OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 078 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 1, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 1, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 078 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 078 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 078 (Version officielle) 147 078 01 05 2014 2014/05/01 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association that was held in Washington, D.C., United States of America, February 21-24, 2014.

[ Translation ] Petitions Human Rights in Venezuela Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of citizens from across Quebec, including many originally from Venezuela. The petitioners are expressing their concerns about the situation in Venezuela and proposing various courses of action for the government to consider.

[ English ] Blood and Organ Donation Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is the iCANdonate, which calls on this House to look at science and science only when it comes to donation of organs and not one's sexual orientation.

Lyme Disease Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on Lyme disease. The petitioners call on the government to undertake a study of this disease which now seems to be increasing, especially in my riding where we have seen a number of cases. I have spoken to the young people who are affected. Clearly we need to understand this disease better. We need better testing, better understanding of it, and better treatment.

The Senate Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a very timely petition, signed by residents of Winnipeg North regarding the Senate. Given what the Supreme Court just had to say, my constituents are asking that Parliament or the Prime Minister look at ways to reform the Senate that would not require constitutional amendment.

Agriculture Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit two petitions. The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to refrain from making changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act.

Divorce Act Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents in my riding, calling on the government to support Bill C-560 .

Canada Post Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents who are opposed to the cuts to Canada Post. The petitioners believe that Canada Post should not be raising prices while cutting service that would disadvantage many people who rely on door-to-door delivery. They would like Canada Post to reverse that decision.

Agriculture Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions. The first petition is with regard to Bill C-18 .

Canada Post Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to Canada Post.

Firearms Reclassification Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition requests the House of Commons to fix the legislation so unelected bureaucrats can no longer have control over weapons and firearms classifications.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from thousands of Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation management of sharks. The petitioners call on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

41st General Election Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition on behalf of members of my constituency and many Nova Scotians beyond, including South Shore—St. Margaret's, who call on the government to reject Bill C-23 and bring forward genuine electoral reform that will stop fraud, prevent big money from distorting elections, and ensure every Canadian can exercise their right to vote.

Falun Gong Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition has signatures of over 5,000 Canadians, primarily from the Toronto area, calling on the government to do everything possible to reach out to the People's Republic of China to protect human rights, particularly those of Falun Gong and Falun Dafa practitioners.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of my own riding, Saanich—Gulf Islands primarily, although there are some names here from Gibsons, Roberts Creek, and also Bolton, Ontario, but also Pender Island, Mayne Island, Saturna, and Sidney within my riding. The petitioners are calling on this Parliament and the government to put in place a full and comprehensive plan to address the climate crisis and to bring down greenhouse gases by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Blood and Organ Donation Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the people who signed this petition are calling upon the Government of Canada to change the policy and law on organ donation in Canada. They ask that the sexual preferences of people not be grounds for instant refusal of the right to donate.

Shark Finning Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I too rise, along with my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster , to present a petition from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. The petitioners are calling on the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

(1010) Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 325, 327, and 329. [ Text ]

Question No. 325--

Hon. Wayne Easter :

With regard to postal service, for each Forward Sortation Area, what is: (

a) the total number of households; and (

b) the total number of residents, who receive residential mail service in (

i) houses, (ii) apartments, (iii) farms, distinguished by each of the following delivery methods: letter carrier walks, rural routes, suburban service, general delivery, lock boxes, call for, and direct?

Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the information requested is available on the Canada Post website in the Urban and Rural Delivery Area Counts and Maps

section at http://www.postescanada.ca/cpo/mc/business/tools/hcm/default.jsf?LOCALE=en.

Question No. 327--

Hon. Wayne Easter :

With regard to the administration of Employment Insurance (EI) in Prince Edward Island (PEI): (

a) what are the criteria behind the definition of capital and non-capital EI regions within PEI, (

i) why is Oyster Bed Bridge within the non-capital region, (ii) why is Toronto Road within the capital region; (

b) what are the estimated costs resulting from the creation of capital and non-capital regions in PEI; and (

c) for two individuals fishing on North Rustico Harbour, one individual within the capital region and one individual within the non-capital region, what are the effects of the creation of capital and non-capital regions on each individual's total annual income?

Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a),

section 54(

w) of the Employment Insurance Act, the EI Act, specifies that the EI economic regions should be established based on geographical units established or used by Statistics Canada. As announced by the Minister of Employment and Social Development, the proposed EI economic region of Charlottetown would consist of the 2011 census agglomeration of Charlottetown defined by Statistics Canada, while the proposed non-capital EI economic region would consist of all remaining geographical units outside the census agglomeration of Charlottetown.

With regard to (a)(i), Oyster Bed Bridge is located in census subdivision lot 24, which is not included in the 2011 census agglomeration of Charlottetown.

With regard to (a)(ii), Toronto Road is located in census subdivision lot 23, which is located within the 2011 census agglomeration of Charlottetown.

With regard to (b), it is estimated that on an annual basis, there will be approximately $1million more in EI benefits available as a result of the proposed modifications to create capital and non-capital EI economic regions in PEI.

With regard to (c), EI eligibility and entitlement and the amount of benefits are generally based on the residence of claimants, not on the location of work.

It is not possible to predict what the monthly unemployment rates for the purpose of EI will be in each EI economic region. As the change will come into force on October 12, 2014, the unemployment rates for the two new EI economic regions will only be known at that time.

Eligibility for EI fishing benefits is based on insured earnings, unlike EI regular benefits, for which eligibility is based on insured hours. Fishers can generally qualify for fishing benefits with a minimum of between $2,500 and $4,200 in insured earnings from fishing, depending on the unemployment rate in their EI region. Entitlement to EI fishing benefits is not linked to the regional unemployment rate. Fish harvesters continue to receive up to 26 weeks of benefits within a period, depending on when they apply.

The benefit rate is also calculated dependent on the regional unemployment rate for EI purposes through the divisor used to establish average weekly earnings from fishing earnings.

Question No. 329--

Hon. John McKay :

With regard to the purchase of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Mortgage Loan Insurance by first-time homebuyers in 2013: (

a) how many first-time buyers bought insurance; (

b) what was the average amount insured; (

c) what was the median amount insured; (

d) what was the average cost of insurance; (

e) what was the median cost of insurance; and (

f) what would the answers to (

d) and (

e) have been, had the insurance rates announced on February 27, 2014 been in effect on January 1, 2013?

Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), 98,714 loans were insured by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, in 2013 for lenders where borrowers were classified by the originating lending institution as first-time homebuyers. As mortgage loan insurance protects lenders against losses in the event of borrower default, the lender is the client and is the purchaser of the insurance. Most lenders pass on the cost of the insurance to the borrower.

With regard to (b), the average amount insured for first-time homebuyers in 2013 was $240,078.

With regard to (c), the median amount insured for first-time homebuyers in 2013 was $223,200.

With regard to (d), the average cost of insurance for first-time homebuyers in 2013 was $6,102.

With regard to (e), the median cost of insurance for first-time homebuyers in 2013 was $5,669.

With regard to (f), if rates announced on February 28, 2014, had been in effect on January 1, 2013, the average cost of insurance would have been $7,017 and the median cost of insurance would have been $6,519. As announced on February 28, 2014, effective May 1, 2014, CMHC mortgage insurance premiums for homeowners and 1-4 unit rental properties will increase by approximately 15% on average, for all loan-to-value ranges. In 2013, the average CMHC insured loan at 95% loan-to-value was $248,000.

Using these figures, the higher premium will result in an increase of approximately $5 to the monthly mortgage payment for the average Canadian homebuyer. This is not expected to have a material impact on the housing market.

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Points of Order Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 10, 2014, by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert , regarding the admissibility of an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for Bill C-30,

an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures and reported to the House on April 8, 2014. [ Translation ] I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their comments. [ English ] The member for Edmonton—St. Albert claimed that an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-30 is inadmissible, because it aims to amend a

section of the Canada Transportation Act that is not contained in the bill. He argued that, in so doing, the committee had exceeded its authority and went beyond the scope of the bill that had been referred to it. On April 28, 2014, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered the points made by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert . He asserted that the amendment in question was relevant and consistent with the subject matter of the bill, and respected the rules and usual practices of the House.

He explained that the amendment aimed to modify the Canada Transportation Act, which is under consideration in Bill C-30 . He also reminded the House that the amendment was considered without procedural objection and was adopted by a recorded vote without dissent. [ Translation ] In a Speaker’s ruling delivered on April 28, 1992, which can be found at page 9801 of Debates , Speaker Fraser explained the restrictions faced by committees when considering amendments to a bill. He said: As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions.

However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House. In relation to the Speaker’s authority with respect to amendments adopted in committee, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, at page 775 states: The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.

The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative. [ English ] I have reviewed the amendments adopted by the committee, and particularly the amendment that gave rise to this point of order, which created the new clause 5.1 in the bill. It amends

section 116 of the Canada Transportation Act, a

section that was not originally amended by the bill, to provide an additional power to the Canada Transportation Agency. The parliamentary secretary referred to several procedural authorities to support his arguments. Most notably, and helpfully, he quoted from House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, at page 766 on the issues of scope and relevance. However, in the same paragraph that he quoted from, a critical element went unmentioned. At pages 766 to 767, it also reads: In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a

section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. This is sometimes referred to as the parent act rule. The Chair has no difficulty agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Indeed, as a fellow Saskatchewan MP who represents a large number of grain producers, I can certainly agree on the importance of this issue. As Speaker, however, not only can I not simply act according to my personal beliefs, I must respect House of Commons precedents which, in the case before us, are only too clear.

Relevance is not the only test to be applied in judging admissibility. As the amendment in question reaches back into the parent act to modify a

section of the act originally untouched by the bill as passed at second reading, long-standing practice leaves the Chair no choice: the amendment and those consequential to it are inadmissible. The procedural jurisprudence is clear. I am therefore obliged to rule that the amendment, and the two other consequential amendments adopted by the committee, are null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am directing that the bill be reprinted without these amendments.

Let me close by recalling how the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has reminded the House that this bill enjoyed all-party support at second reading and that the specific measures this ruling addresses were unanimously agreed to in committee. In light of that, the Chair would be remiss if I did not, in turn, remind the House that, should there still be a clear will on the part of all parties in the House to effect these changes in the law, there are several very simple and straightforward procedural options available. (1015) [ Translation ] I thank honourable members for their attention.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act Bill C-33—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-33,

An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker : There will now be a 30-minute question period. I will ask members to keep their questions to around one minute and the responses to a similar length so that we can accommodate as many as possible. The hon. House leader of the official opposition. Mr. Peter Julian (House Leader of the Official Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by this for Canadians and for first nations. I am first saddened by the fact that this is now over 60 times that time allocation and closure measures have been brought into this House of Commons.

There is absolutely no question that is an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of the democratic framework that Canadians adhere to. [ Translation ] However, what is even more important is that first nations are strongly opposed to Bill C-33 . Many first nations are saying that it is not in line with what they want. Opposition to the bill is beginning to mount right across the country. It is clearly an abuse of Parliament. It is obvious that first nations are having a hard time accepting this bill.

Instead of consulting them, the minister and the government want to impose this bill on them and shut down debate, ending the discussions that should be held in the House. My question is simple. [ English ] Is it not because of the growing opposition from first nations across the country and the growing concerns about the bill that the government wants to shut down debate using closure, basically ending the discussion that should be held in the House? It is shameful.

I would like the minister to explain to first nations who have expressed so many concerns about the bill why he does not want to hear debate in the House of Commons.

(1020) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the NDP is becoming an accomplice of a few people determined to bring Canada's economy to its knees and to prevent first nations students on reserve, for the first time ever in the history of this country, from enjoying the same statutory right to education as other Canadians have. The position of the NDP was made clear yesterday. Those members will oppose the bill. If they have 10 or 15 more speakers who will say the same thing, we have heard it. We understand. As for the Liberals, they have indicated that they are ready to work constructively.

The constructive work can take place at the committee hearings of the standing committee to which the bill will be referred and where first nations will have the chance, just like other stakeholders and Canadians, to indicate their point of view on the bill, which will be transformational for first nations all across Canada. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : To be very clear, Mr. Speaker, what is really under debate right now is the government's use once again of time allocation to prevent members from fully participating in a debate on legislation.

No government in the history of Canada has invoked closure as many times as the current Conservative majority government. It is a different style of government. It goes against the principles of democracy and the manner in which the House should be operating. As has been pointed out, closure has been used over 60 times by the government to try to pass legislation. That is not healthy for democracy. I look to the government House leader , because he is the one responsible for what takes place inside the House and for making sure that things are done in an orderly fashion.

My question is not for the minister about the bill. My question is for the government House leader , who is responsible for the manner in which we are forcibly proceeding inside the chamber. Why has the majority Conservative government continued to use closure, thereby limiting the right of members of Parliament, and through members of Parliament, all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to ensure that there is due process when it comes to making and passing laws here in Canada? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the reason is clear and obvious.

Were it not for time allocation, first nations students on reserve would be deprived, as they have been for many decades, of enjoying the basic right to education. The hon. member knows very well that if it were left to the opposition, the government would not pass any laws. All the benefits Canadians get from the legislative agenda of this government, such as over one million jobs created because of our good governance of the country, would not happen.

All the good measures Canadians benefit from would not happen, because the mantra of members on the other side of the House is to oppose everything, and in this case, first nations students. It is urgent that the House adopt this to give those kids on reserve the right to education, which they plainly deserve. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, like my— [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. I am seeing some inquiries, perhaps, by body language, in the House.

The process for this type of question and answer period is for the opposition to be given priority for their questions, and questions and comments allowed from the government side are at a more limited level. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. (1025) [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash : Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who spoke earlier, I too am saddened by this motion that the government has moved. I am saddened because this really has nothing to do with the importance of education for first nations children. That is not the issue.

I think that we all agree that aboriginal children should receive the best education possible. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about are the government's constitutional obligations. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that. If there is one thing that should not be compromised, it is the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples. One of the government's obligations is to consult with first nations and accommodate the concerns that are raised during those consultations. That is not what happened.

I would like to hear the minister's comments on his understanding of the honour of the crown. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the honour of the crown is embodied in clause 5 of Bill C-33 , which is before the House: 5. This Act does not apply to (

a) a First Nation that has the power to make laws with respect to elementary and secondary education under

an Act of Parliament or an agreement relating to self-government that is given effect by

an Act of Parliament, including a First Nation that is named in the

schedule to the Mi’kmaq Education Act or the

schedule to the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act ; or (

b) the Sechelt Indian Band established by subsection 5(1) of the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act . Clause 4 states: 4. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 . That is what it means to respect the honour of the crown. [ English ] Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, listening to the discussion and the answers from the minister, it is pretty clear. This discussion is absolutely not about closure. It is really not about the Constitution. The discussion is about the NDP deciding not to support this bill for first nations children.

The discussion is about the NDP deciding to put the rights of first nations children on the back burner. We can wait another two or three or four decades, and they will never get an education and never participate in society. This is about putting the rights of first nations children first, not second or third or fourth. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed right. As a matter of fact, I am a bit astonished.

Since 1971, when the Indian Brotherhood issued its policy paper on Indian control of education, first nations students, chiefs, councils, and members of those communities throughout the country have been calling for control of their education system. Now our government is putting on the table incremental, committed funding of close to $2 billion to implement, for the first time, a school system that would bring about results and better outcomes on reserve, and this is opposed by the NDP. Well, it means that it simply wants to play politics on the backs of first nations students.

We do not accept that on this side of the House. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to time allocation, because the act that is before us is supported by some very prominent, important first nations organizations and is opposed by other chiefs and councils. It is obviously an issue of great importance. No one on this side of the House is paying less attention to first nations education than the minister, but the question of the complexity of the issue and getting it just right is paramount.

I have not heard a single reason advanced for why, once again, in anti-democratic contempt of this place, we have the 60th-plus use of time allocation on a government piece of legislation. Could the minister offer one single cogent reason why this place should rush through a bill of such importance and complexity?

(1030) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, very simply, the characterization by the hon. member of the procedure and the process omits saying that the best way to fully look at the different points of view on this bill is at the committee level. Once second reading is completed, there will be ample opportunity at the standing committee for members, witnesses, and people interested to weigh the points of view of those who favour and those who oppose it. We will let the hon. members at the standing committee do their job and report back to the House, where the debate will continue.

This is not about shutting down the debate. It is about ensuring that we can make a decision in the best time possible for first nation students to benefit from this legislation. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think you heard a lack of noise from this side when the House leader from the government moved the closure motion, because it is so usual for us to hear that. The minister suggested that somehow we oppose everything.

Let me remind the minister that today Bill C-30 will come before us and that it was this opposition, this New Democratic Party, this critic of agriculture, who said to the minister opposite, “We will help you, sir. We will help you get the legislation through. We will help you at committee. We will help you bring it back, because it is an emergency.” We intend to continue to do that. Unfortunately, as you heard earlier in the Speaker's ruling, the government brought forward amendments. What happened in its rush to do all of that? The government was ruled out of order. When we rush, we make mistakes.

That is a human frailty. It is not necessarily a Conservative frailty, albeit the government is the one that brings closure all the time. Clearly, its frailty is probably more obvious than anyone else's when it comes to making mistakes. This single piece of legislation is immensely important. I do not sit on that committee, so my opportunities to speak to this legislation are limited to this place. By doing what the government has done 60-odd times, it limits the opportunity for those of us who do not have the opportunity to go to committee. Some would ask why we do not just substitute in.

That would be an opportunity. However, I can imagine that the government would come up with some sort of ruling that there could only be so many substitutes, because if we all tried to substitute in to listen to committee hearings, the government would say that it would take too long as well. There are times we need to take the time to study. In this case, the minister should reconsider. I do not know why he wants to rush this through. Education is important for every child.

We agree with him that first nation children deserve to have the same education and the same opportunities as everyone else, but let us get it right in the first place. Let us not make mistakes. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened intently to the position of the official opposition on this bill. It opposed the principle of the bill. The opposition is very clear. I have been in this House long enough to say that I have never seen the opposition party change its mind on a bill after it has stated its opposition, and we know that it opposes this.

What is important is that Canadians, first nation members, stakeholders, and people who care can see the bill at committee, where the members will listen to witnesses and first nation representatives, and as the previous questioner said, weigh the views to ensure that at the end, we get a bill that enshrines in law the right of first nation students to have quality education and to finally get the outcomes they deserve. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I do have to oppose this over-60th time allocation motion.

The member for Welland made a very good point about the fact that, yes, this may go to committee, but there are a lot of members in this place who are extremely interested in this issue. As a result of the time allocation, we do not have the opportunity, and the public in Canada does not have the opportunity, to hear the views from a wide range of people from across the country. My colleague, our critic, spoke extensively on this issue yesterday. She outlined a number of concerns that should be talked about in this place, not just at committee. There are time allocation motions here.

We see the way the committees operate in this place, too, ramrodding a bill through without the committee hearing all the proper witnesses. Again, this is an affront to the democratic process by the Conservative government in terms of ramming legislation through. We know it has had five extensive defeats at the Supreme Court in the last month. That is what happens when the proper legislative inspection is not done in the House of Commons. Mistakes happen, and things get turned down by the Supreme Court. Then, to a certain extent, it has been a waste of time.

I encourage the minister to back off on the closure of this debate and to let proper debate on this legislative matter happen in this country. (1035) [ Translation ] Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same old story. What more can we say except that we must assess the process that led to the preparation of the bill and its introduction? For decades, first nations across the country have been asking for control over their own education system on reserve.

I cannot say it enough: it is very important and urgent that we provide the chiefs and band councils in the country with a legal framework that will enable them to provide first nations' children with an education system that produces results. That is what is driving the government's efforts. We have been working in concert with the first nations since 1971. For the first time, a government wants to take action on the Assembly of First Nations agreement. I am simply asking the hon. member that we hurry up and send this to committee so that we can pass this bill that will benefit the first nations. [ English ] Mr.

Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am kind of shocked and saddened to see exactly what is going on here today. Here is a very important piece of legislation for aboriginal students. It is a generation that we can capture and embrace. We are hearing that the NDP members will not even let it go to committee and that they are going to vote against it at second reading. They say they want to debate it, yet they will not even let it go to committee. It is shocking and saddening. We would spend some $1.9 billion on aboriginal students with this piece of legislation.

Can the minister tell us just how important it is that we not miss the members of this generation, that we embrace them, help them up, and give them a hand up, so they can participate in this blooming and growing economy we have here in Canada? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member. As a matter of fact, it is important to note that the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population is among the aboriginal community.

In many provinces throughout Canada, we have a cohort of young first nations kids who are going to enter the labour market in the next decade at a speed and a number that is incredible. These kids today too often graduate or get out of the school system, attempt to enter university or trade school, and they are lacking a degree that is comparable to what the non-aboriginal kids are getting.

This serious investment, incremental funding of $1.9 billion, over the $1.55 billion that we are currently investing, would provide first nations kids on reserve throughout the country with an education system that would be comparable to what their non-aboriginal neighbours are getting. This is the promise of the bill. This is the promise of Canada. Aboriginal people are fully members of our country and deserve the same rights as non-aboriginals.

(1040) Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, members have an opportunity at this moment in the proceedings to talk about why the government has introduced its 60th-plus time allocation motion on a bill that the minister himself said was so important in terms of its implications. We have some ideas on this side that are perhaps contrary to those of the minister and members opposite.

I am from Nova Scotia, where the first nations and Mi'kmaq have had control of their education system for the past 20 years and are doing just fine, thanks, without the support of the patrimony of the minister and his office. They do not need a superintendent provided by the minister, who reports to the minister on matters of education. I would like to have the opportunity to debate the issue, to explain the experience, as I understand it, from the perspective of the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia and of Nova Scotians about this issue and why I am concerned. I find it offensive.

The members opposite suggest that I should not have the right to stand and express my views, views that may be contrary to theirs. I would like him to explain why it is that I, who has been elected by the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, do not have the right, on an important piece of legislation like this, to explain what I and my constituents feel is important on this issue. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr.

Speaker, if he wants to talk about what is offensive, what is offensive is the hon. member leading people to believe that the bill would prevent first nations across Canada from becoming a self-governing institution over education, as is happening in Nova Scotia. He talks about Nova Scotia, and we all know about the success of the Nova Scotia system. If he cared to read this bill, he would know that it does not apply to Nova Scotia. He would also find out, if he read the bill, that this is probably the best promise for first nations to be able to get to the self-government level with their own education system.

Obviously, as you can hear, Mr. Speaker, he is not interested in the answer— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. There is too much chatter going back and forth in the House. I am having difficulty hearing the minister, even though he is less than 20 feet away from me. [ Translation ] Minister, you may continue. [ English ] Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show that when New Democrats ask a question and do not like the answer, they heckle. It does not change the fact. The fact is that members will have the chance to continue this debate.

We have until tomorrow at least, and then it will go to committee. There the hon. member is well represented by his party and he will have the chance, with other members, to see and hear witnesses and consider the bill. We shall get the report from the committee and act accordingly. What is important is that we do this as quickly as possible because the current non-system is failing a whole generation of first nation students. [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain one thing and that is the urgency of all this.

The funds will be available in 2016. If this were urgent, and if the government were taking it seriously, should the money not be available already? I lived on a reserve for two years. For 30 years, aboriginal people have been ready to get an education and to exercise the same rights as all other citizens in that regard. Until now they have only been given promises. That is probably the reason for the skepticism.

This is strangely similar to the promise about the Kelowna accord, a promise made by a government that, although on the verge of collapse, at the last minute gave out money that was not included in the budget. In the end, nothing happened. That is why aboriginal people are fed up.

(1045) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for the member to be coherent? He just said that over a period of more than 30 years, first nations children were deprived of an education system. We are bringing forward a bill that will finally give them this statutory right and his party is opposing it. He just mentioned the Kelowna accord. It was money thrown at them by the Liberals, without reforms and without a system to ensure the success of first nations children. We have invested and committed $1.9 billion in the budget, and he voted against it. I would like him to be coherent. Ms.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the minister is being hypocritical. This bill is about education in aboriginal communities, and just because the NDP has concerns about this bill, the Conservatives are accusing us of being against education in those communities. People may remember that, not so long ago, we had a bill before us that was supposed to fight child pornography. The NDP was concerned about the bill because it was poorly drafted. Because of its concerns, the NDP was accused of supporting child pornography.

Actually, the minister had to withdraw that statement. As it turned out, the bill was so badly written that the minister himself had to withdraw it. Let us remember that and put things into perspective. This debate is about more than education in first nations communities. It is also about the way the government drafts its bills, about how often they are messed up and badly written. The Conservatives do not even bother to consult the parties involved. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the member will be happy to learn that the process leading up to this bill took place over a long period of time.

Those drafting the bill considered the advice and opinions of countless first nations chiefs and band council members, school boards, first nations members and parents. The important thing now is to study this bill in committee and find out whether the real goal can be achieved through the provisions in the bill. The Deputy Speaker : Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1130) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 109) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Albas Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lauzon Leef Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 144 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Brahmi Brison Byrne Caron Casey Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Fortin Freeland Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Hyer Jacob Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Patry Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Turmel Valeriote -- 116 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to)

[ Translation ] Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act Bill C-30. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30,

An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures , as reported (without amendment) from the committee. The Deputy Speaker : There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. [ English ] Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, CPC) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. The Deputy Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Gerry Ritz Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to report Bill C-30 back to the House. The bill addresses the immediate needs of Canadian farmers, bulk shippers, and our overall economy. Our government knows our economy needs a supply chain that works today and tomorrow, with the capacity to move what is produced.

I was proud to speak to the benefits of this bill at the agriculture committee last month. I understand the committee had a very extensive series of meetings, including testimony from over 20 stakeholder groups. The committee heard from the entire supply chain from farm to port, and from a wide range of commodity shippers, from wheat to oats to barley, as well as from fertilizer, mining, and timber groups. I was pleased to see a strong will around the table to work toward industry-led solutions focused on service and private sector responsibilities.

This is a piece of comprehensive legislation, and opposition and government together appreciate the non-partisan work of the committee to date, along with all of the witnesses that came forward. By working together, we were able to strengthen the bill, which, I would like to note, passed through the committee with unanimous support. I thank the committee members for that. It was extremely unfortunate that the member for Edmonton-St. Albert turned a deaf ear to those farmers and shippers by attempting to deprive them of meaningful service level agreements, or SLAs.

His point of order accomplished nothing but delaying the much-needed measures in the bill. I want to be clear that these parliamentary games, while unfortunate, will not deter our government and the opposition from amending Bill C-30 to include service level agreements with reciprocal penalties. Testimony shows that the majority of stakeholders support the bill and what it sets out to accomplish. During the committee's consultations, shippers of all commodities applauded this legislation, but they also asked the government to go further.

They asked us to put more teeth into service level agreements to bring day-to-day accountability to the railways. Responding to this feedback, my parliamentary secretary introduced an amendment at committee on behalf of the government. The first part of the amendment would give the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to ...order the company to compensate any person adversely affected for any expenses that they incurred as a result of the company's failure to fulfill its service obligations... By “company”, of course, we mean railways.

The amendment allows shippers who enter into service level agreements to be directly compensated for any expenses they incur as a result of the railways' failure to meet those service obligations. This includes compensation if the shipper is out of pocket for costs such as demurrage, contract defaults, or penalties. It goes further than the reciprocal penalties that many in the industry have requested, because it applies to any level of service complaint under the Canada Transportation Act. This is a market-based solution that would help get all bulk commodities moving and continuing to move.

The second part of the amendment reads: ...or, if the company is a party to a confidential contract with a shipper that requires the company to pay an amount of compensation for expenses incurred by the shipper as a result of the company's failure to fulfill its service obligations, order the company to pay that amount to the shipper This measure is equally important, because it allows compensation to be paid within a commercial contract. It would encourage the shippers and railways to come to the table and set their own terms and agree on SLAs with reciprocal penalties, should they so desire.

The goal is to level the playing field and provide better tools for shippers when railway companies breach their service obligations. We are working to continue to improve the efficiency, reliability, and predictability of the entire supply chain. I am pleased to say that strengthening SLAs has the support of industry, the provinces, and the opposition, and I thank them all.

Industry groups that support this needed amendment include, but are not limited to, the Inland Terminal Association of Canada, the Barley Council of Canada, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Cereals Canada, the Mining Association of Canada, the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, and the Freight Management Association of Canada. It covers all of the spectrum. The importance of the bill cannot be understated.

I recently returned from a trade mission to South Korea and Japan, where, alongside Canadian industry, I spoke directly with international buyers of Canadian grains about problems incurred in our immediate past. I assured these buyers that our government was not taking this situation lightly and explained the details of Bill C-30 to directly address their concerns. These buyers were pleased to hear that our government was taking this needed action to ensure Canada's reputation as a reliable grain shipper, and they thanked our government for acting quickly.

Farmers and all shippers need our government to pass the bill, as amended, as expeditiously as possible. Our economy and Canadian jobs are relying on us to act.

(1135) Crop yields show every sign of continuing to grow through better technology, higher yielding, more disease-resistant varieties and better agronomic practices. Shippers of all bulk commodities that rely on rail are growing their businesses exponentially and are demanding increased capacity to get those products to a burgeoning marketplace. That is why we must move forward to strengthen the supply chain now for the next crop year and beyond. Bill C-30 holds solutions that would benefit the entire supply chain.

I urge everyone in the House to work together to pass this important bill, with this needed amendment, as quickly as possible. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, we do indeed support the bill, although we do not believe it goes far enough. Certainly, the minister's point that the movement of grain is important to the economy, and trade is important, it makes no sense to go out there and sign trade deals when we cannot get our product to market. Transportation is functional to marketing and we believe the bill goes some distance to assure that transportation takes place in a timely fashion.

However, the bill falls very short in one area, and that is price transparency for producers. We know now that the spread between the export price and the price paid to producers is much greater than it was last fall. In fact, some would say that producers were getting 87% of the export price last fall, and now they are getting about 48%. This means the grain companies or someone in the system is profiting extensively at the expense of the farmers.

When the minister brought in legislation to allow this new selling system to take place, why did he not incorporate in either this bill or in previous legislation the requirement that the logistics would be in place to ensure that there would be proper movement, proper transparency in terms of pricing to farmers so farmers could be assured they would get their fair share of the market price?

(1140) Hon. Gerry Ritz : 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. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : 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. Hon. Gerry Ritz : 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.

(1145) Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : 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. Hon.

Gerry Ritz : 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. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP) : 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.

(1150) 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. Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : 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? Mr. Malcolm Allen : 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.

(1155) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : 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? Mr. Malcolm Allen : 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.

(1200) Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : 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? Mr. Malcolm Allen : 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 (Mr.

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 he and his colleagues. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria . Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : 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.

(1205) 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.

(1210) 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.

(1215) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : 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. Hon. Mark Eyking : 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.

(1220) Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : 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? Hon. Mark Eyking : 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. Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : 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: Amendment 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”.

(1225) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The amendment is in order. Questions and comments? Resuming debate. Is the hon. member for Malpeque rising on a question and comment? Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : It is a question on this amendment, Mr. Speaker. There were quite a number of shortcomings in the legislation that we outlined in some of the questions— The Acting Speaker (Mr. 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? Hon. Wayne Easter : 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 this: 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? Mr. Pierre Lemieux : 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.

(1230) Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : 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. Mr. Pierre Lemieux : Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, we respect the ruling of the Speaker, but the question has now been put to the House, and we are asking Parliament to determine whether the bill can be sent back to committee with a view to incorporating the clause that is in question.

It will be the House that decides, and then the bill will go back to committee, and committee will have the authority to determine whether or not to include it, given the direction that will be established here in the House, based upon proceedings that are about to follow. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Amendment agreed to) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. Accordingly, the bill is re-referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. (Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

(1235) Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act Bill C-25. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25,

An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order , as reported without amendment from the committee. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Hon. Lisa Raitt (for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Lisa Raitt (for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise before the House to explain the necessity of Bill C-25 , the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation act.

The genesis of this issue dates back to a historical oversight at the time Newfoundland joined Confederation that left Mi'kmaq residents on the island of Newfoundland outside of the Indian Act. From the 1950s through to the 1980s, the Government of Canada provided funding to Newfoundland and Labrador for social and health programs aimed at first nation communities located in the province.

However, both the federal government and the Mi'kmaq population on the island realized that formal recognition of Mi'kmaq communities was needed to replace the ad hoc and inadequate existing arrangements, which did not take into account Mi'kmaq governance or cultural heritage. In 1989 the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, representing approximately 7,800 members from the nine Mi'kmaq communities across the island, along with chiefs of six affiliated groups, began a Federal Court action seeking eligibility for registration under the Indian Act.

The litigation was resolved through the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Band. The agreement set the stage for the recognition of the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland as a landless band and its members as Indians under the Indian Act. This entitled eligible members to rights and benefits similar to those available to status Indians living off-reserve. It was always understood that the founding membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to people living in or around the 67 Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the agreement.

To allow adequate time to assess who could satisfy the criteria for membership, the 2008 agreement provided for a two-stage enrolment process meant to identify the founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation. The first stage of enrolment, which concluded on November 30, 2009, saw 23,877 people registered as founding members through the recognition order, and three subsequent amendments to the

schedule to the order were made to add founding members' names. It was during the second phase that issues emerged that led to concerns, shared by both Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, about the credibility of the enrolment process. During the four-year enrolment process, over 101,000 applications were received. Of these, more than 70,000 applications were received in the final 14 months of the process, and more than 46,000 of them were sent in the last three months before the deadline. That was 80,000 more applications than were originally anticipated by both parties.

Both parties recognized that the numbers were not credible and could undermine the integrity of the first nation. A large percentage of the applications submitted during phase two were sent by individuals not residing in the identified Mi'kmaq communities in Newfoundland. Of special concern was the insufficient level of detail in the supporting evidence provided by many applicants. It became obvious that the original intent of the parties to the 2008 agreement could be compromised and that greater clarity was needed regarding the requirements of the application process.

That led to the negotiation and eventual signing of the 2013 supplemental agreement, which provided clear direction to the enrolment committee about possible evidence to support the claims contained in people's applications. It also offered detailed information to applicants about the documentation the committee is looking for to determine their eligibility to become founding members. The original 2008 agreement is still fully in effect. In fact, the criteria for membership under the 2008 agreement and the 2013 supplemental agreement are exactly the same.

The 2013 supplemental agreement extended the timeline to review all 101,000 applications received during the two-stage enrolment process, resulting in the assessment of unseen applications and a reassessment of the applications already considered. This was the only way to be sure that the rules of eligibility for founding membership were fairly applied, that all applications were treated equally, and that applicants were given a reasonable chance to demonstrate their entitlement to founding membership.

In early November 2013, the enrolment committee sent letters to all the people whose applications had not been previously rejected. It indicated whether their application had been determined to be valid or invalid, based on the requirements set out in the 2008 agreement. Approximately 94,000 applicants received letters confirming the validity of their applications. The letters included information regarding next steps in the assessment of their applications and what additional proof they had the opportunity to provide in support of their applications.

(1240) Some 6,000 applicants received letters indicating that their applications were invalid and would go no further. It is conceivable that some of the current 23,877 founding members of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation will lose their memberships as a result of this comprehensive review. In turn, this means that these individuals would lose their entitlement to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act, and any rights or benefits flowing from it. This gets to the heart of the matter before us today. Bill C-25 is an essential part of preserving the integrity of the enrolment process.

It would ensure that the Governor in Council is properly authorized to carry out the last step in the process, which is the creation of a new founding members list to modify the existing one. It is not entirely clear that the Governor in Council has such authority. There is no express authority set out in the Indian Act to amend a recognition order establishing a band, and it is uncertain whether the Indian Act specifically allows the Governor in Council to remove names from the

schedule of such an order. Certainty is critical to correct the problems that arose during the initial enrolment process. Without this act, we cannot finalize the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation's founding membership list and fully implement the 2013 supplemental agreement. This would be an enormous disservice to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation, which has been waiting for some time to have these issues resolved. It is long past time that we settle these matters once and for all so that the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation can move forward with confidence to a better future. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that clarification on some of the concerns raised with the bill. I wonder if, for the members of the House, he could clarify something with regard to the order in council. Clause 3 says that by order in council: The Governor in Council may, by order, ...add the name of a person to, or remove the name of a person from, the

schedule to that Order, along with the person’s date of birth. Some concerns were raised at committee regarding the feeling that the Governor in Council would be making the decisions about who was on or off the list. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could clarify that this is, in fact, not the case, and that it is the enrolment committee that would be making recommendations and determining who is off or on the list. Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct.

As we heard through testimony from officials and from the minister, it would be the enrolment committee making the determinations, going through all of the applications and applying the same criteria to all of them. It would be the one making the decisions as to who is or who is not on the founding members list, and the Governor in Council would simply affirm those decisions. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on this. I am speaking to Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act . This is very short legislation, with simply four clauses.

As the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out, it would grant a power to add or remove names that it was unclear whether the Governor in Council currently had. I want to put add a couple of details. In 2008, an agreement was to establish a landless band for the Mi'kmaq group of Indians of Newfoundland. The parties intended that the founding membership in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation would be granted primarily to persons living in or around the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq communities named in the 2008 agreement.

While individuals living outside these communities could also become members, the intent of the parties was that non-residents would be required to have maintained a strong cultural connection with a Newfoundland Mi'kmaq community, including a sustained and active involvement in the community despite their absences. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there was substantially more applicants than was anticipated and there was, perhaps, a lack of clarity around how the documentation would be applied. That resulted in a supplemental agreement.

On July 4, 2013, Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced the supplemental agreement that clarified the process for enrolment in the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and resolved the issues that emerged in the implementation of the 2008 agreement. In the supplemental agreement, I want to specifically refer to two things. One was they reiterated, in

section 8, the self-identification as a member of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. They said: In making the Agreement, the Parties were guided by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Powley where the Court recognized that belonging to an Aboriginal group requires at least three elements: Aboriginal ancestry, self-identification and acceptance by the group. The Supreme Court stressed that self-identification and acceptance could not be of recent vintage. This formed the basis for the criteria set out in paragraph 4.1(d)(

i) of the Agreement. The Parties intended that the Enrolment Committee assess whether applicants had previously self-identified as Members of the Mi’kmaq Group of Indians of Newfoundland. In the same supplemental agreement in

section 5 it says: Determinations. The Enrolment Committee will determine whether each applicant is eligible to be enrolled under the Agreement. Every applicant will be advised of the Enrolment Committee’s determination of his or her eligibility only after the assessments or reassessments of all applications have been completed. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there were a number of questions that arose during testimony. We sought clarification from the department and the minister's office with regard to a number of them. I want to reiterate for the record about how those would be resolved.

One of the questions was whether there was some sort of an appeal process. The other question was how the Governor in Council got the list. The parliamentary secretary already addressed that in the question and answer. From the guidance we received, it says that a person's whose name is added to, deleted or omitted from the Indian registry and a band list may protest that decision in accordance with

section 14.2 of the Indian Act. Furthermore, the first nation or one of its members may also protest the addition to or deletion or omission of a person's name from the Band list under subsection 14.2(2) of the Indian Act. It is important to note that the decision of the registrar with respect to whether or not to add a name to the Indian Register and the departmentally maintained band list under paragraph 6.1(

b) and 11.1(

b) is not discretionary and would not involve a review of the Qalipu enrolment application nor of the enrolment committee review process. Rather, if an applicant is found to be eligible for founding membership by the enrolment committee, in accordance with the agreements, and his or her name is added to the

schedule as a founding member, the registrar only has the authority to register that person and will not review the enrolment application. That protest of the registrar's decision would be rather straightforward. The evidence upon which the registrar will base his decision is whether or not the individual's name appears on the schedule. If the name does not appear on the schedule, then the registrar will not have the authority to add it to the Indian register or the band list under paragraph 6.1(

b) and 11.1(

b) respectively. The registrar's decision on a protest may also be appealed to the courts in accordance with

section 14.3 of the Indian Act, but again the courts would likely not review the enrolment committee's decision under this provision and instead would be limited to reviewing this information that was before the registrar in rendering his decision, namely the presence or absence of a name on the schedule.

(1245) I think it is clear that both the registrar and the Governor in Council will not be in a position to override decisions that are being made by the enrolment committee. However, the enrolment committee has an appeal master, so there is a process by which members can actually appeal the enrolment committee's decision. Finally, there were some questions around the abilities of people going to the courts. The clarification we sought was around that issue.

What we received was that clause 4 protected the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation and the Government of Canada from liability. However, the clause did not prevent individuals from appealing the enrolment committee determination or to challenging in court through a judicial review application their exclusion from the

schedule to Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation band order. Based on that clarification, the New Democrats are confident that the bill reflects the wishes of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq and we are supporting the bill before the House.

(1250) Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, according the departmental documents, Bill C-25 would enable the Governor-in-Council to implement the agreements reached between Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians to create a landless band for the Qalipu Mi'kmaq people.

The Liberal Party believes this legislation is actually focused on unnecessarily restricting the legal rights of individuals to pursue damages flowing from the band's troubled enrolment process. [ Translation ] When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, the Mi'kmaq communities were not recognized as first nations under the Indian Act. [ English ] This left many indigenous people in Newfoundland with uncertain legal status and robbed them of the same benefits and recognition first nations in the rest of Canada were and are entitled to.

Talks to rectify this uncertainty have occurred on and off ever since, and in 1989 the Federation of Newfoundland Indians commenced a legal action to obtain recognition for Mi'kmaq individuals. The most recent phase of discussions to rectify this injustice began in 2002, culminating in an agreement in principle signed in 2007. [ Translation ] The 2007 agreement proposed specific terms for the recognition of membership in, and operation of, the future Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation. [ English ] Canada ratified the agreement in principle in 2008.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government badly mismanaged the negotiations and implementation of membership criteria. Initial estimates of likely band membership were approximately 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. The enrolment committee has now received 103,000 applications. This unexpected volume of applications led to a huge amount of confusion, and has left the government scrambling to manage open-ended criteria to which it originally agreed.

In the summer of 2013, the federal government and the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation band raised a supplemental agreement which adjusted the guidelines used to implement the membership criteria. These new guidelines were designed to make it more difficult to meet the enrolment criteria, and all applications are being reviewed under the new guidelines. This has led to numerous rejections and left many who had applied under the original criteria very disgruntled with the process. In fact, this review could result in individuals who have already been granted membership in the band losing their status.

The Liberal Party recognizes that both the agreement and supplemental agreement flow from a nation-to-nation process that must be respected. However, it is unclear whether the bill is actually required to implement these agreements and, as I noted before, half of the bill is actually focused on limiting the government's potential liability for mismanaging this process. It should be stressed that the federal government has been intimately involved in both designing and implementing the enrolment process.

Clause 4 of the bill provides that no one may receive “any compensation, damages or indemnity” from any entity, including the crown, because of being removed from the

schedule to the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation band order. The government, in a process that has been mired in confusion and controversy, is now asking parliamentarians to prejudge whether applicants may be entitled to compensation for any mismanagement or the impacts of the retroactive changes to how the membership criteria are being interpreted. As we learned from testimony at committee, this legal indemnification was not requested by the band and is not something it is looking for.

It is clear that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development badly underestimated the number of applications that would be put forward during the membership process, relying extensively on measures of self-identification of indigenous heritage. This is particularly puzzling, given that we know that generations of prejudice and marginalization induced many in Newfoundland to hide their indigenous heritage. As a result, whole family histories have been buried. Whether damages are appropriate in specific cases is matter that is more appropriate for a court to decide.

A judge will have the benefit of the facts on each particular case or class of cases.