Evidence of meeting #36 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That's correct. It's on for any debate, and then Alex wants to bring it to a vote.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I think we'll line up some speakers to debate it, because....
First of all, Chair, do I have the floor?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
All right. Thank you.
Chair, we voted on the schedule not too long ago, earlier in this meeting. We are having railway officials come in to talk to us about railway operations and costing, and certainly this matter of producer cars and producer car loading sites is one that can come up.
One of the issues with the motion, though, is that it constrains the committee, in that this is a motion that must be dealt with the way it is presented, and it's not necessarily correct. It's basically saying that the government should be doing the job of Canadian railway companies.
Although this committee ended up writing to Canadian railway companies, which was appropriate, it's not for us to manage which sites are open and which are closed. Our job is to make sure that a proper procedure is in place and that due diligence is done by the railways, and we want to ensure that farmers are given an opportunity to participate in the review process.
That's where our role is; it's not to amend necessary legislation to prohibit Canadian railway companies from arbitrarily closing down producer car loading sites. We're not a railway company. I think it's an inappropriate motion.
Mr. Atamanenko says this will just give the committee more clout. That's not what gives the committee more clout. What gives the committee clout is the very credibility of the committee and of the members who sit around the table, and the pressure we're able to bring to bear on the officials of railway companies when they come in front of the committee.
And we did this. The last time they were here, we expressed our concerns about the closure of loading sites, and the list of closures was actually delayed, based on the input from this committee. So this committee has clout; this committee has credibility. A motion like this just shoots us off in the wrong direction and it asks the government to do something that's inappropriate and that is not within the mandate of the government.
I am for the intent of the motion, which is that railway loading sites should not be arbitrarily closed. Of course. I think we're all in favour of that. What I don't agree with is the wording of this motion, which basically says that we should be amending necessary legislation to prohibit it. Is this under—what?—any circumstances? It doesn't make any sense. What if farmers were to agree that a site should be closed because it's not used at all? Should we pass legislation that says it should not be closed at all; that it should always be there, even though it's never being used?
The intent I understand. I think all members around the table agree with the intent. But when it comes down to what the motion is proposing, I think it's completely inappropriate.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Mr. Lemieux, we have a couple of speakers. Maybe you will want to work on a little amendment that might be doable. Or it might not be; we'll see.
I have Mr. Easter and Mr. Atamanenko.
Mr. Easter, you're up.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm fully supportive of the motion. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary states, what the motion is asking is for the government, as is their responsibility, to amend legislation to prohibit the Canadian railways from arbitrarily closing down producer car loading sites. That's what they did last time.
The parliamentary secretary can go on and on, if he likes, about our letter, when we looked at the list of closures, delaying that from happening. It's true; we did delay it, but it happened nonetheless. What that exercise showed us was that all the power is on the side of the railways when it comes to closing producer car sites.
We had different stories, even from the Minister of Transport, that proved to be less than true at the time. We had CN before the committee, who basically, I think, thumbed their nose at the committee. Right now, all the power is on the side of the railways when it comes to closing producer car sites.
This is but one issue among many. They did the service review, and it was very clearly proven in the service review. We had many organizations, including the Western Grain Elevators Association, which showed on that one that there is a lot of concern from shippers and farmers about the service review and the imbalance of power.
We had the Federation of Agriculture, which maintains that railway revenues have continued to climb while farmers have seen rail freight rates jump by roughly 40%. So what we know is that prairie grain producers are being significantly overcharged for the transportation of their crops and that immediate action is required to address that situation as well.
So we have three issues: producer cars, where all the power is on the side of the railways; the service review, which has clearly shown that the railways are not living up to their service obligations but seem to getting off the hook, and the government either putting legislation in place to ensure that they provide the service....
The railways claim they are improving. Well, isn't that nice? What about the lack of service that prairie grain producers got for the last number of years? Nothing is happening.
Then there is the costing review, where the Canadian Wheat Board has shown, through an independent study, that prairie grain producers have been overcharged for years. The government backpedals on that one and fails to bring forward the costing review that the CFA and NFU and many others are in fact demanding.
I think this motion at least shows that this committee is saying to the Government of Canada: live up to your responsibility; you have the Department of Transport, the Department of Agriculture—the expertise—to draft necessary legislation that would prevent the railways from arbitrarily closing producer car sites and at least bring some power balance between the railways and the farm community.
The last comment I'd make is that it used to be, at one time, that before the railways could either increase prices or change a lot of their structures—branch lines and so on—that affected rural communities, there would be a hearing process. It would take a number of years—I think it was two or three years—before the railways could go ahead and make the move. They had to go to another authority.
Now, all the power is on the side of the railways. That's unacceptable. This motion, I think, makes the government responsible for doing its duty in ensuring that there is a balance of power and proposing a way to either hold a hearing process or allow the community and producers to have a say.
I strongly support the motion.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
Before we go to three or four more speakers, let me address the clerk. The meeting scheduled on the railroad issue is on the 9th. Who are we planning to have here?
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That, though, Mr. Chair, is a separate issue. It's not on producer cars, but it could come up.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Whether or not this motion is going to be dealt with, I think we would want to make sure that the right people are also there at that meeting. Isn't that right?
Is it all right with everybody that the people who can address this are also going to be at that railroad meeting on the 9th?
9:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
We need to make sure that this is a separate issue.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Yes, I know. It's a separate issue.
We're going to go to Mr. Atamanenko.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Chair, on the mandate of government, I would like to submit that the mandate of government is to protect farmers. The key word here is “farmers”, you know, and it's to uphold their rights, not the right of the companies to do what they want.
I think it's time for this government to say yes, we're going to put this in place, and if we have to, we'll amend legislation to ensure that these guys don't arbitrarily close down producer car loading sites. It's as simple as that. Let's get on the side of the farmers and not the corporate friends.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Chair, when this is discussed...I can't help but remember the presence of several witnesses before this committee--I think at the end of last year--on the issue of producer cars and the railway. I remember the alarm on a lot of people's faces, on all sides, at the rather arbitrary, arrogant, and insensitive responses we were receiving from the representatives from the railways with respect to this issue.
I recall that the legislation, in my opinion, wasn't adequate to protect the interests of the farmers when it came to railway producer cars. I'm not suggesting that at no time will there ever be a prohibition on closing down these producer car sites; sometimes it's valid and warranted and sometimes it's not. But I certainly think we need to have this review.
If there's an amendment to the motion that's acceptable to everyone, I'm content to have that amendment, but I think that having the review serves two purposes: one, it will allow us to make recommendations to the minister; and two, it sends a clear message to the railway industry that they're in our sights, they're on our radar, and that unfair treatment of farmers is simply unacceptable.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree essentially with the position that's being taken. I agree with what Francis is talking about, but this isn't a review. This isn't a study. We're being asked to report this immediately to the House, as if we already know what all the answers to this are. That's why we need to take the time. This is a very important issue for western Canadian farmers and it's important that we take the time to review this properly. It's important that we have witnesses. As Francis has said, there are two sides to it, although as decision-makers we need to, I believe, be tilted on the side of farmers, as Alex has suggested. But there are two sides to this, and we need to make sure that we take the time to at least call some witnesses forward on this.
That's why I would propose that we do a study on this. Now, you can pick how long you want to do it for, and we can talk about that, but this is something that is important enough that we should be studying it and making sure we do the right thing on it. I'm sure that we'll all agree on our recommendations at the end of the day, as we have with other issues with CN and CP, but on these issues, we can't just take them and say okay.... Otherwise, we might as well vote on all of this stuff, and we can clear our whole schedule up. If we already know all the answers to everything, we don't need to listen to the farmers' point of view and the industry point of view, and then we can just vote on all this stuff today. We don't need to go forward with one meeting on each thing.
This is something that affects western Canadian farmers. We need to have more than one meeting or one reporting of this to the House. We need to have real, substantive recommendations that we believe need to go forward. It's the same with the costing review.
Anyway, I would propose that we do a study of this. I'm flexible on the timelines on that.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Would you propose an amendment, then, before we bring this to a vote? Is that what you were thinking? Because--
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I would like to see if that's.... I mean, there's no sense proposing an amendment if it's just going to get shot down on the other side.
But I would propose an amendment, Mr. Chair, that the committee study the rights of farmers to load producer cars and look into changes in legislation that need to happen to prohibit the Canadian railway companies from arbitrarily closing down producer car loading sites. Basically, the spirit of it is that I don't want to take anything away from Alex's motion; I just think we should study it before we turn it into this motion so that we can have substantive recommendations behind it. If Wayne is right and these are all things that need to happen, then we should put those in the motion to the House.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
No.
I think we've all been guilty, over the years, of studying issues to death. Often these studies wind up gathering dust somewhere and then we go on to another study. We feel good, we've done it, and we make recommendations, but nothing happens.
I think it's time on many issues, and this is one of them, to be a little more firm with these guys, with the railways. We can do it nicely, but we can show them that we mean business.
It's a recommendation. It doesn't mean the government is going to act—that's the key here—but it also shows that we're serious. So I speak against the amendment.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
There is an amendment brought forward to me.
Mr. Easter, do you want Mr. Lemieux to comment on this amendment?