Agriculture Committee on May 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Good morning everyone. I want to call the committee to order. This morning, pursuant to the order of reference of the House of Commons, we are dealing with Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, but this morning we're actually dealing only with an amendment.

The committee did clause-by-clause examination of the bill back on April 7. As we will all remember, we had a lot of good debate on it and in the end there was a recorded vote of nine to zero in support of moving the bill forward to the House, which we did.

When it went to the House there was a point of order presented to the House that in turn has returned the bill to us, again on the order of the House of Commons. So we are here this morning because the amendment only deals with the Transportation Act. As a result, we will not be dealing with clause by clause again. We will only be dealing with the relevant clause 5.1, and as part of that we will also deal with clauses 6 and 15, which are consequential clauses.

With that I'll open up the floor for discussion on the motion that is in front of us.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the opposition members for supporting the motion in the House to move this back to committee. As you know, we feel this is an extremely important clause that we want to insert into the legislation, Bill C-30. We also heard from our witnesses that this was a very important aspect of what they were looking for to improve rail service to grain shippers in western Canada in particular. So I think it is important that it's back here in front of committee with the authority of the House for us to be able to include it in the bill. I look forward to our discussion this morning and to accomplishing that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I also do not want to be remiss but to thank all of the departmental staff for being here this morning, in case of need for clarification. I appreciate that you would take the time to be with us.

With that we have the motion for the new clause 5.1, amendment G-1, which is moved by Mr. Lemieux. Also clause 6 and clause 15 are consequential to clause 5.1.

Simply to formalize the wording of it, the decision on amendment G-1 applies to G-2 and to G-3, since they are consequential amendments. Before we get to the question, is there any debate on it? Hearing none, I would ask for a motion regarding G-1.

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Shall G-1 carry?

Ms. Brosseau.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I only have a quick thing I would like to ask, and that is if we could remove proposed clause 5.1(2) dealing with the sunset aspect after two years. I was wondering if we could have a debate and maybe talk about removing that. I guess the government will probably not be open to it, but we would like to see this bill have a more long-term effect and not sunset after two years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Madam Brosseau.

I think if we remember right, Mr. Allen had brought that up at the end of the meeting. Because amendments G-2 and G-3 are consequential to G-1, which had passed, you're raising a question about it. So I would ask if there's a response to the question. Basically, the question by Madam Brosseau is that there should not be a sunset clause but a longer term for resolution of the problem.

Mr. Lemieux, did you want to speak to that?

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

First, let me just ask why. Could Madam Brosseau explain why what she's proposing is so important?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It's because we've seen this grain crisis and the impacts it's had on farmers. We've heard testimony about how people would like something that is more long-term to guarantee that this will not happen again. We would like to have that part of the piece repealed to make sure this does not happen again, so that there is more long-term assurance that this problem will not be reproduced. It's to make sure that it is in fact a long-term solution and not something that will sunset after two years.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask another question.

There's a package of initiatives contained within this bill, and yet you're singling out one that you want to extend. Is that what it is? There are a number of initiatives here that are particular to Bill C-30. All those initiatives will sunset in August 2016 unless the provisions are extended.

You asking for this one to be extended?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes.

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

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm wondering why you would ask for one provision to be extended and not all of them to be extended when they're all aimed at trying to resolve the problem of moving grain?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Madam Brosseau.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I think we would have liked longer-term solutions. We would have liked something longer term in maybe all the aspects of the bill. This is the only one that we can touch on right now. That's why I'm asking for the two-year provision to be removed right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Just to be clear, though, you were initially talking only about the extension of proposed new clause 5.1 but we may want to look at a proposed new subclause 5.1(2).

I'll turn it back over to Mr. Lemieux and we may want [Technical Difficulty—Editor] the department.

Are you making that a motion?

Do you want to read it, please?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'm proposing to remove proposed subclause 5.1(2), which suggests that paragraph 116(4)(c.1) of the act be repealed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I'm sorry. I missed the last part.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I want to delete the proposed subclause with the words, “of the Act is repealed”. I would like that taken out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

You want it removed?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

So that would be the bottom part.

If I understand correctly, Madam Brosseau is asking that proposed subclause 5.1(2), suggesting that paragraph 116(4)(c.1) of the act be repealed, should be removed.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Eyking.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we need to look at this in the scheme of things. Of course, this year's crop could be a norm. We could be seeing this, we hope, for many years to come. Big money—over $8 billion—has been lost here by the agricultural community. We have had so many witnesses come here, and this House and this committee have spent so much time on this, that I think that sunset part should be taken out of there.

Even at the very least, there should be a review after a couple of years to review what the status is instead of sunsetting it. It's been a very trying situation in the last few months for everybody, especially the farmers, but even for the railroads and everybody, because we're trying to understand where we're going. I think the sunset part is something that should not be in there. A compromise would be a review at that time. If the so-called system that's in place now works, why not leave it there instead of dropping it? Maybe we could review it and tweak it. I think the sunset part should be taken out and replaced with “a review at that time” as we go forward from then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Hoback first and then Mr. Lemieux.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When I first saw that at first glance, when we looked at the bill, I thought why did we do this? Then I got talking to people involved and started realizing that the review was actually going to be pulled forward. So we're going to see that review start this summer.

This piece of legislation was never meant to be a fix-all. It was meant basically to be a patch, so that the review could happen, and then get some structural change and good recommendations of the review that will happen this summer at the transport committee. It's appropriate that it should be done.

What I wouldn't want to see though is our not having a sunset to this. First of all, we do have an ability to renew it. So after two years, if we think we need to move it forward in another two years, we will be fully able to do that. There's nothing preventing that from that happening. It's more important though that we also don't put something in place that would hinder the review.

A sunset clause actually puts pressure on getting that review completed and recommendations brought forward in a timely manner, so that we can see the structural change that needs to happen after the proper review process.

We'd all agree this came along very quickly and the review will actually be more comprehensive and more complete to get a better piece of legislation out that will better protect farmers in the long run.

I have no problem with the sunsetting at all, because the review is coming. That was the key part of this, and it is coming. Mr. Eyking, I think we agree on that. I just didn't realize that the review was actually coming this summer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Lemieux.