Debates of April 20th, 2015

Opposition Motion--Coastal Water Protection

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for sharing his time with me but also for bringing what he is seeing on the ground there to the House of Commons. It is really important that he talked about the 12-hour response time and about the fact that volunteers are out there in English Bay trying to save the wildlife, the marine birds. It is really important to have those first-hand accounts from ridings across Canada brought here to this House.

We all have expertise. We may not all be scientists, but we have the expertise of living in our ridings and understanding what is impacting the areas where we live, work, and play. I really want to give some credit to my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, for bringing the motion forward and for his expertise on this issue.

The member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has been a tireless advocate for the protection of our waterways, and he has worked for years to raise public awareness about rivers and watersheds in British Columbia.

The member for New Westminster—Coquitlam has made 14 marathon swims, covering 3,200 kilometres of British Columbia's rivers, lakes, and the ocean. He also swam the 1,400 kilometre length of the Fraser River to draw attention to the environmental impact on rivers. There is not a more authoritative voice in this House than his, and I am really pleased that he brought the motion forward, because now he is bringing attention to the lack of protection for British Columbia's coasts when it comes to spill response capacity.

I want to thank him for bringing forward the motion to reverse the government's cuts to marine safety, oil spill response, and environmental cleanup capacity in Vancouver and elsewhere on the coast of British Columbia.

The New Democrats want to protect the coast against catastrophic spills and to restore the Coast Guard's ability to effectively respond to spills or other emergencies. The NDP led the charge when it was announced in 2012 that the Kitsilano base would be closed, and we will continue to fight to protect the marine environment and the economy that depends on it. Marine safety and environmental protection have been severely tested after 10 years of terrible management on the part of the Conservatives. The oil spill in the port of Vancouver is just one example of the scope of the damages. That is why my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam and the NDP are urging the Prime Minister to listen to the public and take action immediately.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said the following in his fall 2010 report:

Emergency management plans are not all up to date

The Canadian Coast Guard lacks a national approach to training, testing its plans, and maintaining its equipment

Procedures for verifying preparedness of the Canadian Coast Guard are not in place

Responses to ship-source spills are poorly documented

There is no national regime for ship-source chemical spills

In an interview with the Toronto Star, former environment commissioner Scott Vaughan said, “We know that there’s a boom in natural resources in this country and I think what we need now, given the gaps, given the problems we found, is a boom in environmental protection”.

There are huge gaps in our oil spill preparedness but also in our knowledge about the potential impacts of the spill on the west coast.

If we go back to the spill in English Bay, the most recent spill, Vancouver Aquarium CEO John Nightingale says that there is a major gap in understanding Vancouver's coastal environment, because there is no long-term monitoring of the local ecosystems. He says that if the goal of the cleanup efforts right now is to restore the harbour to the state it was before the leak, that cannot be done, because there is no solid foundation with respect to what the harbour was like in the past.

Why are we in this situation? It is because of cuts, cuts, cuts, with no regard for their impacts. The Kitsilano Coast Guard station was cut and closed. The Ucluelet marine communications and traffic services centre was closed. If we look at other cuts and our understanding and research of the impacts on water, we will remember the Experimental Lakes Area, the ELA. It was shuttered by the government. This was one of the world's—I will say “is” because it continues to exist, no thanks to the government. It is one of the world's most influential freshwater facilities. It is a unique Canadian facility for groundbreaking freshwater research, the only one of its kind in the world. It is an outdoor lab where the whole ecosystem can be studied. It is where research on environmental problems is carried out.

In 2012, the government announced that it would close the ELA. Thanks to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Experimental Lakes Area was saved, but the government made it loud and clear at that moment that it does not care about evidence; it does not care about science, and it does not care about the environment. Time and time again, the Conservatives demonstrate this, like when they slashed funding at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, which left the Bedford Institute of Oceanography caught short.

The BIO exists on the east coast of Canada. It is in the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. When those cuts were made, it resulted in the loss of oil spill expert Kenneth Lee. This research centre was established in 2002. It was established to coordinate DFO research into environmental and oceanographic impacts of offshore petroleum exploration, production, and transportation.

While the centre did not end up closing, Kenneth Lee, the oil spill expert and director of the centre for offshore oil, gas and energy research, was forced to leave Canada. He took a job in Australia. This is a man who is internationally respected. He was a Nova Scotia-based, Canada-based scientist working for the federal government. He is a leading expert on the use of chemical dispersants when it comes to cleaning up oil spills. He helped with the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He co-chaired an International Maritime Organization working group that established guidelines for marine oil spill bioremediation. He received the prestigious Prix d'Excellence from DFO for research on environmental issues associated with offshore oil and gas activities, as well as other awards. This man has so many awards and yet he received a letter stating that his job would be affected as a result of the cost cutting, thanks to the federal government. We had all of this expertise and we lost it. We lost him. Now he works in Australia and we do not have him here in Canada.

New Democrats share the concerns of British Columbians, who are worried about the environmental, social and economic damage the Conservatives have caused in Canada.

Ten years after they took office, the Conservatives still have not done anything about climate change, and nothing will change if the Liberals are elected. The NDP is the only party that has a plan to protect the environment, stimulate the economy and protect the coastline from dangerous spills. We are committed to helping British Columbians fight against ill-advised projects.

The Conservatives are ignoring or attacking those who are most concerned about British Columbia's coastline, such as first nations, fishing organizations, community organizations, environmental organizations and the tourism industry. That is unacceptable.

Instead of isolating first nations, instead of demonizing people who care about the environment, the government should work with Canadians on these issues, but we know that the Conservatives do not care about these issues. It all started in 2012 with that giant omnibus budget, members will remember quite well, when we saw the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act not amended but repealed and replaced with something wholly inadequate. We saw the slashing of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act, and of course, cuts across the board at Environment Canada.

The track record of the government speaks volumes. This is a motion we need to support. The government should come on board and actually reverse some of the cuts, especially as they concern the west coast and the Coast Guard station on the west coast, because we know that it cannot handle a response to these oil spills.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the actual “cleanup” of this particular oil spill or toxic spill.

At 5 p.m. on Wednesday, a 911 call went out. The Coast Guard tells us that it had its cleanup boom in place at midnight. Then it changed it to say that it had the cleanup boom in place at 2 a.m. Then it changed that to say, right now, that it had the cleanup boom in place by 5:53 a.m., because it could not find the source of the spill. The person on the sailboat who made the 911 call the evening before at 5 p.m. said it took them 15 minutes to identify the source of the spill as the particular vessel that we were talking about.

Is this a world-class response? if we are to believe any of these stories, the slowest it took was seven hours to find the craft and put the boom in. Then it was nine hours. Now it is 13 hours. How do we trust and believe a Coast Guard that keeps changing its story when a vessel could find it in 15 minutes?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I think it likens to the analysis of the Keystone Cops. It is pretty bumbling. We really cannot trust the government when it comes to believing anything it has to say. I would point her to the former director of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, Mr. Moxey, who said plain and simple that what the Conservatives are saying is not the truth, and he is willing to swear an affidavit to that. I would believe him over the Conservatives any day.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #375

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today and on Thursday, February 26, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-42.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #376

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion.

Rail Service

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 550 put forward by the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I find it rather interesting that we are talking about a motion that deals with what we ought to have done, but it does not actually include anything that says how we should have done it. Be that as it may, it would have been helpful if the member had actually put in some of the amendments we tried to get through the agriculture committee that talked to how to make the system work, because ultimately, it is about trying to make the system work.

I do applaud the member on his efforts at least to hold the government to account to some degree, but it would have been nice if it actually had some real teeth in it. Something we had talked about was that it should have the fines that were there in the first place.

If we had done that, perhaps it would have been doing something rather than what the government eventually did in a sort of clandestine way when they literally changed the numbers. What was supposed to be a fine per incident turned out to be a fine per week, which I found rather unusual and slightly disheartening.

We helped the government with the legislation. I know that the other side has a hard time believing we help with these things, but when it comes to Bill C-30, we did help with that legislation. We tried to move it along swiftly, because we understood the plight of prairie farmers coming out of the winter of 2013. It literally was a bumper crop. It was stuck on the Prairies, because according to the railroaders, it was too cold for them to move grain. The rail system seems to not work in a Canadian winter. It was almost as if somebody had brought some folks up from Florida, with no offence to the good folks from Florida, and transplanted them into Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba in the middle of winter, and they did not know what to do because it was cold. The railroaders decided that was an excuse for them not to do what we felt they ought to be doing.

Unfortunately, the folks who suffered the most were the farmers. Ultimately what we saw was the price for them was not as lucrative as it may have been if the grain had actually been moving.

This speaks to the whole sense of how the system operates and how it should operate, and who is responsible to make sure it does operate. Clearly, it was not operating.

Many times we asked the minister in the House why over 40 ships were sitting in the port of Vancouver waiting for grain that was stuck on the Prairies. It was costing literally thousands of dollars a day.

The port manager at the port of Vancouver said that they were like car jockeys, except the problem is they were working with big ships. They are brought out of anchor, put at the dock, and when they find out there is no grain being delivered, the ship has to be moved off the dock because another one wants to come in. He said that every time an anchor is pulled up and a vessel comes in, it is a $10,000 move. That is a heck of a lot more money than someone who jockeys cars for a living, which might be $10.

Those were issues facing the farmers. That cost ends up going back through the system, and it is the farmers who pay, because they get less for their grain. At a time when they should have been getting a good price, in fact one might say they should have been getting a great price, they were getting less because the system was not working.

There are farmers who fill their own hopper cars, what the trade calls producer cars, which is simply a small railroad somewhere owned by a group of farmers who got into a co-op and decided to pool their resources. They get the short-line railroad and bring the cars down to the main line. When they put in orders for producer cars, they were not seeing any. They were being told that they should just truck their grain to an elevator. The problem was the elevators were full. The elevators were saying not to truck it to them because they had no space.

It ends up being stored. Many farmers had contracts. The government was always good about talking about forward contracts, that if they were forwarded out, they could make some money. The problem was they had forward contracts, but that time would come and go, and they could not move anything, because there was no room in the elevator. The elevators were still full because the railroaders were not getting an opportunity to move the grain, because of the cold winter, they say.

Ultimately, the folks who paid in all of this were indeed the farmers on the prairies.

We saw the order in council come through, and then Bill C-30 came forward. We tried to work with that. We tried to push some amendments on what the fines should be like. We actually agreed with Premier Brad Wall. We thought we should double the fine. The government proposed $100,000. We thought it should be $200,000. We actually agreed with the Premier of Saskatchewan. Many people out there would probably not believe that we would agree with Premier Wall on that particular issue, but we did.

We also pushed forward a number of amendments on how we could have some sort of transparency in the system so that farmers could follow whether the ship was in port, whether the grain was moving, where it was stuck, what the final price was, and why the farmers got a particular price when they sold to the elevators.

Many of us in the agricultural field know that there is a set price for grain travelling west to the port of Vancouver. The railroads charge a set price, so it is easy for farmers to calculate if they know the final price at the port destination. Farmers can calculate how much it cost to send it to the elevator, how much it cost for the elevation of it, and how much it cost to transport it.

Some reports, one of which came from a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, said that the farmers were basically losing $160 per tonne because of the way the system had plugged up. That being the case, the opportunity for farmers to take a bumper crop and turn it into a bumper financial crop was wasted because of what happened with the railroads.

The motion talks about making sure that this does not happen again, but what we need to see is that the government makes sure it does not happen again. We need a system of fair rail and a system that allows those who ship to make the railroads accountable.

I talked about agreeing with Mr. Wall, but I suggested in an amendment at committee that we should have open rail. Two companies in this country do not want open rail, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, which I find ironic, because they do not mind asking the United States for open rail. They do not want to see competition. We actually think that if we had competition in the system, if we had transparency in the system, like they do in the U.S., where they can actually tell what the grain price is at the port of Seattle, farmers would know if they were not getting a fair price. It would give them more leverage and more information, and information in the marketplace is important when they make those final decisions to sell now or sell later or to contract it. Ultimately, we have seen a system that does not function well for farmers.

Another amendment we pushed was to make sure that now that we have to move a million tonnes, it will be fairly distributed. What we saw justified our fears. The railroads figured out how to turn it around fast. Basically they chose the elevators closest to the western port of Vancouver, and the rest, who were further east, suffered.

Many of us who have kids or grandkids who like Cheerios will remember that the Cheerios factory was going to shut down. Why did that happen? It was because the oat farmers in this country supply all the oats needed in the United States to make Cheerios. However, there were no trains moving north-south. They tried to take the shortest route back and forth through the western corridor and did not run north-south at all.

I spoke to an oat farmer not long ago. He said that there is still an issue trying to get trains to come and serve them. Clearly this is a government that did not actually get the job done, even though we had Bill C-30. We suggested that they do not sunset the clauses in it. The Conservatives decided that they would sunset the clauses in it.

I would say to the government that if it is to do a rail review, it should not worry about the carrot; it should get out the big stick. If it is to bargain with two railroads, they will bring big sticks, and if the government does not bring a big stick, it will lose.

Then again, there will be an election, and by that time, we will have the big stick, when we sit over there. We will make sure that the railroads deliver service to farmers across the prairies and that they get the service they deserve.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state on behalf of our government that we support private member's Motion No. 550. At its core, the motion calls upon our government to take steps to provide an increased level of rail service throughout Canada. It is our government's position that we have already taken important steps toward addressing the various concerns that have been outlined in Motion No. 550.

There are a number of elements to this motion. I would like to address them in the short amount of time that I have today.

The motion asks that our government recognize the importance of rail service to Canada's agricultural sector. I maintain that our government understands the importance of the relationship between these two sectors. We have also taken action in recent years to ensure an appropriate framework is in place that will benefit the overall Canadian economy. The vast majority of Canada's agricultural products are destined for export. As such, the agricultural industry is highly dependent on reliable and efficient rail service in order to be able to move this product to export positions across the country. Rail remains the most economically viable form of land-based transportation over long distances in Canada. Overall, an efficient and effective rail transport system is necessary for the prosperity of Canada's economy.

One of my colleagues recited some statistics during the first hour of debate but I think they bear repeating.

In 2013, Canada's railways moved 16.4% of Canada's exports and 8.5% of its imports when measured by value, including $30 billion worth of automobiles, $10.6 billion in chemical products, $9.5 billion in forest products, and $8.2 billion in metals. Finally, the railways also moved $3.5 billion in agriculture and food products. As my hon. colleagues know, in 2013-14 the western Canadian crop was significantly higher than the 10-year average. The harsh winter that followed brought difficult operating conditions for the railways. This put significant pressure on western Canada's grain handling and transportation system. To alleviate some of the difficulties that agricultural producers were facing in getting their product to market, our government announced an order in council on March 7, 2014, setting out the minimum volumes of grain that the Canadian National Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Limited were each required to move to ensure that Canada's grain could move to market in a predictable and timely way while not affecting the movement of other commodities. This measure helped move the extraordinary backlog of grain.

Motion No. 550 also states that the review of the Canada Transportation Act provides an opportunity to rebalance the system and improve capacity and service, and that changes to the legislative frameworks may be needed to ensure a balance of power between participants in supply chains. Our government took swift action last year by introducing the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act to respond to concerns raised by grain shippers to support the movement of Canada's agricultural products to market and also to encourage greater competition between the railways. The legislation was designed to increase supply chain transparency, strengthen the contracts between producers and shippers, provide better accountability in agreements and contracts between shippers and railways, and help ensure the entire grain handling and transportation system is working efficiently and at full capacity.

Last summer, the Minister of Transport also launched a statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act, the CTA, a full year ahead of schedule, to address a range of changing conditions and challenges. The independent review, led by the hon. David Emerson, is currently examining a wide range of issues facing the transportation system in Canada, including those related to the transportation of grain as well as other commodities by rail. Engagement and advice from all interested parties will be essential to this review's success. The review panel will produce its report at the end of the year, at which time our government will study it and report back to Parliament. The review provides an opportunity to examine whether the current legislative framework meets the demands and needs of stakeholders. However, given that the report is not expected for several months, I think it would be premature to presuppose what the panel's recommendations will be and whether further legislative action will be required to address those issues. Therefore, we should wait to see what the recommendations of the panel are.

Finally, the motion asks that we bring industry stakeholders together to enhance the efficiency of the transportation system and make sure that these stakeholders work together to build a world-class transportation system. Collaboration and partnerships throughout the supply chain remain integral to moving as much grain as possible. The supply chain is complex, an integrated network that requires extensive co-operation on the part of everyone involved to increase its overall flexibility.

As part of our response to the 2011 rail freight service review panel's final report, our government committed to the creation of the Commodity Supply Chain Table. The Minister of Transport launched this table last summer. This brings together participants in rail-based supply chains for Canada's most important export commodities. The mandate of that table is to provide a consensus-based national forum for shippers, railways, and other supply chain partners involved in the movement of commodities by rail to identify and address system issues that would improve the reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness of the supply chain.

Members of the table will work together in a collaborative fashion to examine issues affecting fluidity of commodity movement and improve their knowledge of the supply chain for commodities by sharing information on emerging issues and needs. Stakeholders who have participated in the process so far have provided positive feedback about the commodity supply chain table. The work is being undertaken by both the public and private sectors, and it is very encouraging. Participants are looking forward to the next meetings, which are scheduled for later this year.

Our government is supporting efforts that result in the best possible rail-based supply chain system so that Canada's agricultural sector can remain competitive in domestic, continental, and offshore markets. We will continue to closely monitor the functioning of the rail transportation system and its interaction with the agricultural sector, with a view to ensuring that it continues to support our trade objectives and strong overall economic growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for their work. Every member wants to promote the smooth functioning of the agricultural system and the emancipation of agricultural industries. I would also like to commend the member for Sydney—Victoria for moving this motion, which just received the government's support. I would therefore like to thank her once again for getting the government's support for her motion.

On February 5, I moved a similar motion at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That motion had the same objectives as those we are talking about today. In fact, I asked the committee to immediately examine the problems that currently exist with the transportation of agricultural products by consulting all of the stakeholders. In that motion, I said that given recent reports on the deterioration of rail service, ongoing problems with the provision of cars to transport grain and the specific impact of ongoing transportation problems in the agricultural sector, we proposed that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food immediately examine the problems that currently exist with the transportation of agricultural products, establish long-term projections for 2015 and consult all members of the grain supply chain, including producers, elevator operators, grain companies and rail companies.

Unfortunately, the government refused to step up to its responsibilities, and that could happen with this motion too. However, once again, there is good news. I hope that this will change things.

A year ago, I was here to talk about the same problem in the context of Bill C-30, which was designed to resolve the grain transportation crisis farmers were experiencing. I do not need to paint a picture to make the point that the Conservatives' decisions have not solved much of anything in the past year and that farmers are still in the same boat. I am proud to express my support for this motion.

We need to talk about the context and compare the situation to last year. As I said, and as happens so often with government bills, I get the feeling I'm going through exactly what happened last year all over again.

Last year, farmers' growth was hampered by inefficient CN and CP services. At the time, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that rail companies were providing adequate service, but thousands of farmers were exasperated by the fundamental flaws in the grain transportation system.

How are things now? About the same. Rail companies delivered over 11,000 orders late. That is about 11% of their orders. Ongoing delays have cost the Canadian economy over $8 billion. What is more, in the past six months, fewer than half of all orders were delivered on time.

What did the government decide to do? It decided not to renew the requirements that CN and CP transport a minimum volume of grain. We also found out that, after having rejected an offer to purchase from an association of Canadian farmers, the Conservatives offered up a majority stake in the Canadian Wheat Board on a silver platter to foreign interests. That is another Conservative decision that shows a lack of support for Canadian farmers.

Again, a year later, farmers have lost $8.3 billion. They have received nothing, apart from compensation under Bill C-30, which puts them back into a similar situation today.

I deplore the fact that there still has not been any compensation for the losses suffered by producers, especially for the crises and problems that occurred in previous years. A responsible government is able to prevent such situations, instead of always finding temporary solutions to these messes.

In other words, Bill C-30 had very little impact in the medium and long term. It simply brought everything back to square one.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we here? For the same reasons that the opposition always has to go over the flawed bills introduced by this government, which, despite the warnings of my colleagues and stakeholders, refuses to listen.

We are in the same situation because in enacting Bill C-30, the government did not listen to all the stakeholders. A number of them were critical of the government for getting rid of the CWB and said that the board was useful when it came to grain transportation. However, the government did nothing about it, and today it is encouraging the sale of the CWB to foreign interests.

The stakeholders were calling for a mechanism to evaluate the performance and quality of rail freight services, but the government rejected that idea.

Today, the stakeholders are claiming that service is still bad. They say they are frustrated by the persistent delays, whereas the government is still saying that everything is just fine.

As usual, things were done too quickly without any plan or long-term vision. The government disregarded our amendments, which took into account all the requests of all stakeholders, not just those of the corporations and the major producers. The government did not implement enough of the necessary sanctions to ensure the efficient transportation of grain by rail.

In closing, the situation is critical because this government mismanaged it and the minister keeps saying that rail companies are doing just fine.

What should have been done and what should we be doing now?

Adopting the proposed amendments would have addressed the root of the problem. My party fought to have Bill C-30 consider the interests of farmers and not just those of major producers.

Our amendments would have implemented mandatory reporting of the price of grain throughout the transportation system, required adequate service in rail transportation corridors and ensured that producers in all affected regions would be consulted about the regulations.

That could have prevented the current crisis, but it is pointless to talk about the past. We have a mess in our hands and we have to deal with it.

We have to examine this crisis and take action to establish new communications protocols and new penalties for non-compliance with delivery agreements. We must also ensure that producers have information about exports and ships and establish the mandatory reporting of price throughout the grain handling chain. All producers, even small ones, must have equitable access to rail infrastructure, and we have to think long term by developing a strategy for the future of rail service that will consider the growth of the agricultural sector.

The minister needs to step up and admit that he failed in his obligations. He must admit that he made a mistake by abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board, by supporting the sale of this former crown corporation to foreign interests, by refusing to be transparent about exports and by refusing to bring in performance standards for rail transportation.

In addition, the Minister of Transport needs to impose the fines she promised to impose—$100,000 per day and not per week—on the companies that do not comply with the agreements.

It is time that the government started listening and started working with all stakeholders in order to resolve the grain transportation issue once and for all. That is why I support this motion and why I will vote in favour of it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to support Motion No. 550 and to speak about our government's ongoing work to provide an increased level of rail service throughout Canada.

Our government has already taken steps to improve rail service for all shippers in Canada and in doing so, has enhanced the competitiveness of the Canadian economy and the economic prosperity of all Canadians.

As part of our government's response to the events last winter that hampered the timely and efficient movement of western grain to market, the Minister of Transport advanced the launch of the statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act by a full year. In doing so, she gave the review panel the explicit mandate to consider the provisions of the act that are relevant to the transportation of grain by rail, while taking into account the broader goal of a commercially based, market-driven, multi-modal transportation system that delivers the best possible service to all users. Many of the provisions that are relevant to the movement of grain also apply more broadly to supply chains for the movement of other export commodities that are dependent upon rail and upon which the success of Canada's exporters is based.

I should note that the review panel will also examine the act to ensure that Canada's rail system has the capacity and adaptability that will allow it and its users to respond effectively to changing economic conditions in both international and domestic markets. This examination includes a look at the major trends on an international and domestic basis that are relevant to the understanding of future demands for transportation capacity in Canada. In turn, this will help us understand whether existing or planned capacity and performance improvements will respond sufficiently to these needs and can address periodic demands for surge capacity.

As many of my hon. colleagues probably already know, the review panel has been quite active since its launch. It has issued a discussion paper, called for submissions and met with the stakeholders throughout the country, and its work continues. I think my hon. colleagues would also agree that it is important that we let the review panel conduct its work in an independent fashion and await its recommendations.

Our government is proud to work with its stakeholders to build a world-class transportation system.

I am pleased to highlight two initiatives to enhance the collaboration among all participants in Canada's supply chains to address issues and ensure Canadian exports can reach their markets in a timely and efficient way.

The first initiative is to establish a commodity supply chain table last summer by the Minister of Transport. The table provides a forum for shippers, railways, ports, terminals and other partners in the rail-based supply chains to work together on ways to improve the speed and efficiency with which Canada's commodity exports reach their markets.

This important co-operative forum brings together key representatives from Canada's agricultural, forestry, chemical and petroleum product sectors with those from its railroads, ports, grain elevators and shipowners to work together in a collaborative fashion to identify issues and explore potential solutions to the challenges facing Canada's rail-based supply chain.

This table meets twice a year, once in the fall and once in the spring. Facilitated by officials from Transport Canada it promotes exchanges on logistical issues affecting supply chains in Canada for bulk commodities that are shipped by rail. It also gives service providers and shippers in these supply chains the opportunity to share information on trends and expected future traffic and commodity movements. In this respect, one of the table's top priorities is to work on the development of performance metrics that will help to increase the transparency and visibility of the system's overall performance and identify areas where improvements may be needed.

The second initiative is our government's Asia-Pacific intermodal performance committee of the national transportation system performance table, which is also managed by Transport Canada. This committee is an initiative that engages the public and private sectors with the goal of improving the efficiency and competitiveness of the supply chain for containers moving through Canada's west coast over the long term.

The committee is composed of a cross section of major transportation, shipping and labour interests operating in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It uses a monthly scorecard of metrics to tackle supply chain issues that are common to the users and beyond the capacity of single organizations to resolve.

I would like to note that this table follows on the success of another forum, the winter contingency planning table. That was established to enhance co-operation between shippers, the railroads and terminal operators at Port Metro Vancouver, and to improve the performance and capacity of the Asian-Pacific gateway by addressing winter-related supply chain issues. Participants at this table share information on forecasts for commodity movements and expected changes to the capacity and infrastructure improvements, as well as discuss specific issues and potential solutions to the problems that arose during the previous winter season.

In summary, the Minister of Transport launched a review of the Canada Transportation Act a full year ahead of schedule in response to problems that emerged in the rail-based supply chain for moving western grain. Its recommendations will provide the opportunity to improve the capacity and service for all of those who rely on the railways to move their products to the market.

This government is taking the necessary steps to build a world-class transportation system which Canadian firms and exporters can rely on to succeed in competitive domestic and international marketplaces. We will continue to listen to all stakeholders in an effort to implement an economic, legal and regulatory framework that reflects the importance of rail service and capacity for the Canadian economy and the Canadian agricultural sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to finish the debate on Motion No. 550 at second reading.

I have to thank my colleagues, like the member for Welland, for bringing to our attention that most of the Cheerios eaten in the United States come from Canadian oats, and the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, where I went to agricultural college, who spoke in favour of my motion, and the NDP member for Berthier—Maskinongé because she does a lot of hard work with farmers at the agricultural committee, and the member for Yellowhead who also made comments tonight.

The motion is that in the opinion of the House the government should take steps to increase the rail service and capacity, to rebalance the system, to increase effectiveness and efficiency in our transportation system, and to address the imbalance of power along the logistics chain. Finally, it is to work together to build a world-class transportation system, which Canadians did many years ago. We have to continue to make this a great country and move our grains to the markets that are looking for them.

The bottom line is that the grain handling and transportation system remains inadequate and with little ability to cope with volume surges and adverse weather, as many of my colleagues said tonight.

Shippers remain captive with no competitive commercial alternatives and no legal recourse when the system fails. Threatened fines to be paid to the government have no real impact and are no substitute for the damages payable directly to affected shippers and farmers.

These systematic issues are putting Canada's reputation as a preferred trading partner at risk and threatening future investment in our country. We saw this when boats were sitting in the bay in Vancouver.

We know that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has recently returned from Japan where he was trying to do damage control and saying that we are back. We should have been there two years ago to make sure that Japanese boats were not leaving the harbour and going to the United States to pick up grain.

The most recent weekly performance update by the Agriculture Transportation Coalition showed that the total unfilled shipper demand remains at over 23,000 cars, with denied orders and railway cancellations being nearly 10,000 orders. More than 3,700 customer orders, approximately 41% of unfilled orders, have been outstanding for four weeks or longer. This is unacceptable.

These issues began in 2007, starting with former Bill C-58. After many reviews and other pieces of legislation, the problem was not solved. Farmers continue to lose money, estimated at $5 billion a year.

It has also been costly for the national economy and for Canada's reputation, as I mentioned, as a reliable grain supplier. Accountability can only be achieved if performance expectations are well-defined, balanced, measurable, and transparent. Having an efficient and effective logistics system is a critical part of the sector's ability—some have mentioned in the House this evening that the United States has a better system than we do—to maintain and grow high value demand both here at home and abroad.

This system has a unique duty as one of the bedrocks of the Canadian economy. The success of the railways, handlers, and farmers are interconnected. Shippers of all shapes and sizes need equal access if we are to protect Canada's reputation as an exporter and grow our markets.

The system needs to adapt to the increasing growing capacity of Canadian farmers because with global climate change we are growing more and better products with our innovation. The system needs to be able to accommodate small volume crops.

As we heard, we are not getting our oats down to the United States. There is more than just shipping to Vancouver or Thunder Bay. We have to go north and south. We are also shipping quite a bit to Mexico.

To avoid crises, the next version of the Canada Transportation Act needs to ensure more collaboration, clearer consequences, better rewards, more data sharing, and equitable distribution of car allocations.

Since the first reading of the motion in February, I, along with my colleagues from Wascana, Ottawa South, and the member for Winnipeg North have met many prairie farmer groups from across this country here in Ottawa. Also, there were round tables from all of the western provinces. We met with many of them, like the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, the Prairie Oat Growers Association and the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum.

We are consistently being told that there is no equity in the treatment of shipping corridors. Whether it is west, east, north or south, for producer cars or short-line rail operators, the grain handling and transportation system remains non-transparent. The Conservatives will not be renewing the requirements of the CN and CP Rail to transport minimum volumes, which just expired. Farmers will have to wait even longer for results.

Unfortunately, there are no substantial improvements to this bottleneck. However, I sense that we have an agreement here. I sense that all members of this House are in favour of my motion. This is for the grain farmers of Canada. This is for the people around the world who want our grain, and this is for the people and the economy of Canada.

I thank all for the support we have tonight and my colleagues who have joined with me this evening.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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