Agriculture Committee on May 5th, 2014

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Do you want me to go ahead and explain it, or wait until everybody gets it first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Just wait a second, they're just about done.

Would you go ahead please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess we just had a vote and we all agreed with this amendment that came back to us. For various reasons, this previous amendment that was put in place—what I think it comes down to at the end of day—is that farmers can be compensated.

It states: “in making a compensation order under paragraph (4)(c.1), the Agency shall order a mechanism to put in place to ensure that the person adversely affected receives compensation in a timely manner.”

That compares with the existing clause we voted on, which reads: “order the company to compensate any person adversely affected for any expenses that they incurred”.

I think we all understand that if, for instance.... It's my understanding that the grain commission—

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

On a point of order.

I don't understand the way it came in front of committee. Mr. Eyking said it was submitted on Friday by the deadline, but my understanding is it may not have been submitted then, and if it is a subamendment to the amendment we just passed, it should have been debated before we just passed this past amendment. If it's something different it should have been in on Friday.

I guess we'll just wait for the clerk to clarify this for us, or the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I'm going to ask for clarification from the clerk's office.

Mr. Lemieux, we may have clarification on it. The amendment being put forward by Mr. Eyking could not be put forward until your 5.1, the amendment that you put forward, was approved. That's why it came forward today. Now, it may lead to another question in terms of the timing of it being here today, recognizing that we just passed 5.1.

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

Okay. I had two questions, really.

The first question was, if this was a separate amendment, was it received on time on Friday? If it was not a separate amendment, but instead a subamendment to the amendment we just passed, then I'm saying that it should have been introduced like Madam Brosseau did for her subamendment.

I think what I just heard you say, Mr. Chair, was that this is not a subamendment to the amendment we just passed, so that answers that question. If it's an amendment in its own right, was it submitted to the clerk by the deadline on Friday?

[David-Andrés Novoa, Procedural Clerk]

Just to clarify, an amendment can be proposed at any time when there's a bill. As far as I know, there was no deadline imposed on this. If the amendment is not moved today, it can be moved at report stage. You can deal with this amendment here today or in the House at report stage.

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

Okay. You're right. Actually, now that I'm thinking of it, it said “as soon as possible”. What the clerk sent out was “submit your amendments as soon as possible”. Thank you.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean Michel Roy]

There was no specific deadline because they didn't have the chance to meet to approve a deadline—

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

Yes. I remember the wording now.

[The Clerk]

—contrary to the first time we dealt with Bill C-30.

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

Yes, no problem.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

It gives us the option of dealing with it here or taking it back to the House.

Mr. Eyking, continue, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

So thank you for all your questions, Mr. Lemieux, but as you can see, the Liberals always have everything in order.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

To go back to my addition to the amendment, as stated in the clause we just voted on, it says to “order the company”—and we're figuring whoever is transporting it—“to compensate any person” affected by any expenses they incur, and we're figuring that supports the shipper or farmer. That's very good and well, and we're assuming it's the Grain Commission that would make that ruling, but what we don't want to see is something where they're caught up in some sort of bureaucracy or judicial system, so that all of a sudden.... I'll give you a quick example.

Let's say a farmer lost $80,000 because he wanted his grain shipped on January 5 but it was shipped on March 5. The commission ruled that he or she lost $80,000. Okay. Now what? Does that farmer have to wait two years or a year? Can the railroads come back and take him to court? There has to be a mechanism in place so that once the ruling is there it's just like a ruling you would get from Revenue Canada: you're owed $80,000 or $8,000 and that farmer or shipper should assume that a cheque is going to come to them.

So my clause says this, and it's very simple: that in making a compensation order under the paragraph, the agency shall order a mechanism to be put in place to ensure that the person who is adversely affected receives compensation in a timely manner. When this process is being set up, a mechanism has to be put in place. I'm not going to say what it should be. That's for the department to figure that out.

For instance, is a bond going to be put in place by railroads and is a bond going to be put in place by grain companies so that there's a pool of money and all of a sudden the farmer will get compensated? If not, all that we've done is for naught. Unless somebody has a mechanism in place, the farmer could end up going to court during his planting season on a claim that could have been for the year before.

I think it's key to add that there's a mechanism in place. It's very simple: that the agency shall order a mechanism to be put in place to ensure that the person who's affected—I'm mostly looking at farmers, but it could be whoever—receives compensation in a timely manner. Because this could just be a headache for farmers, and it just could.... That's why I'm putting it there. I think it's important. I don't see in our whole bill here where that is stated.

That's why I'm putting it in place, Mr. Chair. I'll be open to comments or to put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you.

Is there discussion?

Mr. Lemieux, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to confirm something. Is what Mr. Eyking is talking about pertaining to contracts that exist between a farmer and a grain company, or is this amendment pertaining to service level agreements and contracts between grain companies or shippers and rail companies?

Bill C-30 deals with both, but in two separate sections and in two different ways. In one part, the Canadian Grain Commission is dealing with arbitrating contracts between farmers and shippers, and in the other part, under the Canada Transportation Act, the CTA is responsible for service level agreements and for this clause we just inserted between shippers and the rail companies.

What is this pertaining to?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

It's in with this bill. I don't think this whole bill is intended to say that if a farmer has 5,000 tonnes of bushels of barley that is supposed to land at Chicago for $8 and it doesn't happen because of changes in the marketplace—we're not into that. We're not trying to make sure the farmer gets his money from the person he's selling to.

The whole bill is about if somebody is not transporting the grain in a timely manner so that they receive the money, then somebody has to pay the farmer. It's not his fault that the locomotives aren't moving.

It's not a contract between the buyer and the farmer; it's more a service level agreement; that the grain was supposed to be shipped and I have lost this money because it wasn't shipped. It wasn't moved, and now I am owed $10,000, as a farmer. Okay, how am I going to get paid? Do I have to go to another process and a sort of judicial system? It was mentioned before here. We have big companies with deep pockets and big lawyers. I don't really know what the system in place—

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

Sorry, you are using the word “I”, “How will I get paid?” When you're using the word “I”—

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I am using the word “I” as a farmer.

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

—as a farmer, so what you're talking about is the portion of the legislation that deals with contracts between the farmer and the grain company. That's the part you're talking about.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Well, it's when there's a ruling here—in your clause that we just put in place, when the ruling comes out that says the company has to compensate any person who is affected, right? You've already stated that. Okay, so let's add onto that—

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

Yes, it's a legal entity person, meaning it can be a company like a shipper—

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

It could be whoever.