Debates of June 14th, 2000

Canada Transportation Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are six motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act.

Motion No. 4 is the same as an amendment presented and negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), it has not been selected.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 will be grouped for purposes of debate, but they will be put to a vote as follows:

(a) if Motion No. 2 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 3;

(b) however, if Motion No. 2 is not agreed to, it will be necessary to vote on Motion No. 3;

(c) Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be voted on separately.

I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-34, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 1 the following:

“(2.1) If the Minister wishes to communicate information for the purpose of monitoring the grain transportation and handling system,

(a) the Minister must provide to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons a copy of the contract for the monitoring work, and

(b) the person to whom the contract is awarded must appear before the committee to answer all questions on

(i) the terms of reference of the contract, and

(ii) any monitoring reports that they have given to the Minister, except that they need not reveal confidential information about an identifiable person.”

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

(Motion No. 1 negatived)

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-34, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 5 the following:

““shipper”, in respect of a contract for the movement of grain, means the person who is identified as the shipper on the bill of lading;”

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-34, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 5 the following:

““shipper”, in respect of a contract with a carrier for the movement of grain, means the person responsible for transferring the grain to the carrier;”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-34, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 9 the following:

“153. If there is a conflict between this Act, or any regulations made under this Act, and any other Act that applies to the movement of grain, or any regulations made under that other Act, this Act prevails.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-34, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 9 the following:

“153. On or before July 31, 2005, all contracts for the movement of grain are to be entered into between a carrier and

(a) a person holding a grain dealer's licence under the Canada Grain Act, or

(b) a producer of grain.”

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make some brief comments on Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Motion No. 3 is put forward by the Canadian Alliance to make sure that there is an accountability factor in the issue of shipping and that the definition of shipper is clarified in the legislation. This amendment would do that.

Motion No. 5, also put forward by the Canadian Alliance, would make this act precede over all others. Anybody working under the auspices of this act could not go to another one to seek loopholes and to find ways of getting exemptions.

As well Motion No. 6 is put forward by the Canadian Alliance. It is a motion that would make clear that the government would move to a commercially accountable contract based system. Of course the whole bill should have done that in a more dramatic manner than it has.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 put forward by the member for Brandon—Souris and the member for Lethbridge.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to add a new definition of shipper to the Canada Transportation Act. One proposed definition states:

“shipper”, in respect of a contract for the movement of grain, means the person who is identified as the shipper on the bill of lading.

The other states that a shipper means the person responsible for transferring the grain to the carrier. Let me point out that there is already a definition of shipper in the current transportation act. The act already defines the shipper as a person who sends or receives goods by means of a carrier or intends to do so.

In Bill C-34 the government did not change that definition. If we were to accept the proposed definitions, we would end up having two definitions of shippers in the act. Similar motions were debated at committee stage and were not supported.

Adding a special definition for grain shippers would be confusing, should an interested party wish to file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. It seems that this is a back door attempt to get at the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board's transportation role.

Let me say that the Canadian Wheat Board's transportation role is being addressed through a memorandum of understanding that was shared with the Standing Committee on Transport last week. A memorandum of understanding is a document to be signed by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board itself.

The MOU reflects the government's decision, which was made after very careful consideration of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Estey and Mr. Kroeger, and the extensive feedback from many stakeholders. The changes move to a more commercially based system involving tendering while at the same time addressing the concerns of producers about the ability of the wheat board to successfully fulfil its marketing mandate.

Motion No. 5 states that if there is a conflict between the Canada Transportation Act or any regulations made under this act and any other act that applies to the movement of grain, or any regulations made under that other act, the Canada Transportation Act prevails.

I draw attention to subsection 4(1) of the Canada Transportation Act. This section already addresses the issue of conflicts between orders or regulations made under the Canada Transportation Act and orders or regulations made under any other act in respect of a particular mode of transportation. The Canada Transportation Act states that the order or regulation made under the Canada Transportation Act shall prevail. I believe that this is once again an effort to change the government's policy decision on the transportation role of the Canadian Wheat Board.

As for Motion No. 6, it would preclude the Canadian Wheat Board from entering into contracts with the railways for the movement of grain, beginning no later than July 31, 2005. The Canadian Wheat Board's transportation role has been covered in the memorandum of understanding.

As part of its decision on grain handling and transportation, the government will establish a mechanism of continuous monitoring, measurement and reporting to provide information to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board on the impact of these reforms and the overall performance of the reformed grain handling and transportation system. Should the monitor identify any problems or opportunities to improve the system further, the government will be in a position to act. I do not support the motions as presented.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly to the proposed amendments. I must stand after those last comments made by the parliamentary secretary.

The amendments were put forward by witnesses and by organizations that appeared before the committee. They were amendments that were, in most cases, approved and suggested by those organizations in order to make the legislation better than what it is.

I will speak specifically to the amendment that was put forward by myself as well as the member from the Canadian Alliance Party, that being the definition of shipper. That speaks to the essence of the bill which was to have a true commercial system. Unfortunately, the Canadian Wheat Board once again got its wish and its way in order to manipulate the process to the point where this will not be a true commercial system.

As for the memorandum of understanding, we wanted to have that open and transparent, as the government has always indicated that it should be. The fact is that now the memorandum of understanding need not come before parliament and need not come before members of the committee. It need only be dealt with by the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister, as well as the monitor. It goes specifically to the minister as opposed to parliament. I believe that speaks specifically to not having it open and transparent and having a system in place that is not only the same as we had before but in fact worse than what we had. I will speak to that on third reading.

The amendments are solid, good amendments. Unfortunately, they are not going to be passed because the government does not want to see better legislation.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too want to rise at report stage on this group of amendments and run through the position of the New Democratic Party. I will be ever so brief.

With regard to Motions Nos. 2 and 3, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, these are fundamental to the whole debate. Implementation of either of these amendments would weaken the Canadian Wheat Board and result in more power to the railways. We believe that being recognized as the shipper is fundamental and a key for the wheat board to negotiate overall rail capacity.

We in this caucus believe that the Canadian Wheat Board does maximize returns for farmers through meeting sales commitments and by holding railways and grain companies accountable for their service obligations. The board can only continue to perform these vital functions if it remains the shipper. We are opposing those two particular motions.

We are, however, supporting Motion No. 4 submitted by the member for Brandon—Souris on rural prairie roads and what happens when railways exceed the revenue cap.

We recognize that the changes to the grain transportation system will increase the pressure on roads. Indeed, the government recognizes that as well and has announced that it will be contributing $175 million over the next five years to help to do something about improving the condition of those roads. It is noteworthy that Bill C-34, in and of itself, does not deal at all with funding for rural roads and this amendment simply implements the government's announcement concerning funding. We concur with that and will be supporting it.

With regard to the revenue cap, the amendment says that if and when the railways exceed the revenue cap in any given year the railways will have to pay to producers the amount of their revenue that exceeds that cap. This too will help producers, and we will be supporting that.

Motion No. 5, which was put forward by the Canadian Alliance, would ensure that the Canadian Transportation Act prevails over the wheat board. If implemented, we believe that the railways could argue through the CTA against the board's ability to provide grain transportation services to producers on a train, at a station or on a branch or shortline. The railways could argue, therefore, that providing these services affects its ability to meet their common carrier and level of service obligations. This too, we believe, would have a negative impact on the wheat board's ability to return the best possible value to producers through providing access to the system. The amendment attempts to use the Canada Transportation Act, in our opinion at any rate, to regulate the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

[Dennis Gruending, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

A Trojan horse.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

It is a Trojan horse, as my colleague for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar reminds me.

The CTA is intended to regulate transportation providers with regard to rates and how those providers conduct business with shippers. The purpose of the CTA is not to regulate other pieces of legislation, such as the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Regulating the Canadian Wheat Board Act is accomplished through the regulations in the act itself.

The NDP caucus will not be supporting Motion No. 5, nor will we be supporting Motion No. 6 which says that by August 1, 2005 there will be a fully commercial system to move grain from elevator to port. In our opinion, that would obviously leave the Canadian Wheat Board with no role whatsoever in transporting western grain to port. We believe that this is another excessive gift to the railways and the grain companies that will ultimately be injurious to producers.

The wheat board cannot be an effective marketer of grain if it is unable to fulfill its sales contracts by ensuring an adequate supply of that commodity. This can only be accomplished if the board maintains a significant role in grain transportation from the country elevator to the port spout. There can be no protection for producers without wheat board involvement in grain transportation. We will be opposing that motion as well. I will have more to say on this at third reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.