Debates of May 1st, 2014

Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the gist of what the member for Malpeque has spoke about, and I agree with most of what he said, is the basis price. This is the price that the grain companies would offer a farmer on that day, at that time and in that place. This is reflective of their inability to move that grain to market. It was a market signal to say “If we're going to buy your grain, we're going to buy it so cheaply. We can afford to store it”.

The good news is less than 1% of Canada's record production in western Canada last year was sold at that lower basis price. Those are actual numbers from the Grain Commission. This is good news in that farmers were not forced or pinched to sell at that level, but we need to see more transparency in those numbers.

There are some holes in the way that is projected now so that farmers are not necessarily right up to speed, should they so desire it. They are all very much technically inclined, and they will know at a moment's notice the price being offered. They need to know what the export price is and what they are being offered in their own community.

They now have the ability to move that grain much farther than they did under the old single desk system under the Wheat Board. They are not confined to a permit book that forced them to sell to one particular point of entry. They can actually put it on their truck and take it where they need to now. That has given us some competition to keep that price where it should be.

We are seeking ways, through regulatory packages attached to this legislation, that will give that transparency to farmers on a day-to-day basis.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his kinds to the opposition in that we did say we would sit down and work together, and we have managed to do that, albeit we have hit a bump in the road, it would seem with the piece that, to use the minister's words, put some teeth in the bill. My colleagues in the Liberal Party and I were trying to put a whole mouthful of teeth in the bill, if we could, but unfortunately we did not quite get there.

I have a couple of specific questions, because I will be rising on debate, so I will leave some of my comments until then. Could the minister report to the House the most recent statistics about how many railcars were delivered by CN and CP last week and how much grain was moved to port? Does he know whether those ports were the Port of Vancouver, or was some of it heading north or was some of it heading south?

I recognize it is a bit technical in the sense that he may not have all those numbers absolutely precise. I appreciate the fact that if he has to round that up, I will never hold him to that if he were off by a few cars here and a few tonnes there. I would not come after the minister in question period and say that he told me it was this or that. I recognize that this question is somewhat spontaneous. However, I think there is a need to know how many cars are supposed to be there, because the ramp up should be now complete for CN and CP.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP and the member for Welland, who sat on the committee at times, for the great work that they did in moving this forward as expeditiously as we have. We need to take it from the red zone and past the goal post. I am looking forward to that today.

With respect to his specific point on the number of cars and the amount of grain moved, the railways are within the target that was set for them. I do not have a corridor-by-corridor breakdown in front of me, but the vast majority of the grain is moving to Vancouver where the ships are sitting. Grain is moving to Thunder Bay. As I understand it, there are four boats in store at Thunder Bay right now and another 10 to 15 coming up through the canals and the lakes now to take advantage of what is in store at Thunder Bay. The overabundance of boats that were in Vancouver are being loaded and moved out as expeditiously as can be done. Also, a small amount of grain is starting to move into the southern corridors.

Part of this legislation would give Mark Hemmes of Quorum Corporation the oversight capacity and far more powers to give us that breakdown week-by-week, corridor-by-corridor. He was never able to give us the corridor specificity going south or east of Thunder Bay. We will now have that captured with the regulations under this legislation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why does the minister believe the Canadian Transportation Agency is the appropriate body to award compensation to shippers. He undoubtedly knows that the agency is a regulator with no experience with respect to the assessment of damages. Nor does it have the procedures in place to properly assess damage claims that are put to it.

I am curious as to why the chair ruled out of order the amendments proposed to create a compensatory scheme inside the Canadian Transportation Agency without giving it any mechanism to properly assess claims.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the agency is assessing these claims, it would be assessing what is spelled out in the contracts that have been defined between the railways and the shipper of whatever commodity it happens to be. The great people at the CTA have the economic skills and the ability to do exactly that. The Minister of Transport has the right people in place to make those adjudications should they be desired and needed.

We are hopeful that the railways, with this extra tool in the kit of the shippers, will not have to take advantage of that adjudication. However, should they do it, the CTA is more than capable of handling that.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by suggesting for the government, as the minister has acknowledged, the hard work by this side of the House in working on a piece of government legislation. When both parties, the opposition parties and the government, seize the opportunity to work on legislation, that can happen. This is a prime example of how the House can actually function when it comes to legislation, without the need to ram it through under time allocation or closure. That should be the model the government members look to when they bring in legislation, that perhaps there is a sense that the other side can work together with them on it.

I would suggest that the Conservatives should look to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the future, in the sense of seeing how that could happen, as well as looking to those of us on the opposition benches who may be responsible for those particular portfolios, who could help them do that. Where it is not feasible, then let the House do what it normally does, and that is to have debates on legislation so we can improve it.

What we witnessed today with the Speaker's ruling is that when we get into a time crunch, albeit a time crunch that we put on ourselves, we make mistakes. As members of the committee, opposition and government, we agreed to try contract the time because of the emergency need of Prairie farmers to move grain. Even though we agreed to get this done expeditiously, mistakes happened, at least from the perspective of the Speaker, who ruled that it was an inadmissible amendment. The dilemma was that with the time frame in which we were dealing a mistake slipped through, but was then caught.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert pointed it out to the Speaker, which is the member's right to do, and the Speaker ruled in an appropriate fashion. That should be a cautionary tale to all of us. When we rush legislation, mistakes get made, and we need to find ways to correct them.

Even though we are trying to accomplish something, we end up with a mistake on a procedural matter, not of legislation. The opposition parties agreed that we needed to find a way to get compensation all the way back to the farmer, not just necessarily the grain company. However, I use the pun intentionally when I say that sometimes a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. In the parlance of people in the grain industry, they would be happy to sell some grain to make half a loaf because at the moment there is far too much grain on the Prairies. The expectation is that by the end of this crop year, which is July 31, there will still be 22 million tonnes of this year's grain left over when next year's crop comes in, so we will still see this need to move.

Clearly the legislation, from our perspective, moved the goal posts somewhat. Unlike the minister's analysis of being in the red zone and needing to get across the goal line to score a touchdown, I would suggest we tried an onside kick and we did not quite catch it. We are literally at a point where we have moved a bit, but we did not get to where we needed to get. Speaking for the New Democrats as the opposition, we have come to the realization and conclusion that this legislation needs to move forward. We intend to continue to support the legislation and move it forward.

It is important, albeit not as much as we would like, but in life we cannot get all of the things we want. However, this should be a cautionary tale for the government side. We want to work together and help the government with legislation. However, perhaps those members ought to also understand that when we put forward amendments, they are not frivolous, but are actually helpful and there are times when maybe they should accept them. I recognize the Conservatives do not have to take them all, and perhaps sometimes none, but when it comes to this type of legislation, we are working together. The minister has very graciously acknowledged that, which I appreciate and extend back to the minister.

His co-operation from the get-go was absolutely first rate. He ensured that we were informed ahead of time, so we knew it would come. When we are given that type of briefing, we greatly appreciate that. All opposition parties were given that, which was absolutely important to do because we worked together to do this. The next step is that sometimes our amendments are worth considering.

I would hope in the future that there will be other opportunities to do this again. It would go a long way to making things function the way they should, and we could actually take the next step where we really do consider all amendments from all parties. They may well indeed be worthwhile and helpful.

Let me just say, on behalf of the opposition, that we intend to support the bill at third reading, which was our intention from the beginning. The commitment to the minister was to try to help in the best way we knew how. We believe we have fulfilled and kept the promise we made to the minister at the agriculture committee. As the loyal opposition, we said we would do that, and we intend to do that.

I am hopeful that we will see the bill progress into law, so we can start to help farmers across the Prairies. This is what it is all about. It is about helping those farmers on the Prairies who have been suffering for a long period of time, and some may continue to suffer. I think the minister and I recognize that, and I am sure my colleague from the Liberal Party also recognizes that. Unfortunately, there will be some farmers who will get caught in this, for whatever reason. It will not be a good situation for probably a minority of farmers, which is the real pity of it all.

I look forward to the bill being implemented and to other opportunities where the government extends a welcoming helpful hand. We look forward to working with government members, and if the legislation would indeed help farmers, we will be there to make sure farmers get that help.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a long process. I mean, this should have been done a year ago, of course, when the first rail bill came forward. If the government had listened to the recommendations at that time, we would not be sitting here. Even when the bill before us came forward, if some of the amendments had been in the bill, we probably would have had unanimous consent here today, but we do not.

We even heard from the Conservative members for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and Prince Albert, who wanted more teeth in the rail act, but they are not there. We also heard that from our witnesses when they came with their suggestions.

My question for the member is this. How important would it have been to have something in the bill on the short lines and producer cars, to make a change in how the transportation of grain would affect and help the farmers?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I think one of the major pieces we were trying to help the government understand and get into the legislation was this whole idea of short-line railroads and producer cars.

I realize it is a little technical, but basically a producer car is a rail car into which the farmer loads the grain. He does not have to go to an elevator, but it is parked on the railroad siding. Short-line railroads are exactly that: short lines, which are short pieces of rail that are privately held and not run by the major railways. Those could have been a major component in making sure there was more of a competitive situation for farmers, because if a farmer loads his own car and sends it out to the Port of Vancouver, he is not paying the elevating charge to have it handled that he normally would.

I think this was a missed opportunity, but in life that quite often happens. My colleague and I, and our colleagues on the opposition side at committee, stressed the need for short lines to be involved and producer cars to be made available, because the stories we heard from farmers were that they were not available.

I think that was a missed opportunity for the government, which is why I said earlier in my speech that I would hope in future, when we are saying things that we believe are helpful and constructive, that the government actually hears what we are trying to say in a non-partisan way. We are trying to make this a better bill, because that is what it is about. We agreed from the beginning that we would work together.

However, my colleague has pointed out the short line and producer cars, which is exactly the piece that would have made the bill better, and it would not have been ruled out of order. It would have been a clear amendment. We lost that opportunity, but it does not negate the fact that we need to move this along because some of it will help farmers, not to the degree we would like, but at least it gets us moved down the field a bit.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to pass on the opportunity to be able to express what I believe has been a great deal of frustration for our Prairie farmers.

It is sad to see literally piles of wheat in fields because the storage bins are full. That is throughout the Prairies. Then in the Pacific Ocean, we have empty ships, sitting and waiting.

There is obviously a huge gap that needs to be filled in between those. That is where the government has really dropped the ball. It is important that we have legislation here today, but we do not believe it goes far enough. There is so much more that the government should have done to protect the interests of our farmers.

My question for the member is as follows. Would he not agree that it is great to see the sense of co-operation in getting this bill passed today, but that the government could have and should have done a whole lot more in terms of making it better legislation? We have lost that opportunity, at least in the short term, to be able to address many of the other needs of farmers that could have been incorporated in better legislation overall. Would the member agree with that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct.

Part of what we were trying to accomplish, and the reason we said to the minister at the beginning that we would be helpful in moving the legislation is that we wanted to do exactly that. We wanted to find a way to help farmers who literally had millions of tonnes of grain sitting on the Prairies.

There are two truths to that. Some of it is in bins, for sure, and some of it is in elevators, but a lot of it was sitting on the ground, literally on the Prairie ground. Some was covered by tarps. I witnessed when I was in Saskatchewan not long ago that some of the tarps are gone.

When there is a bit of a thaw and rain, the wheat gets spoiled. A farmer said that I should come back to Saskatchewan to hunt deer, because they are going to be the fattest deer ever seen due to the amount of grain they will eat, which is just sitting on the ground.

It is true; they will be. The dilemma with that is that it is now contaminated. It cannot be sold for feed because of the contamination. We lost some time, and we lost some opportunities.

My colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria is right. This could have happened through the rail service agreement a year ago, but it did not happen. We cannot look back and say it should have been, could have been, and we hoped it would be. It did not happen.

Now we are at a point where we have moved it a bit but not nearly enough. There were some things we suggested that would have moved it even further. They were not taken up by the government side. Maybe in hindsight it is looking at them and wishing it had, but that was, again, an opportunity missed.

I look forward to getting this moved forward, to at least getting this amount done for farmers. Farmers are looking for a signal from all of us here that we understand the dilemma they face. It is real. It is not just a statistical number. It is real for them and their families, and for many of them it is a question of their livelihood and going into further debt when they cannot move the grain. If they cannot sell it, they do not get paid. That is the reality of not moving their product.

The bigger issue across the country, of course, and the minister addressed it during his speech, is reassuring our international customers. We saw through testimony at the committee that Japan had said it was going to buy somewhere else because Canada was not a reliable supplier. The Canada brand has become “not reliable supplier”. That is a shame.

Farmers across this country have spent decades building that Canada brand to the point where we were seen as producing the finest quality wheat in the world and as the most reliable supplier, on time with good delivery. Now we are seeing that erode so quickly.

We all know, in a competitive marketplace, how quickly customers get frustrated and simply say they can go somewhere else, and because they can go somewhere else, they do not need to get it from us. That is a shame.

We are going to have to work hard on that. Farmers will redouble their efforts, no doubt. I would look to the government and suggest it is going to have to redouble its efforts, as well, to ensure that at the end of the day we find those customers and convince them that they need to come back, because we can and will be again not only the best in the world but a reliable supplier of that great grain that is grown on the Prairies.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to whether the hon. member believes that the Canadian Transportation Agency is, in fact, the right body to issue compensation or whether claims for compensation ought to go to a different tribunal, court of law, or arbitration? Why does he believe that the CTA has the expertise to adjudicate claims when, before the amendment to Bill C-30, that was not something the CTA had ever been called upon to adjudicate?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of suggestions as to where the decision body would be placed. New Democrats made some suggestions about where we thought perhaps the arbitration process should be, but those amendments were not taken up.

All I can say to the member for Edmonton—St. Albert is that we made some suggestions that the government did not like or did not agree with. We felt that perhaps one of the models to use was the CGC, the Canadian Grain Commission, which actually has an arbitration process now. We felt perhaps that would be the body where we would put it. The amendments in my name talked about the process being adjudicated through CGC, but we included all the way back to farmers, not just to the handling companies or the shippers, as the amendment calls for.

At the end of the day, New Democrats did not win that, so we felt we needed to find a way to get some sort of compensation from the railways to some folks in the system. That is where we ended up, but unfortunately, you correctly raised the issue, which is within your rights to do as a member of the House, and the Speaker has ruled accordingly, and that is where we find ourselves today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would like to remind the hon. member and all others—I believe this is the fourth time in less than 24 hours—that they need to address their comments to the Chair, not directly to their colleagues. The four times were not just this member, but him and his colleagues.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pay attention to your comments.

The agriculture industry is a very important economic driver in Canada. As many of us know, it supports farmers, suppliers, food processors, and all other stakeholders in the food industry.

Grains are a big part of our agriculture industry, with 15 million hectares of wheat, barley, oats, and rye grown by farmers in fields right across this country, with the majority on our prairies.

In 2013, Canada produced over 52 million metric tonnes of these grains. Some of our largest commodities are canola—I think we are one of the biggest producers in the world—wheat, corn, pulse crops, and barley. From those yields, over 50% is exported, and the rest is used in our livestock industry. It is also used by millers and brewers, and there are many other uses, such as for biofuels.

As many of us know, this year was a bumper crop. It is because of the technology farmers used, everything from the tillage systems to the varieties. They had some good weather on their side also.

Last November, I had the opportunity to take part in an agriculture outreach tour in the western Prairie provinces in an effort to meet with farmers and identify important areas to tackle in my critic role.

After we visited farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, even early on in the fall, it was evident to me, and should have been evident to the minister, that the grain handling system was not proving capable of meeting industry demands. I witnessed first-hand the mounds of crops that were piled right up to the rafters. They were piled in garages and piled outside. It was amazing the amount of product that had still not been moved.

Upon returning to Ottawa, the situation after last fall, of course, got worse. We saw that with the big losses for some of these farmers, who could have been selling their product. Grain prices were going down. Even the government came out with an estimate that over $8 billion was lost to the prairie economy because of that.

Over the last few months, farm leaders from across this country have been meeting with our leader, the member for Papineau, and our Liberal agriculture team. Along with me, we have the members for Malpeque, Winnipeg North, Guelph, and of course, the member for Wascana, who was front and centre during the emergency debate and in keeping an eye on things.

The Conservatives were warned about the situation by the opposition and industry members a long time ago, not just by the farmers but in this House during the emergency debate the Liberals pushed forward. One would think it would have come from the Conservatives. Their members, coming from the grain region, should have been pushing for an emergency debate. However, we pushed for it on this side, and we appreciate that the Speaker allowed us that late night of debate on the situation.

The minister responded through the winter with some cash advance payments and a review panel to look into the disaster, but it was too little too late. Ships were idle at the ports. We all know about that. We had ships from Japan that were turned around. They had to go to Seattle. They had to go to the United States, imagine, where they were loaded up in a day, while they were waiting here for weeks to be loaded. It was a bad reflection on us.

There were also meetings in Singapore. One of the biggest issues among all the producing countries was, “What is going on with Canada? How come Canada has such good growers but cannot get their grains to market?” We were really getting a black eye on the international scene.

On farms, they were operating, and their debts were going unpaid. It took a lot to put that big crop in and harvest it, with the price of fuel. Meanwhile, they were not moving their grain.

It is blatantly clear that the Conservatives need to take another look at their failed rail act, Bill C-52. That was introduced last June. They scrapped the Wheat Board, and all of a sudden, there was nothing to protect farmers after that. Bill C-52 would have been the spot for that. There were amendments recommended, which they refused to put in.

What happened after that? There was nothing to help the imbalance in the market power of farmers and railroads. Many prairie farmers agreed that the amendments to this legislation were needed to clearly define service levels and to make it easier to fine rail companies for transportation bottlenecks. However, all our proposed amendments, which would have strengthened the position of the shippers and farmers, were unanimously defeated.

As a result of Bill C-52's deficiency, farmers watched their big bumper crop sit in their backyards, as customers around the world wanted our number-one quality product. We also saw customers in Canada and in the United States looking for our product and not being able to get it.

This winter in the House of Commons, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives take action. The Conservatives finally came forward with this emergency legislation on grain transportation, which we are talking about today. We know it as Bill C-30, and it is to fix the shortcomings in the previous bill.

As mentioned by other members, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied the new bill, and although it was rushed, it provided a tremendous opportunity to improve the legislation. Many witnesses came from across Canada and many good ideas were brought forward. After hearing the testimony of dozens of farmers and stakeholders, it was obvious that this new law needed some adjustments if it were really going to enhance the entire supply chain on a long-term basis.

The bill also failed to define what rail service levels should be, to create an objective measurement of rail performance, to provide for damages payable to farmers, to clarify farmers' grain delivery rights, or to create reciprocal penalties when obligations are not fulfilled on any side.

These are the same complaints we heard last year, but once again, the Conservatives unanimously voted against all opposition amendments put forward to strengthen the bill and address the ongoing concerns.

Although this has been delayed and is weak legislation, the other problem, as many farmers know and the House knows, is that the sun will set on the bill in two years. Therefore, this is really only a short-term step to help out. How will farmers or anyone in the supply chain look at the future if this is only going to last two years?

With good farming practices and climate change, I believe that we are going to have more and more bumper crops. This is not going to be a totally abnormal year. This could be a year that is going to be the norm. If that continues to happen, there has to be something in place that will guarantee that farmers are being taken care of.

The bill is a small step in the right direction, and our party will be supporting it, because this has been delayed long enough. Farmers are out planting now. They have grain still in piles in their backyards. They are trying to get money to pay for fertilizer, seeds, and chemicals. What is happening? The grain in the bin is not going to pay for those supplies. The legislation has not passed yet.

We have to have some signal for the international community that is buying our grain. I mentioned what happened in Singapore. We have to show that the House of Commons in Canada is serious about making some moves to help move grain shipments. Every time a disastrous backlog like this develops, our international reputation as a reliable grain shipper suffers, and we lose customers.

I alluded earlier to our own processors and farmers. We have a very large livestock and food processing industry in this country. We ship a lot of our grains and oats to the United States. Most people do not realize that Cheerios come from Canadian oats. They were concerned in the United States that they would not get enough oats. What was happening did not affect just our international reputation.

At committee we heard from the former chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council, Garnet Etsell. There is a billion dollar industry in the Fraser Valley. Their poultry industry is amazing. It is one of the largest concentrations of poultry in Canada. We were told in committee that poultry farms were only a couple of days away from running out of grain. Imagine having that size of livestock industry with a couple of days of grain in the bins and seeing the trains go by and not even helping out the local farmers.

Some of them were forced to buy trucks, costing them $100 extra a tonne to ship in grain from Alberta. Their returns are fixed, and they are not going to get more because they have to ship products in. It was not really addressed in this bill how we are going to help local farmers who consume that grain.

It is key that the federal government have a long-term strategy so that our high-quality grains will be able to get to our customers around the world and around the country and so that this does not happen again. We will be going back to the drawing board. If the government is wise, we will sit down after this legislation goes through and look at a long-term vision for our farmers and our country so that we continue to be a number-one supplier of grains in the world.

We realize that there are other products out in our western provinces that are doing well, such as potash, coal, and oil. We do not believe that they should all of sudden stop shipping their products because we have a good crop. We have to look at investing in our transportation system. We have to sit down with the railroads to make sure that this is happening, but right now it is not happening.

I am looking forward to a time when the farmers' biggest concern is getting the crop planted and harvested and having buyers. They should never have to worry about getting it from their grain bins to the consumers around the world. It is our obligation as the federal government to always be there for them and to make sure that it happens. In the last few years, we have. I say that we have, because it is technically the Conservatives, but at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the House to make sure that it does not happen again and that the system is in place to help farmers succeed.

If a young person is looking at getting into agriculture, there is great opportunity out there. However, to see what has been happening in the last year would discourage any young person from getting into it, knowing that they could do everything they could to produce a product but that they could not get it to the customer.

I will leave it at that, and I will open it to questions from any other members in the House.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think, as my colleague said, that there is any question that there has been only short-term economic damage to producers as a result of the government's inaction on how to handle the system changes as a result of killing the Canadian Wheat Board. There is serious long-term economic damage to the western grain industry as well, in terms of lost markets. We have shown this year that we are not the reliable supplier we once were.

There were clearly concerns expressed at committee by the domestic industry in B.C. that there is a gaping hole in this legislation in that there are no assurances that the grain companies will have the supply cars to move domestic product for the B.C. livestock industry. As a result, they had to truck it there, at a cost disadvantage compared to the rest of the country.

Additionally, it was mentioned at committee by Ian McCreary, a farmer, that:

The current problem has no solution under the current regulatory framework. Shippers are the only ones with standing with the agency. Shippers are the grain companies, which are making record profits from the current basis; thus a solution through the agency is unlikely.

However, the penalties the government is claiming to propose in this legislation go to the shippers, which, as Mr. McCreary said, are really the grain companies. We already know that the grain companies are ripping off producers because of the situation farmers find themselves in.

I ask my colleague if this legislation actually deals with the problem of paying penalties to the grain companies rather than to the people who are losing the money, the producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for all of his hard work on this file and for working with me for farmers out west.

My colleague mentioned the situation with respect to local livestock producers who were not getting the product they needed. The railroad companies have told us that the government wants to crack down on them and they will be required to move thousands of tonnes of grain, which by the way, the Saskatchewan premier says is not enough. The railroad companies have taken the so-called low-hanging fruit. They went to where they could quickly get the grain and jammed up the system. There was nothing in place concerning farmers in Fraser Valley. There was nothing telling rail companies to ensure some of that grain was sent to the people in Canada or even in the United States who needed it. The member was right when he said there was nothing there.

I read another interesting thing in The Western Producer. I might not have my figures exactly right. When the Wheat Board was in place, the cost of transporting a bushel of grain from the prairies to port was around $1.50 with probably 50¢ more for various charges. That came to a total of $2. Farmers are now saying that $4 is coming off their product. If they were getting $8 that has been reduced to $4. With the system that was in place before, those farmers would have been getting $6. That is why there is an $8-billion loss out there.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the amendment that I am concerned about that would empower the Canadian Transportation Agency to award compensation to shippers was passed unanimously at committee. But we heard from the NDP agriculture critic that that was not their first choice. He indicated that some other tribunal, such as the Canadian Grain Commission, might be in a better position to adjudicate disputes and claims for compensation.

I understand the hon. member also sits on the agriculture committee. I wonder if he agrees with some of my concerns that the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is a regulator, is ill-equipped to assess claims for compensation and to interpret service agreements. Would he agree that perhaps some other mechanism for awarding shippers, or producers who suffer damages as a result of the breach of service agreements, might have been a better way to go?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has some legitimate points. There might have been a better tribunal. As I was just reading in The Western Producer, a lot of farmers think that if they have to take somebody to court or a tribunal they are obviously going to be the ones to lose.

We should have some policing out there, but that is not what we really want. We want the system to work so hopefully nobody will have to go through a tribunal system. We hope nobody will have to go to a tribunal system. We hope Transport Canada will never have to deal with that. That is what we were pushing for. If there were enough teeth in the bill then we would not have to go there. That is what we focused on. We do not want farmers appearing before some tribunal on a constant basis to get what they desire.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the importance of this legislation and it passing as soon as possible. As the minister said, the fair rail for grain farmers act would hold solutions that would benefit farmers and the entire value chain. It contains clear and achievable measures to help ensure Canadian shippers have access to a world-class logistic system that gets their grain to market in a predictable and timely way.

To give members a quick review of the bill, the fair rail for grain farmers act would: one, amend the Canada Transportation Act to set out minimum volumes of grain in extraordinary circumstances that railways are required to transport; two, create the regulatory authority to enable the Canadian Transportation Agency to extend interswitching distances to 160 kilometres from 30 kilometres for all commodities on the prairies; three, amend the Canada Grain Act to strengthen contracts between producers and shippers; and, four, establish regulatory power to add greater specificity to service level agreements, as asked for by all shippers.

This bill would help ensure that Canadian producers can leverage our ambitious trade agreements and maintain our reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality products. Taken together, these measures offer market-based solutions to helping farmers get their products to market quickly and efficiently, while securing Canada's reputation as a world-class exporter.

Since day one, our government has put farmers first in all of our policies and programs in agriculture, and this is what we are continuing to do. This bill would address the immediate needs of Canadian farmers and I call upon all members of the House to move this legislation forward without further delay and to include the government's amendment, which would put more teeth into the service level agreements and bring more accountability to the railways.

Of course, we acknowledge the Speaker's ruling on this matter. However, our government feels very strongly that this amendment is necessary to get grain moving and it must be included in the bill. We are responding to feedback from many stakeholders. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, be not read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with the view to adding a new clause providing that the Canadian Transportation Agency may order a company to compensate persons adversely affected when the company fails to fulfill its service obligations”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments? Resuming debate.

Is the hon. member for Malpeque rising on a question and comment?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A question on this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

There was quite a number of shortcomings in the legislation that we outlined in some of the questions—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

If I could clarify with the member, is he rising on a point of order related to the amendment or is he raising a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question on the amendment.

I am wondering if the mover of the amendment can tell me. The amendment seems quite narrow and there are other shortcomings that are clear in the bill that have been asked for by producers. One was, as I mentioned in my question, the assurance that the rail companies would have to move grain into the domestic market in B.C., where producers are already paying about $100 more as a result of having to truck grain in. Will that be allowed to be reincorporated into this bill?

How will this amendment deal with the fact that under the act, the grain companies are determined to be the shippers? As I said earlier, the grain companies are the ones making excessive profits right now at the expense of primary producers. Is there any way of ensuring that the penalties go to producers when the grain companies are determined to be the shippers under the act? Does this amendment deal with that particular point?

The last question is: How can there be assurances that this is drawing grain from the total region and not just where the railways think they can gain the best volume at the lowest cost?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member that when the committee first reviewed the bill, it reviewed it in detail. There were numerous meetings, additional meetings that were scheduled, and additional witnesses brought before committee in order to have a full airing of points of view and opinions regarding the bill.

I would say as well that during the clause-by-clause analysis, there was full discussion on all aspects contained within the bill. Concerns were debated within committee and were determined by committee.

The member is right. What I would like to achieve with the motion is that the bill goes back to committee with a view to adding a new clause, providing that the Canadian Transportation Agency may order a company to compensate persons adversely affected when the company fails to fulfill its service obligations.

I would say that many of the points, in fact all of the points, that the member is raising today in the House have already been raised in committee and been dealt with in committee.

The other thing I would mention is that in our debate in committee, the member knows this quite well, there are regulatory processes that will be followed that will allow further consultation with industry to address some of the concerns that this member has brought forward.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just curious if the parliamentary secretary can advise the House as to why he believes the motion will achieve its intended purpose in light of the Speaker's ruling, which would advise this House that an amendment at committee cannot go outside of the original purposes of the bill. Does he not accept that Speaker's ruling, and how does he square his amendment with the Speaker's ruling?

Second, I was wonder if he could advise the House, under which standing order he is making this motion, given that the bill has already been reported by committee to this House.