Agriculture Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just basically wrote out an amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Do you want me to read it?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Sure, go ahead and read it, as proposed by Mr. Storseth.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It is moved that the committee study the right of farmers to load producer cars to ensure that the Canadian railroad companies do not arbitrarily close down producer car loading sites.

So technically it's acceptable.

Go ahead on your amendment.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On this amendment, Mr. Chair, it's important that we amend it in this way, because I actually disagree with Mr. Atamanenko. He's saying it's an important issue. He's saying it's so important we shouldn't study it, we should just pass this motion, for heaven's sake. I would say that actually undermines the credibility of the motion. If you're not going to look into the facts, then the motion is a half-baked motion.

So, again, Mr. Chair, and I want to be very clear on this, we support the intent of the motion; it's the wording of the motion. To be fair to the committee, we've only had, I think it was, a portion of a meeting that dealt with this issue. We had basically one set of witnesses, the railway company, and that was it.

I think if we want to pass a motion, if we're going to talk about amending legislation, then I think we owe the respect to this committee of doing a study on the matter and having a wider diversity of witnesses come in front of the committee.

That's the problem with this motion. It's proposing a solution without actually having looked into the matter. We've looked into it for a portion of one meeting.

That's why this amendment is in front of you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Storseth brought up an excellent point. I'm simply reinforcing it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are there any more comments on the amendment?

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I strongly oppose the amendment, Mr. Chair. The study will only be another delaying tactic by backbench members of the government. In the meantime, it leaves all the power on the side of the railways. The fact of the matter is, yes, we heard from the railways, but we also heard from producers on this issue; they were before the committee on this issue on producer cars. I believe one of them was the Canadian Wheat Board, was it not?

The motion is really not that complicated. It doesn't order the government to stop; it makes a recommendation to the government to provide the necessary legislation to prevent railway companies from arbitrarily closing down producer car loading sites. That, in my interpretation, means that a process is found so there's some balance of power when the producers, who want to load grain at producer car sites, are faced with the railways closing them down. Right now they can close them down in 30 days with an ad in the paper. This motion was put forward way back on March 12, pretty nearly a year ago. I think it's time we made a recommendation to the House of Commons, to the government...we couldn't get the motion moved up before because you folks on that side want to delay any action on the part of the government to stand up for farmers.

As well, Mr. Chair, the producer car sites that are there are really not costing the railways any money when they're not being used. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. Already under the current legislative arrangements the railways are getting some funding for those producer car sites. We know for a fact--and this is the other one the government wants to deal with--that right now a survey has shown about 62% of shippers have suffered financial consequences as a result of poor rail service, yet at the same time, the rail companies are trying to close down producer car sites on their own, arbitrarily, without any balance of power. The Wheat Board--I found the figures I'd mentioned earlier--found out in their study that railways received excessive profits of $123 million in 2007-08 and of $275 million in 2008-09. That's money that comes right out of the producers' pockets, Mr. Chair. At least in this instance we have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the House for the government to do something that is on the side of farmers. Let's do it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're starting to pick up a list here. I'm almost sensing that people have their minds made up on this, and Mr. Easter's point is a good recommendation.

We've got three people on the speakers' list. I'm hoping we can get to voting on this amendment, but we've got Mr. Valeriote, Mr. Lemieux, and Mr. Bellavance.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

First of all, I apologize to the committee if I left the impression that I thought we should be conducting a study. I would not have understood that the government would conduct its own study, consult with farmers, and consult with the industry before it made any amendments to the necessary legislation. It's clear, I support the motion, but if you wanted to add the words, “that the government consult all stakeholders and conduct a study and amend the necessary legislation”, I would be content with that. Failing that, I have no intent of our doing a study. We've already talked to the industry. I don't think we'll get anywhere talking to industry again and making any further recommendations. I think we've got to send the bold statement and hope that of course the government will conduct their own study that would include all stakeholders.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux, and then Mr. Bellavance.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just have to take a moment to point out the irony of Mr. Easter's comments regarding a study. Earlier in the meeting certain subjects were so important that this committee had to study them. We had to call witnesses in front of this committee because these are important matters that affect agriculture, Chair. He was saying these words. When it comes to government programming, we must study these matters, but when it comes to loading sites, this is such an important matter, Chair, that we should not study this, we should just pass the motion.

The irony here is unbelievable. On the one hand, things are so important that we must conduct a study and on the other hand, things are so important that in no way should we conduct a study; that would be obstructing and that would be delaying, and of course the government would be blocking.

Of course, Mr. Easter knows full well that on the steering committee we're outnumbered three to one, so--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Are you bringing that up again?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It's only to point out that when it comes down to votes, we are outnumbered three to one on any steering committee decisions, and when we sit here in committee we're outnumbered again. So the government is not able to delay, obstruct, and defeat—

[An hon. member]

It's a minority Parliament.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm trying to point out that when Mr. Easter says that by proposing a study the government is trying to block the intent of the motion, that's absolutely untrue. We cannot block it; we don't have enough numbers on our side of the table to do so.

On what we're recommending--as he recommended earlier in the meeting--if this is an important matter that affects farmers and agriculture, we should bring witnesses in front of the committee to give their different concerns. That would allow the farm community to express themselves and allow the rail companies to explain their point of view. Then we can make an informed decision. We can make an informed recommendation to the House.

Right now, the only reason that I think Mr. Easter is so opposed to the amendment is because it came from the government side. If it had come from one of his colleagues, it would have been great, but it came from us. I'm pointing out the irony in his position regarding whether or not the committee should study important matters: yes if it's coming from him; no if it's coming from us.

My point goes right back to the essence of what Mr. Atamanenko is proposing. This is an important matter that affects farmers, particularly western farmers, and we should look into it. I agree with that. So let's build it into the schedule and look into this. Let's do a proper job on this, not just fire a half-baked motion into the House.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

To study or not to study, that's the question.

We have Mr. Bellavance, and then I hope we can vote on the amendment.

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We have had to look into this issue from time to time here at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. If it comes back here, around this table, it's because the problem hasn't been resolved.

In light of the clear testimonies that the legislation was insufficient, as Frank said a moment ago, I think that the railway companies have to leave it up to the Department of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which doesn't have too many criteria. In an entirely arbitrary fashion, at any given time, on any given day, they decide that they'll close facilities.

I don't think the government will ever be able to prevent private companies from closing facilities. But I think that the legislation could be much stricter and show that these companies should fulfill some conditions before facilities are closed.

For example, consultations should be held with the main players concerned, in other words the farmers who use these facilities. Are they still using them? Or not, as the representatives from the railway companies are telling us? This still needs to be determined.

All sorts of criteria can be applied to determine whether the companies can close facilities or keep them open. But we know that these companies are deciding to close facilities arbitrarily, for reasons that are often vague, because we have heard from their representatives here, in committee. In fact, they felt that the reasons for closing the facilities weren't as clear as that, perhaps apart from the economic reasons.

After hearing all these clear testimonies, as I've said, now is the time for us, in committee, to simply recommend to the government that it review its legislation on the matter. It's a recommendation. It makes me laugh every time. It's as if we expected far too much of the government and its hands were tied on some issue or other. The committee simply has to determine that this legislation should be reviewed.

I don't see how anyone can be against Alex's motion as worded. We don't need to amend it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bellavance.

We're going to bring this to a vote. The recommendation from the government side is to have a study, and the other motion recommends that the government pass the legislation.

Let's deal with the amendment.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can we have a recorded vote?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sure.

I already read the amendment asking for a study. Is everybody clear on it? Does anybody want me to read it again?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's amending the motion for a study, rather than doing something right now.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We'll have a recorded vote.

The clerk informs me it's a tie vote. I will be voting no.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It's very unfortunate that the amendment didn't pass, but I would like to propose another amendment. It's along the lines of--in the spirit of non-partisanship, of course--what Frank had suggested. It's certainly unfortunate that we don't have more non-partisan spokesmen from the other side--rather than Mr. Easter--in the form of Mr. Valeriote, because I think he is really, truly, trying to come to some ground here where all people can support a motion to try to help farmers in this particular issue.

So I would like to move the amendment that he mentioned. Basically it would be along the lines of the amendment that we just voted down, but rather than the committee studying it, my understanding of what you were suggesting, Frank, was that we would ask the government to consider and study...rather than the committee. Is that—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Richards, so I'm clear, Mr. Valeriote doesn't have an amendment--

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

No, but he made a suggestion that there be an amendment along those lines, and I'm moving that amendment.