Evidence of meeting #90 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was grain.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair, for being here today.
Of course rail has always been an issue. As Ms. Brosseau said, we last dealt with this in 2013-14, and I'm disappointed that we're back here dealing with it again. There have been some changes between now and then. Then we didn't have the numbers. We didn't see the data. We didn't know what was going on. Now we have Mark Hemmes with the Quorum Corporation giving us that data every week. When you start seeing at week 12 that 50% of the railcars aren't being delivered, that's the first sign. Then, when you start seeing it show up in weeks 13 and 14 and continuing on...activity should have happened a lot sooner, but we can't take that back.
I think we need both ministers because, for example, with the Minister of Transport coming in front of this committee, we're going to need an order in council to actually show some results here. The reality is that Bill C-49, the way it stands right now, would not fix this problem, and the producers are telling you that; the grain companies are telling you that. Basically, anybody who is relying on rail for service is telling you that Bill C-49 won't do, so you need amendments. That means the amendments that have to come out of the Senate will take a lot more time.
In the meantime, we need to have an order in council sitting there with fines. The only thing that CN and CP actually react to is fines, so when they start seeing that there's a penalty for not performing, then they actually stand up and take notice.
I give CN credit for the letter that was in the paper today, whether or not that was a result of today's emergency meeting. I will also give credit to the FCC. Again, it's nice and convenient that it made its announcement at the time when this meeting is taking place. Farmers need to know that. That's another reason why we now need the Minister of Agriculture to come in, because there is a cash flow issue here. You have a transportation issue, for which we need the Minister of Transport to tell us the path forward. What he is going to do in the meantime with an order in council is what I'd like to see, until Bill C-49 is amended and brought back to the House with something we can all support.
Then you go to the cash flow issue, so the Minister of Agriculture is going to have to come in. Whether it's having advance programs, talking to all the banks, and doing what they did with the FCC, he needs to have a game plan moving forward now on spring advances, because cash flow is a big issue. We need to figure out what that's going to look like, so he needs to report on that. It's not as though they've never done this before. The department has done things like this in the past, so it's not as though he is taking any new path forward. He can lean on experiences in the department from the past and do something there. That's basically an hour of a meeting.
Then you talk about CN and CP coming in for an hour. I think that's good, because they need to present their path forward and what they're doing. I think CN, in their article, talked about leasing locomotives and putting managers on the lines, and that's good. I wish they would have been doing it in week 12 instead of now, because road bans are hitting. Basically, with road bans, restrictions come into play, and then they usually don't get lifted until we start seeding. So by seeding time, we have a whole pile of grain that has to move into terminals; guys are trying to put their crop in; and everything just hits the farm at the same time. There's no ability to spread it out. That's why the winter season is so important to move grain: you have the frozen roads; you can move grain, and you don't have to worry about planting, spraying, or anything else going on at that time. Again, we can't take that back. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way it is.
So you look at that, and then you say, “Now we want to talk to producers.” Think about it. One hour of producers would get you four producers in here from three prairie provinces—Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba—and then there are even some producers in northern B.C. That doesn't even get you one per province. Then you have three parties here, so everybody is going to want their producers here. So again, one hour is inadequate to give you a good idea of how it's impacting different areas across the Prairies.
And it does have an impact on different areas. When CN and CP start getting behind, instead of bringing cars into Saskatchewan and Manitoba, because it's a longer trip, they flip things through Alberta more quickly and ignore Saskatchewan and Manitoba, so you have to deal with these inter-regional aspects. There are lots of things to consider here before you can just say, “Hey, we're going to have an emergency meeting” and feel good. Farmers won't buy it, guys. It shows that you're not willing to do the job. It just shows that you're going to show the goodwill but not actually put any teeth into anything to get results. So you need the order in council. You need to move this forward. You need to do it now, because it has waited too long.
Chair, I guess I'll wrap it up there. Just keep in mind that if you're sitting on the farm right now, you have bills to pay from last year. You're supposed to be buying inputs for next year, so you're supposed to order your canola and stuff like that. A lot of that stuff is supposed to have been ordered in December or November, and all of those bills are starting to come due. You have bins full of grain. We have some 40 ships sitting out on the west coast waiting to be loaded. This is a crisis. This is very real. I'm sorry, but pushing off until it's convenient for us isn't acceptable. We need to do it now.
Thank you, Chair.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to pick up on a number of things, and Mr. Breton's amendment in particular.
First, we have been told that two hours of debate would not be enough. If the committee wishes, the meeting could be extended. On March 21, we do not have to have a two-hour meeting; it could be four hours long. We could also have one on March 19, since we will all be in Ottawa that day.
We cannot drag out the study of this issue by having a series of meetings over three or four weeks. We want to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible. It would be better to have a meeting in the evening of March 19. Monday nights are not usually very busy. We could have a four-hour meeting on March 19. That would give us the time to hear from many of the witnesses suggested by all the parties.
If Mr. Breton is agreeable to this proposal, that would be ideal. It would probably be easier to have a long meeting on March 19 than on March 21. It is usually easier for everyone to make time on a Monday night. I propose that we have a four-hour meeting. We could invite everyone on our witness list. We would have enough time to welcome them all. At the same time, we would be showing that this is urgent. The goal is not to talk about it for four weeks, but rather to resolve the problem quickly.
If Mr. Breton had not proposed this amendment to the motion, I would have suggested a day-long meeting next week in order to welcome all the witnesses. On the other hand, I would go along with a meeting next week, provided that it is four hours long. That would be a solution.
Madam Clerk, could we do that?
1:45 p.m.
The Clerk
You would have to propose a subamendment.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I would like to continue talking about my suggestion, and then I will propose a subamendment in a few minutes.
I support the amendment, but I would like it to be a four-hour meeting on March 19 rather than March 21, given the urgency of the matter.
As to Mr. Drouin's suggestion about the committee sending a letter, I would reiterate that Bill C-49 is an omnibus bill that does not concern our committee alone. The letter will have to reflect that, if you want us to agree on sending such a letter. That involves other committees and other stakeholders. The committee may express its concern, but we know that Bill C-49 will not solve the grain shipment problem in the short term. We need a short-term solution now. It is important for the committee to signal that it is monitoring the situation closely.
If we were to hold a four-hour meeting on March 19, that in itself would send a signal that people will have to get moving before March 19 at 4 p.m. If the committee is in the mood to write letters, it could also write to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, calling upon him to take all the measures available to him to intervene as early as March 15, rather than waiting for the committee's meeting on March 21. There are clearly measures the government can take.
I would remind you that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture wants a plan from the government, not just Bill C-49.
As to the subamendment, I propose therefore that the meeting be held on March 19 and that it be four hours long. As to sending our list of suggested witnesses by March 15, that would not change.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
We are going to vote on this subamendment first, provided nothing else comes up. There are members who wish to speak, after all.
Ms. Nassif, you may go ahead.
March 7th, 2018 / 1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Eva Nassif Liberal Vimy, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd also like to thank my fellow members for requesting this very important meeting to address the grain transportation issues facing farmers in western Canada.
Further to the actions taken by our government and the joint letter from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport, we are pleased to learn that CN has already put out a press release. It therefore responded before the March 15, 5 p.m., deadline we had set.
CN intends to take a number of measures. It plans to offer incentives to key members of its operations staff who delay retirement and postpone vacations, as well as to recently retired employees who return to work. It also plans to deploy qualified managers to operate extra trains and add crews in western Canada. Approximately 250 conductors were deployed in the last three months of 2017. Some 400 conductors have been deployed in the first three months of 2018, and an additional 375 will be deployed between April and June. CN has also leased 130 locomotives, nearly all of which are currently in use, to increase capacity in western Canada. In addition, it is investing more than $250 million this year to build new track and yard capacity in western Canada. Clearly, CN is taking numerous steps.
There is obviously a lot of work to do, but the company has taken all of those actions to prevent a crisis like the one in 2013-14, which cost the economy $8 billion.
We are all glad to meet on March 21 to hear from CN, CP, and Grain Growers of Canada representatives. We will keep working together to advance the interests of Canadian farmers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
And thanks, Mr. Berthold.
The idea of March 19, I think, is a good idea, and four hours is better than two. Generally, Monday evening is an evening when we can get things done. I think that also shows that this committee does work well together, which we do. We are working on behalf of the farmers. I think we do all have a common focus there.
It was good to see the Grain Growers of Canada also mention in their letter: don't make it a partisan issue; just solve the problem.
I want to comment on the omnibus piece, but maybe we could do that after we deal with the subamendment. I spoke on Bill C-49 in the House, and I have some thoughts relating to the purported omnibus nature of the bill, which I want to share with this committee from I said in the House about it, but if we could deal with the subamendment, that would be wonderful.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
We are having quite a productive discussion, which shows how open all the committee members are to doing something, and how seriously they are taking this issue.
Surely, grain farmers will want to have their say. If we have one two-hour meeting to hear from CN, CP, and Grain Growers of Canada representatives, we won't have time to hear from farmers. I would therefore like to propose a subamendment to the subamendment, if that's possible.
I agree that we need four hours. I move that we use the two hours on March 19 and the two hours on March 21 to hear from witnesses. That would give us four hours to hear from witnesses.
I see some consultation is necessary.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, can we take a quick break? I'd like to speak with Mr. Breton.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
I now call the meeting back to order.
Mr. Breton is the next speaker on the list.
Go ahead, Mr. Breton.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
We had a chat, and we also chatted with our colleagues opposite. We agree on holding the meeting earlier. We had proposed March 21, but we agree we should meet on Monday, March 19. We would have four hours with all the witnesses, from 3:30 to 7:30 p.m. We would hear from representatives of CN, CP, and the Grain Growers of Canada. Actually, we would hear from everyone on the list, but those are the main ones. I gather that some members would like to invite farmers, even though we will be hearing from the organization that represents them. We are open to meeting with the country's grain growers.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
I'd like you to clarify something, please, Mr. Breton.
In your first motion, you proposed that we split the meeting in two, one hour with the first panel and one hour with the second panel. Do you want to keep that ratio, in other words, two hours with the CN and CP representatives, and two hours with the Grain Growers of Canada representatives?
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
We now have four hours. I think we'll have enough time if we spend an hour with CN and CP representatives and an hour with the Grain Growers of Canada representatives. I gather that some members would also like to hear from grain farmers, so we could spend the remaining two hours with them.
We didn't talk about that, but we can see what everyone thinks.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Again, I appreciate the willingness of our colleagues to make some compromises.
I really don't want to harp on this, and I do appreciate your being flexible, but I think next week is more palatable because of the situation we're facing.
To my colleague Ms. Nassif, I appreciate your defence of CN's letter today, but we've been through this before. In 2013 and 2014, there were all kinds of platitudes from the rail companies. As my colleague Mr. Hoback said, we saw the warning signs in January that we were going to be facing this. We talked about this in October and said that this was certainly an issue. For CN to come forward at the eleventh hour with some steps is great, but it's not like these steps are going to be on the ground tomorrow. These are things that are going to go on over weeks, and I just don't think the impact is going to be there.
Unfortunately, we have to implement some steps, some legislation, and, for lack of a better term, some “punishment” there, such that if they don't get their act together, there are going to be some consequences. They're going to give us all these great platitudes that they're doing everything they can to address the situation, and that's great. I appreciate that—
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Excuse me. I have the floor.
I appreciate that, but again, they should have done this weeks and months ago. We're not here to stand up for the rail companies. We're here to try to address the situation, and it is critical. I would prefer that we meet next week. March 15 would be one date. That's the deadline that the CFA and some of our stakeholders asked for.
Really briefly on my colleague Mr. Drouin's comment on the letter that we should be writing to the Senate, the Senate is not our problem. The Senate is the Senate. Again, this is something that should have been addressed months ago. Also, Bill C-49 may not even resolve all the problems. Our stakeholders, the grain terminals, and the producers also asked for the government to come up with a plan to try to address some of the backlog. Will we solve all the problems? No, but we can certainly put some things in place that will help alleviate some of the situations.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we try to meet next week if at all possible and that the government work on putting the infrastructure and the framework in place for an order in council to get the grain moving, and that it take some concrete steps to protect our grain producers and our trade markets that are out there and ensure that we get the grain moving sooner rather than later.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Chair.
It's frustrating. I know there is goodwill in the proposed subamendments to the motion put forward by my colleague Luc. But, you know, we're on break week from the House, and we've had this important meeting today. We're not sitting next week. I think, because of the context we're in right now, we need to look at this next week. Four hours is four hours. We'll have CN and CP. I would love to have Minister MacAulay and Minister Garneau come before committee and talk about their plan, but I don't see why we can't start looking at this next week.
Writing letters is great. Wishful thinking, good intentions, hoping, and wishing haven't done anything to make this situation better. I think the letters that were put out yesterday were just a front to say, “Look, we're taking this seriously. Look at us dealing with this issue.”
I think you know that the Minister of Transport wrote a letter in January. What happened with that? Nothing.
There are so many things that can and should be done. Looking at this issue in a week or two is going to do what to help farmers? I think people who are in this situation right now are looking towards the agriculture committee to stand up for them, and I think taking this issue seriously would mean we would look at this next week.
We all have responsibilities as members of Parliament and as members of the agriculture committee. I think we should be looking at this next week. I think we should be putting pressure on the minister to be using all the tools in his tool box. In 2013-14 there were measures taken by the Conservative government. Those measures put pressure on the railways to get their act together, and they worked. Penalties—$100,000 a week—are peanuts to CN and CP. The pressure that farmers are under currently.... They should not be in this situation again. We should have learned from the grain crisis in 2013-14. There were signs.
Obviously we cannot go back in time, but I think we need to do our job, and I think we need to put pressure.
And you, too, members of the Liberal government, need to put pressure on your ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport. Bill C-49 is not going to fix everything, but definitely when we get back to the House, I'm going to go forward with a unanimous consent motion to ask the Senate to carve out the grain piece and get that moving along as quickly as possible. The part of Bill C-49 on grain transport needs to get passed, but we have to fix it too. We have to make sure that we get that right, and not just pass it to pass it. It can't just be a band-aid. I think we have to make sure we get this right. We have to take the time and we have to get it right. Amendments and subamendments to this motion are great, but I think we need to look at this seriously. We need to roll up our sleeves; we need to get down to work; and we have to take this seriously.
I think having a meeting next week might by shitty. We have to cancel stuff in our ridings, but it's our responsibility. This is our job, so why not get down to work next week? It's an inconvenience for farmers. This might be an inconvenience for us, but we have a responsibility to fix it.
That's my piece.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal