Agriculture Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Paul Miller]

Just very briefly, Rob is right—going back to the 4,450—that it's a number that we publish. I would hope Rob would agree with me—we might debate a bit around the edges—that there is some science and a lot of history to that number, about what the overall system can produce.

[Robert Meijer]

I agree. There's no doubt about that. Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay.

On that point, before I move to Mr. Easter, of the 4,450, what numbers are you dedicating to producer cars? They're the mainstay of a lot of the short lines and the secondary lines. Is there a dedicated number?

[Paul Miller]

Sir, we'll have to get that number back to you. I don't know the number. I'll be very honest; it's not a huge percentage of that total. But we can get the number of producer cars that are loaded as a percentage of the total.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

That would be good. I would love to see that.

The other point I have is this. Peter, you mentioned at one point that there is some muddying of the waters with third parties who make the communication lines and the allocation of cars difficult. Can you give me some examples of those third parties? Who are you speaking of?

[Peter Marshall]

I'm certainly not saying it's intentional; it's just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

We're not pointing fingers.

[Peter Marshall]

That's right.

It's vessels, arrival times. As an example, a vessel may be coming into Ridley Terminals. The industry believes it's going to be there on such-and-such a day, and maybe there are issues on the sea and it doesn't get there for two or three days, so the grain stocks pile up in Ridley.

And sometimes there are space issues. They can't unload the railcars because the terminal bins in Vancouver, Thunder Bay, Churchill, and Ridley are full. That's one thing.

It's very difficult. I'm certainly not an expert on marine shipping, but I know that sometimes the communication there is not what it needs to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Who coordinates that?

[Peter Marshall]

I'm not a hundred per cent sure about that. In terms of the shipping, you're saying the vessel—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Yes, the booking of the ship coming in. There's demurrage both ways.

[Peter Marshall]

That depends on whether it's a Wheat Board vessel or a grain company vessel, especially if it's non-board grain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

As my final point, in your allocation of cars--well, allocation may be separate--when you're providing cars to a certain elevator point and so on, do you consider the Wheat Board or the elevator that contains the product to be the shipper? Who's the shipper?

[Peter Marshall]

That's a good question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

How do you ascertain--I don't want to say blame--which is doing its job properly if you don't know who the shipper is?

[Paul Miller]

The Wheat Board is the shipper of record for their products--and gentlemen, you can correct me--but the elevator company for the Wheat Board products is basically operating as its agent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So the elevator, on behalf of the board--let's say it's Mr. Meijer's Cargill--orders 50 cars for number three on a certain day and hopes to get them. The board is not in that equation at all, other than that Mr. Meijer bought that grain on behalf of the board and has it in-house. Does he deal directly with you, or does the Wheat Board deal with you and say, Rob has our grain, go pick it up?

[Paul Miller]

These are some of the complicated but working well issues that we talk about. The Wheat Board has—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

If you don't understand it, I can understand why you have problems trying to make the thing work.

[Paul Miller]

No, I think I understand it. The Wheat Board has an allocation of capacity with which they, in turn, work with the grain companies to bring in the grain in grades of product that they're looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Yes, the quota system and all of that.

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Easter, for five minutes, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On that point of the shipper, there was a class action against the railways quite a number of years ago that determined that the Wheat Board was the shipper. It should have been the railways, and the court case would have been won, but anyway that's beside the point.

The discussion here has been on the level of service proposals. In the WGEA submission you state, “Under the current Canada Transportation Act, there is a total lack of a balance in accountability between a shipper and a railway and little obligation on a railway to provide adequate service. ... Simply put - there is no penalty for a railway if it fails to provide service.”

You then talked about your meetings with Transport Canada and you proposed that the CTA be amended to require an independent and comprehensive review of the level of service provisions into the effectiveness of such provisions no later than six months after the passage of this bill.

Mr. Marshall, in your discussion just a moment ago, you gave some reasons for the problems with level of service--Ridley and so on. It could be any natural factors, etc. In terms of this request for changes in the CTA, to its being amended to deal with this level of service and having a proper review, Transport Canada and the minister disagreed. Am I correct in that?

[Wade Sobkowich]

I'm sorry, they disagreed with what?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

They disagreed with your proposal for an amendment to require an independent and comprehensive review.

[Wade Sobkowich]

They disagreed with the idea of inserting that in the legislation or in the bill, but they had agreed on May 5 to the idea of the review and to doing it within six months after the passage of the bill.