Evidence of meeting #45 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Valeriote, could I ask your indulgence in dealing with one quick motion on a budget item for the GMO?
Is everybody in agreement? We have a copy here. I believe everybody has it. It's $15,350 to deal with witnesses and what have you for the GMO report. Unless there's discussion, I would entertain a motion to approve this.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Is there any discussion? All in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I have had conversations with most members of the committee, and I think they are in agreement with the motion. You'll all recall on October 22 the attendance of a number of farmers from out west, together with members from Canadian National, who appeared before the board to answer questions about the notice given by Canadian National in anticipation of, one, closing 53 designated producer car loading sites in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and two, removing the shunt lines providing services to those sites.
I recall some of the answers that were given in response to our questions. I've rarely seen an occasion when the opinion of this committee coalesced around a single issue—closing these shunt lines and the producer car loading sites. CN showed a reprehensible contempt for public responsibility when they said their only job was to move cars. We had to remind them that their job is to provide services to the farmers of western Canada.
I think they likened their work out there to having a doughnut shop. If they weren't selling doughnuts, they'd have to close it down. We heard from the farmers that those loading sites were crucial to their work. They said they needed more time, and they made suggestions of various amounts of time that would be more appropriate.
They've been attempting to meet with CN. We know that the cost of keeping these lines open is minimal. Costs would be absorbed elsewhere in the system and would result in no loss of revenue.
We don't want to see reliance on local roads. At a time when all of us recognize the need to use the railway as opposed to the roadways, I think it's advisable that our government immediately take such steps as may be required—in the way of inquiries, or amendments to legislation or regulations—to prevent the delisting and subsequent closure of these lines. I go on to say that this should be done “for such period of time that the Government of Canada in its opinion and in consultation with the stakeholders determines is advisable and in the best interests of all concerned.”
I'm not wanting to tie their hands. I'm wanting them to investigate and use their discretion in looking at this, provided that it's in consultation with all the stakeholders. I would hope that everyone would see the merit of this motion and support it.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I have Mr. Hoback. But a letter came to me from CN right after the motion. It was sent around to all of your offices. Basically, CN was trying to defend itself by saying it had told us what it was going to do and that it hadn't advertised.
I'm not defending what they're saying. But check with your staff; I know all of you got that letter.
Mr. Hoback.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I have a question related to this motion. During the committee meeting, we had CN here and they said they were going to provide further documentation on the cost of sidings and the maintenance schedules. Have we heard or seen any of that information yet?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I haven't personally, and Isabelle says we haven't received anything.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Maybe we should discuss it later, but I just would like to see that followed up.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes. I think it's a very important motion.
Just to also put it on the record, Mr. Chair, I do think they showed absolute contempt for this committee. I think CN has consistently shown contempt for Parliament.
The fact of the matter is that on these designated producer car loading sites that we had them here on, it was within two weeks, wasn't it, Randy? We had the meeting here. How long a time period was it between that and when they advertised more in the Western Producer? You brought it forward. Was it two weeks or three?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Actually, I looked at that afterwards, Wayne. They did make statements in the meeting saying they missed advertising some of those sites.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay. In any event, they moved ahead just as if it doesn't matter, Mr. Chair. I think that's a real problem.
I will quibble a little bit with Frank's motion, although he's a colleague. I actually think we should have put a timeframe to this, but we'll see what happens. I maintain, and not just since this government came to power, that for the Department of Transport, we could rename it the Department of Railways, because they consistently support the railways over the public interest.
I'd also mention that we didn't even get forthright answers from CN officials when they were here. I recall that I asked them about their return on capital, which was 20% prior to the Crow benefit cap coming into place. They left the impression that they didn't know anything about it. As for the lady who was here from Transport Canada, she admitted that it was true that they were assured a 20% return on capital and that it is now in the formula, although it's not necessarily the same 20% because it would change over time. But they're assured of a return on capital.
So the reality of the world is that even on these sidings they're trying to close down, they are assured of a return on capital. Wouldn't we love that as farmers?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Absolutely. That's what was in the original formula at the time it was converted into the revenue cap.
So that's where it's at, and I do think we have to find a way that the public interest... I would hope the government looks at it that way: that they cannot make these moves, that they're denied from closing lines, shutting down branch lines, etc., until the public interest is considered in a concrete way.
I'm fully supportive of the motion.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. Is there further discussion?
All in favour of the motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion is carried unanimously.
Mr. Bellavance.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chair, since we are considering motions, I have one that has been pending for some time now with respect to SRMs. I have new information to share in order to convince the committee members to vote in favour of my motion. It calls on the government to immediately implement a program to help the cattle industry cover the cost of $31.70 per head, which represents the competitive gap between the U.S. and Canada and which is the result of Canadian standards on specified risk material.
Last week, I was at the 85th convention of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec City. During his speech, Quebec's agriculture minister talked about how the federal government had not fulfilled its duties with respect to SRMs and said that it should do so.
I have all the more reason to tell you about it since no federal representatives were at the meeting. I was there, as were some of my colleagues. Mr. Ritz, we know, could not attend because he was away with the Prime Minister. Mr. Blackburn, however, was here in Ottawa. He could have gone to Quebec City to speak to the producers directly. He did not. The fact that he did not go to Quebec City to speak to the producers directly did not go over well. I think he offered to send a recorded DVD message. Traditionally, the producers want face-to-face interaction. He could have appeared by video conference or in person. That would have been the best.
Quebec's agriculture minister answered the producers' questions and talked about the SRM issue.
Furthermore, I was asked two questions by the government. At the convention, I had the opportunity to talk with producers and people in the industry about providing assistance with respect to cattle older than 30 months. My motion seeks exactly the same thing as the producers. If we do not do anything, if we do not help producers close the gap between the Americans and us, a gap caused by Canadian SRM standards, the industry of cattle more than 30 months old will more or less completely disappear in the near future. I, too, am concerned by the fact that the Conservative government will not be giving producers money directly. When I discussed it with the president of the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec, he said he was aware of the problem. He was also aware that slaughterhouses are losing money. Money needs to be invested in slaughterhouses.
In Quebec, the Levinoff-Colbex slaughter facility is owned by the producers. Even if the money does not go directly into their pockets, they know they will get some assistance down the line. If nothing is done about this issue, there is no doubt that the producers, themselves, will pay the price. And that is happening right now, for that matter. As for the two questions from the Conservative committee members, I want to say that the producers completely agree with the contents of my motion. So I urge the committee members to support it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the committee that Mr. Bellavance's motion has been tabled, which means that it is on the side. It is not in play right now. It was tabled one or two meetings ago and is basically out of play, unless the opposition votes to bring it back into play. I am surprised that Mr. Bellavance is trying to bring it back into play, Mr. Chair.
On the Conservative end, I can say that we are disappointed because we would like to carry on our work with the report. We have been studying the issue of the competitiveness of the agricultural industry for a year now. We have heard from many witnesses, and we now have a report. We are trying to finalize that report.
I have to point out that while reviewing our report, opposition members moved not one, not two, not three, but five motions. In our view, the opposition members are slowing down the process, because each motion has to be debated, and that slows down our work. I would remind you that the agricultural industry is expecting our report. Initially, we wanted to have it finalized by Christmas, which is nearly impossible. We have a meeting today and another Thursday, and we are still discussing motions.
The opposition's answer is always to ask for an immediate vote on the motion and to then carry on with the report. They said that two meetings ago, and right afterwards, they moved other motions. So there are constant motions.
There's no end to this, and it is slowing down the work of the committee. None of these motions has to do with the competitiveness report, Chair, and I think this is the concern.
We've had witnesses come in front of the committee. If this is in the report, then let us discuss this in the report. If Mr. Bellavance is objecting and saying this is in the report, then leave it in the report and let's review the report, Chair. Until the point that we get there... When the committee tables its report in the House of Commons, it will carry more impact than tabling a motion that parallels what's in the report. We should be putting aside these motions so that we can complete our work on the report.
I think this is important.
Mr. Chair, during the last meeting, I spoke at length with my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP. Unfortunately, Mr. Bellavance was not here, and I did not get the opportunity to speak to Ms. Bonsant.