking for no further delays on Bill C-49. They want it passed immediately. That is what my colleague's motion today will do.

We want to ensure that we can get this bill passed as quickly as possible. Again, every time we have offered an option or a solution to get this bill through the process, the Liberals have put in yet another step and delay.

They are saying today that if they do not support our motion, and they want our support to pass their amendments and the minister's motion, this all of a sudden will be a quick process. That is simply not the case. If the Liberals do not accept our motion and they pass theirs, Bill C-49 will go back to the Senate, and the Senate will have to agree to the Liberals' amendments. It is yet another obstacle to keep Bill C-49 from passing. This is going to be a ping-pong ball that will go back and forth, or maybe not. Maybe the Senate will agree to the Liberal amendments, but we do not have any assurance of that.

There are amendments they could have passed almost a year ago. There have been opportunities put forward to pass Bill C-49, or, what preferably would have been the case last fall, to extend Bill C-30, and we would never have faced any of these issues.

I am really encouraging our colleagues across the floor to support our motion today, pass the Senate amendments, go right to royal assent, and give our stakeholders the assurances they are looking for to ensure that they can get their job done. What this comes down to is our stakeholders' inability to get their products to market. We have a great deal of concern that this will spill into the fall as farmers get ready for next year's harvest. That has been the disconcerting part of it all.

I think my colleague across the way can understand the comments we heard at our emergency meeting last month on the grain backlog. Many of those witnesses came forward and said that they have given up on it this year. They know that they are not going to get their grain to market and are hoping that this does not impact next year's harvest and next year's shipping season.

I want to highlight that this bill is certainly not perfect. There are lots of concerns about what is in Bill C-49. I want to read some comments from the Premier of Saskatchewan, who has been extremely vocal in his concern about Bill C-49 and the problems it has caused in Saskatchewan. We have seen that Nutrien has just announced that it has laid off or is laying off more than 600 employees, which is going to impact maybe up to 1,300 employees in rural Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Premier said, “This is a direct result of the federal government not taking action where there is a huge problem, and they have the clear authority to fix it.”

What have the Liberals done in response to that? They have done nothing. Once again, they want to put this bill back to the Senate, which would delay this process even further.

We have to highlight the financial impact these delays have had. Again, $500 million in grain is sitting in storage bins across western Canada, not getting to market. We have now seen the job layoffs in Saskatchewan at Nutrien, and that is just one company, one potash company. Certainly there will be others that will be facing similar problems.

This is having implications for rural communities. If farmers cannot sell their grain, and they cannot get it to market, it means they do not have money in their pockets to spend in our small communities. That is grocery stores, gas stations, and little movie theatres. That is charities, ball teams, and fundraisers. Those are the things that are suffering because our farmers do not have money in their pockets. They cannot get their grain to market, and that is a direct result of the inaction of the Liberal government when it comes to this grain backlog.

The Liberals could have stopped it a year ago. They could have stopped it in the fall. They could have taken action with an order in council in January or February. Every single time, they have stuck up for the rail duopoly.

With Bill C-49, there is no accountability. Why have the Liberals made our grain farmers suffer through yet another grain backlog? When it comes down to it, they have really done nothing.

[Warren Sekulic, Director, Alberta Wheat Commission]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear today.

My name is Warren Sekulic. I'm a director with the Alberta Wheat Commission. I'm a fourth-generation farmer in northern Alberta, and we will actually celebrate 90 years next year.

I am here today because the current grain transport backlog continues to impact my operation and the operations of farmers across western Canada. In addition to sharing my specific experiences, I also offer the strong support of our 14,000 farmer members for the amendment and passage of Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, as a means of addressing the systemic issues in our freight rail system.

My farm is located 70 kilometres north of Grande Prairie, Alberta, which is over 1,200 kilometres from the nearest port, and we are totally dependent on the one railway that services this line of four inland terminals. With our limited access to processing facilities, market alternatives, or other methods of transportation, almost 100% of the grain and the crops I grow are destined for the export markets and dependent on a single railway.

As with all businesses, planning is an essential part of my operation. Each year, much work goes into planning—planning what crops I'll plant; the amount of inputs, such as the fertilizer and seed I'll need; when those inputs will be delivered; and the timing of the contracts that I will negotiate to sell my grain. Those contracts are usually aligned with when I pay my bills.

As an example, on my farm in 2013-14, as a sound farm management practice, I had all of my forward contracts in place to sell my grain to the local terminal. I had a prudent plan to deliver my grain in a timely manner so that I could pay my land rent and input costs, such as fertilizer and seed. The rent is typically due in the fall. I even had allowed a buffer for rail delays, given that they are commonplace, especially up north.

When the railway failed to deliver in 2013-14, it put my farm business and my livelihood in jeopardy. I'm contractually obligated to pay my rent, regardless of whether or not I deliver my grain. Like most young farmers, I'm cash strapped as I build equity in my business, and because of long delays that year, I needed to secure a bridge line of financing in order to ensure that I could retain my land, pay my debts, and see my operation succeed into the next year.

I am here today, at what is one of the busiest times of the year for my operation, because as I head into the 2018 planting season, we are once again experiencing a backlog in the freight rail system which is impacting my operation and farming operations across western Canada that are reliant on the freight rail system.

When it comes to rail transportation in Canada, the agricultural sector has always operated in a monopolistic environment. Each year, our farmer members grow millions of tonnes of wheat, other grains, and oilseeds. We rely almost entirely on rail transportation to ship our products from the Prairies to port terminal facilities on the west coast and to Thunder Bay and south of the border into the U.S.

Costs associated with railway failures, such as demurrage fees and lost sales, are ultimately passed down the supply chain to me, the producer. As the price-taker, I'm dependent on the price the market dictates. I cannot adjust my price, the price of the products, so ultimately these increased costs reduce my profitability.

AWC appreciates the government's commitment to legislation that will ensure a more responsive, competitive, and accountable rail system in Canada. We believe that Bill C-49 is in fact a historic piece of legislation that paves the way for permanent, long-term solutions to the rail transportation challenges that Canadian farmers have faced for decades.

Passage of this bill is imperative, especially in light of poor rail service that shippers have been experiencing in western Canada this year, with the poorest period of car order fulfillment dropping as low as a combined 32% between CN and CP, reaching the levels experienced during during the 2013-14 crisis. In any other business, this lack of performance would be unacceptable, but in the grain sector, these service levels are all too common.

Because of this poor service level, currently I am left with a significant amount of grain on my farm, grain that was all contracted for delivery in October, November, and December. This type of backlog causes a cascading effect, not only on my operation but across the entire system. For instance, I had peas contracted for delivery in November, and when railcars didn't arrive to take my peas as scheduled, I had to bear the cost and resources of bagging my peas and leaving them on the ground in temporary storage, pending the availability of railcars to make up this shipment.

As the snow starts to melt now and the railway has still not fulfilled my delivery, I have to now use further resources to move the peas from bags to bins so that my product doesn't get damaged.

I, like most farmers, have contracts scheduled with terminals on a fairly ongoing basis, so when cars eventually do arrive for my peas contracted in November, the contracts that I have in place for March delivery of my canola get pushed into April. April contracts get pushed into May, May into June, and on and on. This is further complicated by spring conditions in which road bans are instituted, making it almost impossible to deliver my grain if delayed trains do arrive. This is not a fictitious backlog; this is reality.

As I and other farmers ramp up our operations to prepare to get our seed in the ground for this growing season, we are feeling the impacts of the current backlogs in the system. Farmers who haven't had the opportunity to deliver their grain in as long as six months are strapped for cash flow to buy inputs for this year's crop, and systemic rail failures often cause delays in receiving inputs, such as my fertilizer, which has actually been delayed since December.

In January I was in Ottawa to deliver this same message to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. Now it's March, and while I have moved some of my grain, I am still significantly behind. From all indications, between the backlog and the spring conditions, as well as my focus on getting the crop in for next year, I will likely not deliver my grain until we're into April or May. For some of my contracts, that's almost eight months later than what the contract stipulated, which is eight months of not getting paid.

For these reasons, I am advocating for the amendment and passage of Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, as a long-term solution to addressing the ongoing freight rail failures.

With respect to the role that reciprocal penalties play in this legislation, railways have long had a variety of measures that govern shipper efficiencies, including asset use tariffs. These tariffs are used to penalize shipper failures through monetary fines in order to gain shipper efficiencies. For example, when the railway spots my cars at a local elevator and the grain company fails to load them within 24 hours, the grain company faces an automatic monetary penalty. On the other hand, if the railway shows up two weeks late, there are limited or no penalties. Therefore, the railways are the only link in the grain logistics supply chain that are not held to account.

We were recently made aware that CN Rail has included a form of reciprocal penalties in their service level agreements. On the surface, this seems like good news, but these penalties are still extremely one-sided. As an example, they give CN the ability to spot cars at any time in a period of more than a week, while grain companies are still required to load these cars within 24 hours or face penalties. Bill C-49 provides the ability to establish service level agreements with truly reciprocal penalties.

Under Bill C-30, which expired on August 1, 2017, interswitching provisions, which allowed shippers to access any interchange within 160 kilometres, proved to be a powerful and effective competitive tool to improve competitiveness for grain shippers.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks again, Luc. You're exactly right.

Tyler, you touched on it. I remember speaking in the House about this last September and October; we did want to work across the floor. We adamantly supported splitting the rail transportation off of Bill C-49. We would move it through. I think if that had been the case, we would have caught some of these proposed amendments that you're bringing forward, like the long-haul interswitching and those types of things. If it had been a separate bill, we could have addressed some of these points then, but because it's such a huge bill, it's now stuck in the Senate on something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about right now. That's the frustrating part of this entire discussion.

I like to think that when we went through this in 2013-2014 as the government, we knew what we were facing. Bill C-30 would have addressed some of these issues in good faith. We said, “We're warning you that this is going to happen, so let's try to address it.” It is frustrating for us, but it's more frustrating for you as producers and stakeholders that you're having to go through this again when there was opportunity to try to fix this situation.

Rick, you brought up an interesting point that I think we missed out on, and it's a fact that Tyler brought up too: we're missing markets that we may have had. We're not getting a premium for our product, because on the international trade market when we're talking about our producers and we want agriculture to have a $75-billion trade business, which is fantastic, we're taking away every possible tool for our producers to be able to reach those types of goals.

Can you touch on the fact that we are not getting a premium for our product because we are no longer a reliable trading partner because we cannot meet our sales deadlines because we can not get our product to market?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

For the last little while, you have been calling for Bill C-49 to be passed as quickly as possible. Do you have an opinion on the Canadian passenger bill of rights, though? Do you have an opinion on the public participation of foreigners in the funding and shareholding of Air Canada? That is the problem with Bill C-49.

The problems with Bill C-49 can be traced primarily to the fact that the Liberals refused last June to divide up the bill so as to speed up the adoption of certain measures. The two opposition parties wanted to proceed very quickly in order to avoid the black hole of August, given that the special measures established in Bill C-30 were about to expire and become void. That is the truth.

The government does not want us to be partisan, but it behaved in a partisan way itself by putting forward Bill C-49, which is full of things that have nothing to do with each other. Now, it is using us to get this bill passed as quickly as possible, but you have nothing to do with the passenger bill of rights.

What we want is for the grain to be shipped. What we want is for you to sell it on the market. What we want is for the system to work. Unfortunately, what the government wants is to pass an omnibus bill that is full of things that have nothing to do with grain shipment. That is the problem.

If the bill had been divided up and we had been able to pass these measures last June, would we be in the same situation today?

[Tyler Bjornson, Consultant, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm presenting to you today on behalf of my client, the Western Grain Elevator Association. We're pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to your study of the grain transportation backlog.

The WGEA represents Canada's six major grain handling companies, with inland and port facilities from Quebec to British Columbia. Collectively, these companies handle in excess of 90% of western Canada's bulk grain movements. Working alongside grain producers and other rail-reliant industry sectors, the WGEA has been committed to finding long-term solutions to chronic capacity and performance deficiencies in our rail freight system.

The growing backlog of rail shipments in western Canada continues to have a significant negative impact on shippers and the farmers they serve. As you will hear from numerous witnesses over the course of this study, declining rail service over the winter months has created the worst backlog we have experienced since 2013-14.

According to the Ag Transport Coalition, the total railcar shortfall is currently at almost 28,000 railcars. This represents over two and a half million tonnes of grain that companies have submitted orders for that have not been filled in the week they were ordered.

Overall performance over the course of this shipping season has been steadily deteriorating, with car order fulfillment below 50% on average in most weeks. One railway in particular has brought the average down, hitting an all-time low in the week of February 12, when just 17% of cars ordered were filled for that order week.

For grain shippers, that translates into serious costs in the form of not just lost sales but penalties due to vessels waiting at port. It also means a hit to Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier, a reputation that has not yet recovered from the 2013-14 grain crisis. As members of the committee will know, in a highly competitive market like ours, once business is lost to a competing supplier, it is very difficult to win that business back. These are the immeasurable costs that hurt us not only in the immediate term but also for years to come.

In this context of challenging service, we would like to thank Minister MacAulay and Minister Garneau for their interaction with the railways and for working to find ways to see an immediate improvement in rail service, not only for grain but also for the many sectors that are experiencing problems.

As most of you will know, the WGEA has been singularly focused on fixing rail issues in a permanent way. While this current backlog is shining much-needed light on the systemic problems that plague Canada's rail logistics system, the issues are of a much more chronic nature.

The WGEA is of the view that the measures contained within Bill C-49 represent a big step in the right direction toward arriving at permanent legislative solutions. The ability to negotiate reciprocal penalties into our service level agreements, for example, is in our view one of the most important provisions contained within the bill.

Consider what has likely precipitated the current rail backlog. Would the railways have planned differently this fall had there been the legitimate threat of penalties for not moving grain and other bulk commodities? We believe the railways would have taken different decisions if credible reciprocal penalties had been in place. Unfortunately, with the provisions of Bill C-30 expired and the passage of Bill C-49 uncertain, grain companies and farmers are effectively left in this no man's land with no tools or remedies for poor service.

It is to that end that the WGEA has joined with farmers and the entire grain sector in asking that Bill C-49 be passed without delay. The bill, as you know, is currently before the Senate committee on transport and communications. We are grateful to the senators of that committee, who are taking the time to ensure the bill achieves its intended goal of better performance by rail.

It will be well known to members that the WGEA is of the view that the bill needs to be improved in a key area with respect to the long-haul interswitching mechanism, the LHI mechanism. The LHI provision is not only more bureaucratic and difficult to use than the extended interswitching mechanism we saw in Bill C-30; we are also concerned that the grain sector will not be able to leverage its use properly if two small targeted amendments are not made.

As the bill is current written, if an elevator is dual-served—meaning it already has access to two competing rail lines on site—or if it's located within 30 kilometres of an existing interchange, the facility will be excluded from applying for an LHI order. Now, if those two rail lines are both headed in the relatively wrong direction—for example, east-west when the traffic's final destination is the southwestern U.S.—that elevator for all intents and purposes is still captive. The LHI is useless to them.

We have done an analysis on this point and have determined that 75% of all Canada's value-added grain processing facilities would be prohibited from using LHI because of this restriction. In terms of creating competition, we believe this was not the intent the government had when it drafted this provision.

The grain sector submitted an amendment to the House of Commons transport committee study to address this situation, but unfortunately it was ultimately rejected by the House.

It is our hope that now, during these final hours of consideration and in the context of the current grain handling situation, the Senate committee will take this opportunity to include these important targeted amendments in their report.

I want to take these final seconds to address you, the members of this agriculture committee, to ask for your help to ensure that once the bill is brought back to the House, you will work with your colleagues to do whatever is necessary to get the bill passed.

The WGEA, grain farmers, and our sector as a whole have waited too long to see this bill made law. We implore you to work across party lines in the interest of this sector to get the job done.

Members of the committee, the reality is that we've already lost too much in this shipping season. Let's not lose the next one as well.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[Mark Dyck, Senior Director of Logistics, G3 Canada Limited]

Thank you very much for the invitation to be here today to speak about the grain backlog. My name is Mark Dyck. I am the senior director of logistics for G3 Canada Limited.

G3 Canada Limited was formed through the combination of the former CWB and Bunge Canada's grain assets, funded by two strategic shareholders, Bunge and SALIC, with the long-term vision of establishing a state-of-the-art grain handling company in Canada and a new competitor for Canadian grain farmers.

The G3 transportation model was developed well in advance of the formation of G3 in 2015. G3's strategy was formed on the heels of the bumper crop in 2013-14, when the Canadian grain handling system's fundamental weaknesses were highlighted through shipping and rail backlogs. The government of the time intervened with Bill C-30 to further regulate the Canadian grain handling system with minimum volume requirements to address the short-term issue.

There were some unintended consequences. Service levels did increase; however, they may have at any rate, as that coincided with warmer weather and the reopening of the port of Thunder Bay. We believe the regulation never solved the fundamental problems in the industry.

Western Canada is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. The markets for those resources rely largely on Pacific export corridors, and grain must compete with other commodities for a scarce resource: rail capacity. G3 is making investments to address some of these issues to ensure grain handling remains competitive with other industries in Canada.

We believe the fundamental issues are as follows.

Insufficient improvements have been made in the grain industry to invest in efficiency improvements. The last major port terminal construction was in the early 1980s. Much of the port terminal infrastructure dates to the mid-1950s or earlier, when the industry was still moving grain in boxcars. They have been upgraded since, but not to the same standard as for other resources, such as coal and potash.

Inland primary elevators are of a newer vintage, with most dating from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, but many small shippers still exist. The logistical technology that is incorporated at these elevators has failed to keep pace with other industries and is relying on ladder tracks and breaking trains apart. This slows the loading process for grain, which is exacerbated in the cold Canadian winters when it is difficult to air up the train when it is being reassembled.

The supply of grain does not enter the grain handling system in a steady state. Market conditions are such that demand for rail capacity is generally higher in the fall and winter months. The surge capacity required to effectively conduct these exports, particularly off the west coast, does not exist today. Terminals are generally operating at or near capacity, and this problem will continue to grow as the production level in Canada continues to increase.

Early this crop year we saw that farmers were tight holders of grain during what has historically been a very busy season immediately following harvest. The volumes started to shake loose at the same time that western Canada entered winter. The railroads did not have the capacity to service such a spike, following a slower than expected delivery in the early fall period.

If these are the fundamental issues, what are the solutions?

First, it's important to recognize that the situation is not as dire as it was in 2013-14. Production in western Canada in 2017 was 70.9 million metric tons, down about 1% from last year but about 3% above the five-year average. According to Quorum Corporation, the federally appointed grain monitor, total metric tons unloaded at the Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Thunder Bay ports, which is where the vast majority of western Canadian grain is shipped, is 6% behind last year but on par with the five-year average.

In comparison to 2013-14, Quorum shows that the railways moved 25% more grain hopper cars—that's about 40,000 cars—to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Thunder Bay in 2017-18 versus 2013-14. That is from August through January. The February date is not yet available. While rail performance has not met industry's expectations this year, the situation is not as bad as it was in 2013-14. That said, the long-term issues need to be addressed with long-term solutions.

G3's long-term strategy was born out of discussions with industry experts, the railroads, and farmers alike. G3 is investing significant money in a new type of grain handling system featuring loop tracks, a feature not uncommon in the coal and potash industries. We load grain faster and more efficiently than ever before. In addition, we are constructing a new state-of-the-art grain terminal in Vancouver, with loop tracks that will be able to accommodate three fully loaded grain trains intact on the property. G3 is making investments that industry has not experienced in decades, investments that will create surge export capacity, rail efficiency, and velocity.

In periods when demand spikes and conditions become challenging, companies such as G3 will still be able to function at levels not seen anywhere else in the industry. We are able to load a full, 134-car unit train even in extreme cold weather by keeping the trains intact, with the railway locomotives on the train. When locomotive power is not left on the train, the railroads are forced to shorten train lengths to ensure they can properly air out the train for their braking systems. Our model creates a win for us as the grain handler, as well as for the railroads and for farmers.

G3's position is that its investments in efficiency will allow Canadian farmers to effectively reach world markets, allow railroads to function, and allow those grain handlers willing to make the investments to thrive in the long term. Competing exporters around the world—in the U.S., Latin America, the Black Sea, and Australia—have been investing in efficiency for decades. It is time that Canada does the same. We are leading by example in this regard.

The railroads have the responsibility to provide sufficient rail service to the grain handling system. Overall, we are supportive of Bill C-49, which introduces reciprocal penalties, as each party in the supply chain needs to be held accountable. We believe this will provide the motivation required for the railways to be adequately resourced to handle surges in rail demand and winter operating conditions. Further, Bill C-49 introduces the incentive for railways to invest in newer hopper cars, allowing for more grain to move on the same unit train. New, shorter cars will bring additional efficiency to the supply chain and allow companies such as G3 to load 150 cars on our loop tracks, where today we can only load 134. In addition, each car will be able to load about 2.5% more product. This represents a total increase of 16% for each train that arrives at one of our elevators. We would like to see Bill C-49 pass as soon as possible.

We are also supportive of the national trade corridor fund and hope to see some of this fund applied to projects that will further increase railway efficiency, specifically around the port of Vancouver.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to share G3's unique perspective on the issues and potential solutions pertaining to grain handling in Canada.

Thank you.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, I'm a guest at this committee today, and I appreciate being here. I'm going to draw on some historical knowledge. I've been talking to some of the other people in the room who were here before, when we did this the last time. We had two meetings, and then we had five meetings on Bill C-30, which was the legislation, so you could say that in 2013-14 we had seven meetings to talk about this.

Right now in my riding I have a farmer-owned rail line that has 65 loaded cars sitting there. They have been sitting there and sitting there, and when they are sitting there full of grain, that means everything else behind them is full of grain, so the farmer-owned terminal is full of grain.

To say, okay, we're going to come back when it's convenient for us, I don't think is appropriate. I think we should come back next week and show them that we are committed to this. To me, the 15th makes a lot of sense, because CN and CP are supposed to have that data for us on what their game plan is moving forward.

It's nice to see CN publish it in the paper. I think that's good, but I've had them do this to me in the past so many times when the railways said that they were going to do this and do that. When it comes to actuality, it never happens. That's why you need to have penalties in place. You need to have an order in council in place. That's why I think you need to have the Minister of Transport here, listening to those farmers. He should be here for the full four or eight hours, whatever we do, to really get an understanding of the impact this has on people's livelihoods and on their families, their farms, and their operations.

I would suggest that we come back on the 15th and do the whole day. The ministers can be here. The stakeholders can be here. The farmers can be here. You can take any committee room you want. You can televise it so that people back in western Canada can watch us and listen. It would show from this committee that we're serious, that we're taking this issue very seriously, and that we care.

This isn't a partisan issue. You'll find that at least in the past it has never been a partisan issue. We're on the same side in fighting for our farmers and our producers. CN and CP are the problem here again, unfortunately, and we can learn from the things we did in 2013-14. We can make some fixes and do some improvements in the order in council to make it more effective and efficient. We can have something in place so that the producers know they have a backstop right now, and then Bill C-49 will do what Bill C-49 does, with amendments or without amendments, split apart or not split apart.

The reality on Bill C-49 is that even if you wrote them a letter today, the Senate won't read it until probably the 21st, and then, in terms of the reaction time from there, we would probably be looking at May, June, or July. That's not even a feasible option. You would have more impact by writing a letter to the ministers, because they can do stuff right now. They can do an order in council tonight if they so choose. They can take action if they so choose.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The committee's Conservative and NDP members called for this emergency meeting because farmers need the government to take action now. We are united in our willingness to find immediate and long-term solutions. I am convinced that the committee's Liberal members also have the willingness to find a solution.

The situation is disastrous. When the government began an ideological battle by introducing Bill C-49, an omnibus bill from the Minister of Transport, all the observers warned it of the dangers of a new crisis.

We have all seen the figures. Between the two of them, CN and CP fulfilled 32% of hopper car orders last week. CN fulfilled 17% of the orders, and CP fulfilled 50% of them. Combined, last week marked the worst performance so far for the 2017-18 crop year.

Farmers are forced to absorb demurrage fees. We don't often use that term. I will give the definition of “demurrage”, for those who are not used to hearing that word. Demurrage fees must be paid by the charterer to the ship owner, in a voyage charter, when the time it takes to load or unload exceeds the laytime set out in the voyage contract. It's good to use the proper term.

In order words, the grain remains in elevators.

We learned that there are 35 vessels in the Port of Vancouver, we think for grain. Another five are waiting in Prince Rupert. With every unfulfilled order, Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner is taking a hit. To quote an editorial:

Increasingly, our reputation among global customers is that of a supplier with aging and inadequate transportation infrastructure which fails to deliver its products on time, whether it’s canola or crude.

This has very real implications at a time when we want to expand market access, maximize our crops' yield, and increase our exports.

Every unfulfilled order undermines the reputation of reliable partners for Canada.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have ignored our advice to pass a separate bill on grain transportation and have not extended or made permanent the provisions of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. So protection for grain producers disappeared on August 1, 2017. Consequently, as predicted by the official opposition and a number of observers, a crisis occurred. It did not take two years; the first winter following the end of protection ensured by Bill C-30, a crisis situation arose in grain transportation.

Allow me to read a few excerpts of comments made on June 5, 2017, at second reading of Bill C-49, since that's pretty important.

My colleague Kelly Block, who is the transportation minister within our shadow cabinet, took the floor to speak to this omnibus bill. If people are still unsure that it is indeed an omnibus bill, here is how Minister Garneau himself described it, on June 5, 2017:

Specifically, the bill proposes to strengthen air passenger rights; liberalize international ownership restrictions for Canadian air carriers; develop a clear and predictable process for approval of airline joint ventures; improve access, transparency, efficiency, and sustainable long-term investment in the freight rail sector; and, increase the safety of transportation in Canada by requiring railways to install voice and video recorders in locomotives.

That is how the minister himself described Bill C-49. You will understand that we are far from Bill C-30, which focused only on grain transportation.

That is one of the reasons why the consideration of Bill C-49 is taking so long: the government wanted to make an omnibus bill focusing on several different topics and concerning a number of stakeholders. It was clear that its consideration would take time.

My colleague Mrs. Block reiterated the following, during the study of Bill C-49, at second reading:

Furthermore, when I introduced a motion in transport committee last week calling on the committee to write to the Minister of Transport and his government House leader to ask them to split the bill into the following sections, rail shipping, rail safety, air, and marine, to provide an enhanced and possibly expedited scrutiny, every single Liberal member voted against it without even a single comment as to why.

In short, on June 5, 2017, we already asked that Bill C-49 be split, so that we could study the protection of western grain producers more quickly.

The Conservatives responded positively to the request of their Liberal colleagues from the transport committee to expedite the study of Bill C-49. The Conservatives agreed to return to committee a week before Parliament resumed. NDP members were also in attendance. If I remember correctly, they were also fully prepared to review the bill and to dedicate a whole week to that study in order to expedite the process. After the summer break, all the committee members came here and spent a week discussing Bill C-49. We knew it was important.

However, there was a major issue. When we were studying Bill C-49, the provisions in Bill C-30 had already expired nearly two months before. So the protection was already gone. Those are the arguments my colleague Kelly Block reiterated when the committee studied Bill C-49.

Let me draw your attention to another excerpt from Mrs. Block's comments:

In the fall of 2016, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a study of Bill C-30 and held a number of meetings on the merits of these measures and whether they should be allowed to sunset. We were assured that if we lived with this extension, these issues would be dealt with by August 1, 2017.

Unfortunately, the government did not keep its word. It did not ensure that those provisions would be dealt with by August 1, 2017.

Mrs. Block concluded her comments with the following:

In conclusion, this much is certain: the key measures in Bill C-30 will be allowed to sunset on August 1, before this legislation receives royal assent. The Liberals have had nearly a full year to get new legislation in place but failed to do so, and shippers will suffer the consequences.

On June 5, 2017, she predicted that this would happen. Unfortunately, we are now facing that situation.

The Liberal government and railway companies have been inactive since August. It was business as usual for everyone. It was only yesterday that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food bothered to take the first step to resolve the crisis: he wrote a letter with the Minister of Transport asking railway companies to prepare a plan to resolve the crisis and to post that plan on their websites by March 15. However, since the consequences of this crisis are being felt every day, last week we asked the government to act now, to implement the necessary tools and use its power to resolve this crisis as quickly as possible.

It seems that the calling of this emergency meeting had the positive effect of getting things moving. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has at least written a letter. This is a step in the right direction, but we have to go much further. We were expecting the minister to call a Cabinet meeting to adopt measures and make things happen, so that this crisis would be resolved immediately. The presentation of a plan and measures to ultimately find a solution should not be endlessly postponed again. The crisis is happening now.

This leads us to conclude that the government, aside from this letter, is once again relying on luck and the good faith of railway companies, instead of taking action and implementing the necessary measures to ensure that grain is shipped to markets, that farmers are paid and that this season's exceptional crop yields would not be compromised owing to a lack of planning by those who have the power and the tools to take action.

It's simple: the Liberal government must take immediate action to address the backlog in grain delivery and provide the tools needed to hold railway companies accountable for inadequate services. Inaction is costly. Talk to the president and chief executive officer of CN about that, as he lost his job because CN had not managed to provide a quality service. CN clearly indicates in its press release that it fired its president and chief executive officer for that reason.

If CN has realized that it should have taken action earlier, I don't understand how none of the advisors and other employees who are working at the offices of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food saw this crisis coming. Will a minister have to be fired for inaction—