Monday, February 9, 1998
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 055 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, February 9, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 3517 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, February 9, 1998 The House met at 11 a.m. Canada’s inability to deliver product. This does not only reflect poorly on westerners but on Canada as a whole in the international _______________ marketplace. Prayers I would also like to inform the House that this motion does not put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting any changes _______________ in policy. I am suggesting that we, as parliamentarians, listen to stakeholders involved, draft a report and table that report to the PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS House for consideration. On December 18, 1997 the transport minister sent out a news D (1100) release announcing the appointment of the hon. Justice Estey to [English] conduct a review of Canada’s grain handling transportation system. The timing is very important. In October I put forward this motion GRAIN TRANSPORTATION to committee. In December of that same year the government did announce Mr. Estey as being the individual who would take the Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved: review forward. There are still some issues and some problems That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately conduct a with that. I would like to consider that the transportation committee review, with the participation of all stakeholders, to develop a solution to grain and the agricultural committee have a joint committee struck so we transportation inefficiencies. can, as parliamentarians, listen to stakeholders and put forward D (1105 ) their views to this House in a separate report. He said: Mr. Speaker, what a better way to start a Monday I welcome the appointment. It has been a long time coming. A morning than to speak in this wonderful Chamber. I know that you, preliminary report will be available by May 31, 1998. The final Mr. Speaker, having rested over this past weekend, will no doubt report of the review is to be completed by December 31, 1998. appreciate the comments that I as well as members of other opposition parties will make. A grain review advisory council comprising of representatives from grain handling and transportation will be appointed by the Unfortunately the motion was deemed non-votable. I would have Minister of Transport to support Mr. Estey throughout the review preferred it votable, but when I appeared before committee there were only so many motions that could be put forward as votable. process. Hopefully the advisory council will not end in the same This was not chosen as one of them. fate that the western grain marketing panel suffered after most of its key recommendations were shelved after they were given to the This motion is what I believe to be one of the major agricultural minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. issues that will be facing Canadian producers and certainly Cana- dian trade in not only 1998 but years to follow. I welcome the government’s decision to finally begin the process of the review. The unfortunate part of this is it is about two years I put forward Motion 225: too late. With this review scheduled to end by December 1998, it That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately conduct a will not be until 1999 when there can be something actually done review, with the participation of all stakeholders, to develop a solution to grain transportation inefficiencies. about the recommendations. As part of my presentation to the committee, I quoted that the That being said, I would now like to elaborate on my motion delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international customers, today which unfortunately was deemed not votable. primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage charges of $65 million paid for primarily by producers. It has been estimated that On July 25, 1997 the federal ministers of transport and agricul- an additional $35 million was lost in potential sales because of ture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board 3518 COMMONS DEBATES February 9, 1998 Private Members’ Business convened a grain summit in Winnipeg. A key objective was to that $35 million was lost in potential sales because of Canada’s gauge the interest among those who handled and transported grain inability to deliver. These are conservative estimates. and the value of embarking on a comprehensive review system. It was a productive exercise but it did not answer the problems that Prairie pools, for example, have suggested estimates of hundreds thousands of farmers have out west with our current system. of millions of dollars in lost sales of prairie products. This does not However, there was a consensus that the review should be con- only reflect poorly on westerners but Canada as a whole and the ducted in 1999. With all due respect, Canadian farmers cannot wait international global marketplace. for two years. Instead of dealing with the situation rationally, the Canadian We as parliamentarians have a role and a duty in committee to Wheat Board’s knee-jerk reaction to the problem was to file a begin immediately to listen to the concerns of all stakeholders so complaint against CN rail before the CTA, which is only costing that we may be able to have a better understanding as to how we taxpayers and producers more money, in a battle of egos instead of might tackle this problem. sitting down rationally in committee and solving the problem. I have asked the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat D (1110) Board to drop the complaint so that we can get on with the constructive review. He has declined to do so. Unlike what the Canadian Wheat Board and CN have done, the committee review I also understand how we might tackle the problem. I also will not be an exercise in finger pointing. believe that the most appropriate way of conducting an immediate comprehensive review is to form a joint standing committee of agriculture and agri-food and transport, pursuant to Standing Order The CTA hearing has literally handcuffed the government’s 108(1)(a). The committee would hear witnesses from farming ability to conduct this review on grain transportation. Legislation communities across western Canada, railways, the Canadian Grain governing the Canada Transportation Act allows 120 days to lapse Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and those who operate between the time a complaint is filed and when the public hearing and regulate the industry. must take place. Unfortunately the CTA has delayed public hearings three times I would also like to dispel any thoughts that this is an issue that since the complaint began and now is not scheduled to hear until affects only western Canada. It is an issue that has widespread March 1998. ramifications across Canada even though it has directly affected those west of the Ontario border. It is Canada’s international Once again I would like to inform this House that this motion reputation that is at stake as supplier of some of the world’s best does not put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting any grain and best product. changes in policy. I am only suggesting that we, as parliamentari- ans, listen to stakeholders, draft a report and table the report for The review is necessary because of the new market realities for consideration in the House of Commons. Canadian grain. With the end of the Crow rate two years ago, farmers have to be more competitive. Also, it should be noted that Every provincial government in western Canada wants the the federal government’s 13,000 hopper fleet is yet to be sold, review conducted as soon as possible. Even Saskatchewan’s trans- leaving farmers wondering the government’s reasoning for not port minister has said, referring to Ottawa’s response to the issue, it doing anything with it. This is not helping the situation. is a process that is taking much too long. There is not a stakeholder involved who does not want an immediate inquiry into the issue. The review should assess the effectiveness of the process, the adequacy of shipper protection, lack of railway competition and The committee process is vital to our role as parliamentarians. alternatives and potential improvements and efficiencies, bearing Since the time of Confederation, the House of Commons has in mind the costs to all stakeholders. created committees to study matters of national importance. It is just one of many issues that are important to western Canadians and Canada’s reputation. If anything, I hope this exercise is not a Canada exports approximately $18 billion to $20 billion worth waste of time. At the very least those on the government side can of food products every year. About half of those exports are grains, consider this an information session so that the next time they oilseeds and related products. Inefficiencies in the management of might actually try to listen to the concerns of farmers across the Canadian grain transportation system have caused serious western Canada and be proactive instead of reactive. damage to the Canadian grain export industry and prairie economy. D (1115) Delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international consumers, primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage costs of approxi- I have a number of concerns. As I said earlier, Mr. Justice Estey mately $65 million, paid for by producers. It has been estimated has been identified as the individual to take this banner across February 9, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 3519 Private Members’ Business western Canada to try to find out exactly what the inefficiencies The problem with that is that road infrastructure is being are in the transportation system.