[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 22, 1995
[English]
.1535 
The Chairman: Order.
Good afternoon, colleagues. We are now into clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-101.
Before we start, I just want to point out to you a correction in the numbering of the amendments you have in front of you.
I'll ask the clerk to distribute an amendment that's numbered G-4. If you could, insert that into your package. What is now number G-4 in your package, make G-5. Bingo! Only in British Columbia.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Scratch that from the record.
.1540
Because there are so many clauses in this bill, if there's any confusion at any point I'll just stop the proceeding. We'll just take our time with each one of these clauses, ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to speak to the clause. If there's any confusion, we'll just straighten it out. We'll all just take our time and do it right.
Before I get right into clause 1, Jim Gouk had an intervention.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Yes, actually, I have two different things. Although they're of a very similar nature, I'd like them to be treated differently.
One, we had submitted the list of the various amendments we wanted to have drafted, through legislative counsel, according to the time parameter, the guidelines that were laid down. I have only just been able to review some of them. Some of them just came in yesterday afternoon and are not worded to our satisfaction.
We have really only one that is of concern. I have a new wording for it. I do not have it translated. I do not have it done by legislative counsel. I would ask the committee to consider it the way it is written, or failing that, to set that particular clause aside until it can be dealt with, given that legislative counsel did not deal with it in the manner we had intended.
The second and separate issue is that three we put in we simply have not gotten back. They were sent in according to the time guidelines given, and we simply have not gotten them back.
The Chairman: From legislative counsel?
Mr. Gouk: That's correct. I would ask that those clauses be set aside as well.
The Chairman: Which clauses are they?
Mr. Gouk: Clause 67 and two new clauses under clause 146.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the issue the Reform Party is bringing up as it relates to sending their amendments to be put into legal terms or rewritten, was that submitted at the proper timeframe? If you submit it too late, then it's too late. If it was submitted at the proper time, which is under the rules, and it hadn't gotten done, that's a different debate.
Mr. Gouk: It was submitted according to the time expressed here in this committee.
Mr. Nault: Okay.
Based on that, Mr. Chairman, if it's the consensus of the clerks - they're supposed to be keeping track of that - then fine, we could set them aside until we get a copy of them. I don't have any problem with that.
The Chairman: I'll deal with your last matter first, on clause 67 and the other.... We'll have the clerk speak with Mr. Ducharme and see what happened in that event. So we won't rule on that one.
I don't know if we'll get as far as clause 67, but if we do, we'll have to stand that one down.
.1545
On the matter of your first concern, unless you can provide each member of this committee with an amendment in proper form - and proper form means translated, etc. - and written down so every member of this committee can see it -
Mr. Gouk: Well, that can't be done, because I only just discovered that it wasn't in an acceptable wording.
The Chairman: Then it's my regret, Mr. Gouk, that I won't be able to accept your first suggestion.
But on the second one, we will -
Mr. Gouk: Which belies what you said to me five minutes ago.
The Chairman: I advised that I would take it into consideration. I have just had discussions. As a result, that's where I'm going to stand on the first consideration.
Mr. Nault: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I hate to disagree with you, but I don't think the chair has the right to do that. It's up to the committee to decide whether in fact we want to allow members to make motions on the floor here without proper procedures followed.
What's he's asking, I think, and rightfully so, is that it stand down until he has an opportunity to put it forward to the committee in its proper form. We'll never get to clause 146 today anyway. He'll have time -
The Chairman: But it's not clause 146 he's talking about on his first one.
Mr. Nault: He's talking about clause 167.
The Chairman: And subclause 27(2).
Mr. Gouk: I got it back, but improperly worded.
The Chairman: The first issue was what Mr. Gouk raised on subclause 27(2). Having had discussions and made consideration, I'm going to use my chairman's prerogative and rule the request out of order.
On the second, he has I think a legitimate claim, because his allegation is that legal didn't get it back to him in time. We have to be fair and wait to see from where that complication came. If we come to that particular clause, we'll stand down the clause until tomorrow, until such time as we hear on his result.
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to go slowly, because we only just received the government's amendments. As for the French translation, we are receiving it as I speak. Therefore, we would appreciate it if you could proceed slowly.
[English]
The Chairman: I'll take that suggestion in hand and let you know that we probably have the best two translators in the House of Commons sitting in the booth right now. They translate very quickly. They're very efficient.
Consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). That's the naming of the act, which we always leave until the end.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to
On clause 4 - Conflicts
Mr. Fontana (London East): I move amendment G-1, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 4 as amended agreed to
On clause 5 - Declaration
The Chairman: I understand we have amendments to clause 5.
Mr. Fontana: I move amendment G-1.5. This amendment adds to the advantages of harmonized federal and provincial regulatory approaches, and to legal and constitutional. I think it is an attempt to take some leadership to indicate to our provincial counterparts that passing Bill C-101, which is going to be a good act for this country, obviously encourages them to do provincially what we are doing here federally. Putting it in clause 5, the principle section of the bill, indicates our leadership role of trying to encourage our provincial governments to likewise come up with legislation that mirrors ours and tries to harmonize our principles, goals and objectives.
.1550
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Is there anything on the second amendment?
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw my amendment, which is along a similar line. It is also printed in our book here under section 146.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
We have another amendment, G-2. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Yes, I'd move the second amendment, that the French version of clause 5 of Bill C-101 be amended by striking out line 23 on page 2 and substituting the following. It's there, numbered G-2. I'm sorry, it's a technical French amendment.
The Chairman: We won't need to read each one of the government amendments. We can just label it as G-2, unless there's an explanation.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Fontana: I move G-3, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Any questions on G-3?
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 6 - Definitions
The Chairman: We have an amendment.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: [Inaudible - Editor]...or just accept them as they're written for questions of a membership?
The Chairman: You can introduce it first, and then if there's.... Do you move it?
Mr. Gouk: I so move, yes.
The Chairman: Okay, that's R-1. R-1 is moved. It's a technical amendment.
Mr. Fontana, you wanted to speak to it?
Mr. Fontana: This one is in fact very close to G-4, so we would support the R-1 amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, do you withdraw G-4?
Mr. Fontana: Yes.
The Chairman: G-4 is withdrawn.
Clause 6 as amended agreed to
On clause 7 - Agency continued
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, do you have an amendment to clause 7?
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think our amendment to clause 7 reads G-5. It talks of increasing the membership on the new CTA from three to five members. I'd like to move that this amendment be tabled.
.1555
It's our intention obviously to agree with the principle of increasing the CTA, but due to some procedural hurdles that have not yet been cleared we would like to hold this in abeyance until such time as those approvals have come forward. If it can be tabled until tomorrow, we would respectfully request that of the committee. Or we can pull it until report stage, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gouk: If you're doing it that way, I was just concerned that -
The Chairman: No, we're going to pull it.
Mr. Fontana: Again, it's obviously our intention -
Mr. Mercier: The clause?
The Chairman: No, not the clause, just G-5 of the amendments. But I suppose that means the whole clause.
Mr. Fontana: No, just G-5.
The Chairman: Just G-5.
Mr. Fontana: I think our intention -
The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. The numbers can be changed, then.
Mr. Fontana: I think our intention is pretty clear. It's just that we have some procedural things that need to be completed.
The Chairman: So just amendment G-5 is withdrawn.
Mr. Fontana: No, it was renumbered.
The Chairman: That's the one we renumbered, Bob.
Mr. Mercier, do you have an amendment to this clause?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Yes, we have amendments to clause 7.
[English]
The Chairman: Speak slowly, though, Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We move that clause 7 of Bill C-101 be amended by replacing line 5 on page 5 with the following:
- not more than four members appointed
- (3) Every year, the Agency shall elect one of its members to serve as Chairperson.
The Chairman: One at a time.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The first amendment reads:
- not more than four members appointed
- Five plus four equals nine in all.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, do you want to speak to this?
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, in light of the government amendment being tabled - because we have in fact moved or are going to be moving to five members, which is obviously one better than the Bloc is suggesting - obviously we would not be supportive of this amendment; we would wait until we have submitted our amendment at report stage.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I would just make an inquiry of the Bloc, Mr. Chair.
Given that they obviously want to have more than three, they are generally accepting the tentative amendment of the Liberal Party and would be prepared to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We want the number indicated here, that is nine in total. We find the government's amendment to be an improvement, albeit still not a satisfactory one.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: They want your five plus their four. Someone is going to have to clear that one up.
The Chairman: Your amendment, Mr. Mercier, says ``not more than four members appointed''.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Plus four.
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): For a total of nine.
Mr. Mercier: Five plus four equals nine.
[English]
The Chairman: Then the translation is not correct.
Mr. Gouk: That's not what it says.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The text is poorly translated in English.
[English]
The Chairman: Order, order.
All it is is an error in translation between the English and the French. Mr. Mercier is indicating that it's ``plus four members appointed'' -
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Plus, plus.
[English]
The Chairman: - not ``not more than'', as it says in the English.
Mr. Gouk: Could we have a reading of that in French so that it is translated and so we'll know exactly what it is we're dealing with?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Plus!
[English]
The Chairman: The motion that's been put forward by the....
[Translation]
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Mercier, you want to substitute in line 5 "not more than three" by "not more than four". Instead of "three", you are proposing "four". The Liberal Party is proposing "five". It's the same thing.
Mr. Mercier: Not only is there a translation error, there is a mistake in the French version of the amendment as well.
Mrs. Terrana: We agree.
Mr. Mercier: There is one error on top of another. Two minuses equal a plus. It should read "not more than nine".
.1600
[English]
The Chairman: We'll put it to a show of hands. The indication is an amendment asking for plus four.
Mr. Nault: Besides the three on -
Mr. Gouk: Now you can change the three to five.
The Chairman: Who don't we let the mover of the amendment speak?
Okay. One more time.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Then the French should read "au plus". It's one mistake after another; the text should correctly read "au plus neuf".
[English]
The maximum is nine.
The Chairman: So for the question, colleagues, in a show of hands, all those in favour of the amendment that we have not more than nine members appointed.
Amendment negatived
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The text should read "au plus neuf", not "cinq".
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I know. We'll have it all straightened out later. We'll let the House do it.
Do you have a second amendment, Mr. Mercier?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Yes, B-2. We move that clause 7 be amended by striking out lines 12 to 15 on page 6 and substituting the following:
- (3) Every year, the Agency shall elect one of its members to serve as Chairperson.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, do you want to speak to the amendment?
Mr. Fontana: Yes. In keeping with parliamentary and governmental precedent it's the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint the chair and the vice-chair, so we will be voting against the amendment.
Amendment negatived
Clause 7 agreed to on division
On clause 8 - Term of members
The Chairman: For clause 8, go to amendment G-6. That's the one you're pulling, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: We're pulling G-6 for the same reasons as G-4 -
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We were opposed to clause 7. It carried on division.
[English]
Mrs. Terrana: Clause 7 is on division.
The Chairman: It's recorded as on division, and on clause 8, amendment G-6 is withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to
On clause 9 - Temporary members
The Chairman: Now it's clause 9, government amendment G-7.
Mr. Fontana: I move G-7, the technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 9 as amended agreed to
On clause 10 - Members - conflicts of interest
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier, you have amendment B-3.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'd like an explanation.
The Chairman: As soon as he introduces it.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I move that clause 10 be amended by replacing lines 18 to 40 on page 6 with the following:
- 10. Each member of the Agency is subject to the same rules respecting conflicts of interest
that apply to ministers of the Crown.
The Chairman: Can you explain that for us, Mr. Mercier?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The objective here is to ensure that the three, five or nine members of the Agency are subject to the same conflict of interest rules that apply to ministers of the Crown.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have a question, Mr. Nault?
Mr. Nault: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know whether Mr. Mercier could give us some justification for this particular clause. Is he aware of other previous conflicts that would drive the Bloc to want to make this amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The objective is to further shield members of the Agency from the pressure of lobbyists by subjecting them to the same rules that apply to ministers of the Crown, particularly in terms of protecting them from lobbyists.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could ask the officials to give us a breakdown of what the conflict of interest guidelines are with the agency as it stands now. I understand that they have fairly restrictive conflict of interest guidelines that are very similar to what Mr. Mercier is talking about.
.1605
Ms Moya Greene (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Coordination Group, Department of Transport): Yes, the agency is under fairly restrictive conflict of interest guidelines. In fact, it is covered off in this bill. They're under the same guidelines that all senior officials are under.
As I understand it, there is a slight difference between the conflict of interest guidelines that apply to ministers of the Crown relative to the conflict of interest guidelines that apply to senior agency and official people. That slight difference relates to the period of time following their employment when they may not be engaged in anything that could be considered or conceived of or perceived as a conflict.
With respect to ministers of the Crown, it is a two-year timeframe and with respect to senior officials it is a one-year timeframe. It would certainly be an aberration to impose the same requirements on agency staff as are imposed on ministers.
The Chairman: Thanks, Ms Greene. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: In light of these explanations, we withdraw the amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mercier.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chair, on a point of order. Given that the Liberal membership on the committee is seven members and there are eight present, which member is not voting today?
The Chairman: The one in Liberal red.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gouk: That ink gets on everything, doesn't it?
The Chairman: Any member of the House is allowed to attend any committee.
Mr. Gouk: I have no problem with their presence for this one. We just wanted to clarify.
The Chairman: You'll notice that she's the one not raising her hand during a vote.
We have had Mr. Mercier withdraw amendment B-3, so shall clause 10 carry?
Clauses 10 to 24 inclusive agreed to
On clause 25 - Agency powers in general
The Chairman: There's an amendment, number R-2.
Mr. Fontana: No, it's G-7.5.
The Chairman: It's G-7.5 in your hit parade book. Mr. Fontana, do you want to move G-7.5?
Mr. Fontana: I move G-7.5, page 17 of the....
The Chairman: Colleagues, we're at clause 25. We had only one amendment at clause 25 and that's R-2, which is Mr. Gouk's.
Mrs. Terrana: No, that's G-7.5.
The Chairman: First there's clause 25 and R-2. Then there's a line and then new clause 25.1 with government amendment 7.5. It's just lined up a little backwards on the hit parade sheet but that's okay. All the amazing work these gentlemen have done in just under twelve hours in the middle of the night...I'm amazed by the work they've done anyway.
.1610
Shall clause 25 carry?
Mr. Gouk: No. What about the amendment?
The Chairman: As I understand it from the legal department, clause 25 will carry, and then we'll introduce the new clause 25.1 which follows 25.
Clause 25 agreed to
The Chairman: Now, new clause 25 has a government amendment, G-7.5.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chair, on a point of order. This is not a big thing, but I want to make sure it's clear. Clause 25 is the clause, and (1) or (2) or (27) under 25 are subclauses. We've just carried the clause.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Gouk: It's finished, and now you want to amend something that's already been accepted.
The Chairman: No. Now we go to a new clause, 25.1, which is -
Mr. Gouk: So when we go through this, then, we don't say shall clause 25 carry. We say shall subclause 27(1) carry, shall subclause 27(2) carry.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, there is an explanation. This is not clause 25, subclause (1). It is a new clause 25.1. That's the big difference.
Mr. Gouk: So there are points now. I'm glad we're going to get some points for doing this.
The Chairman: Now, any discussion on new clause 25.1 as moved by the parliamentary secretary. Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: No comment, Mr. Chairman. I would simply like a few more explanations. For example, could someone explain the meaning of "all the powers that the Federal Court has"?.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Greene.
Ms Greene: The agency in clause 25 has the inherent powers of a superior court to call witnesses and to receive and examine documents. Superior courts do not have inherent in them the powers to award costs. Those powers are vested in each individual superior court by the statutes that create each of the provincial superior courts.
Therefore, if you want to give the agency the power to award ordinary costs, and you want to make that very specific power to award costs relative to some power that is vested in a court, the easiest way technically to do it is to refer to the cost-awarding powers of the Federal Court.
Therefore, under clause 25 the agency has the powers inherent to superior courts for its procedures. Under clause 25.1 the agency will have the power, an ordinary power most people will be aware of, to award costs. But in order to explain it, it's relative to the power that the Federal Court has.
The Chairman: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Mercier? Clear as mud, eh?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: That's clear.
[English]
Ms Greene: Do you want me to go over it again?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 26 - Compelling observance of obligations
The Chairman: Clause 26 now has an amendment, R-2. I'm instructed that R-2 is a new clause that we have to do before we do clause 26. So R-2, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: This is bringing forward something from the NTA. The principal intent of this is to allow for representation from provincial and municipal governments. It is in essence the wording brought forward from the NTA. It's simply bringing it forward into the CTA.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment put forward by the Reform Party to give standing to the provincial and municipal governments. I think in the way it's drafted, if one reads the clause, where there is a direct interest the agency is free to hear from any interested party.
.1615
Let's face it. Essentially Bill C-101 has put commercial application to a certain extent with regard to the CTA and railroads. The public interest test as we know it has for all intents and purposes been taken out. To allow provincial and municipal governments to have standing on practically every issue whether or not they have an interest in it would be paramount to confusing the issue at hand.
So, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to support the intent and this amendment.
The Chairman: Any further discussion? Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what this amendment of Mr. Gouk's is all about. If there is a shipper who wants to make representation to the agency, they can do so. The way he has it worded here is that:
- representative or agent of any provincial or municipal government or any association or other
body representing the interests of shippers
I don't understand why he would make an amendment that sort of suggests someone is representing the interests of a shipper. That's like Mr. Gouk sending me down to represent the Reform Party. I doubt very much I'd do a good job at that.
Mr. Gouk: You never know. You're learning.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 26 agreed to
On clause 27 - Relief
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, we have an amendment G-7.6 to clause 27.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, on clause 27 I don't have to remind the committee members that after one month of testimony there were a number of questions raised by witnesses. These were with regard to the requirement of 27(2), the wording and the implications.
I think it would be fair to say we've recognized there are some clarifications necessary, and I think this amendment deals with a number of clarifications that it's important for us to want to point out.
First, I think it's important to clarify - and this amendment does it very clearly - what the government had always said was that it was not intended to be a fence around access to the agency, that in fact it was supposed to be guidance for the remedy on any decision of the agency. Therefore, I think the amendments to clause 27 make it clear.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. May we have a momentary recess? I'm trying to listen to the parliamentary secretary and also get an explanation of something that effects the propriety of amendments I'm putting in at this point.
The Chairman: I understand.
Mr. Gouk: I either have to do one or the other.
Mr. Fontana: Do they relate to 27?
The Chairman: Yes, they do. R-3, R-4 and R-5 are all related.
We've got a couple of minutes. Go ahead, Mr. Gouk. Have your discussion and then we'll get back to it.
.1620
______________________________________________________________________________
.1623
The Chairman: Okay, colleagues, the parliamentary secretary has just given us an explanation on clause 27, amendment G-7.6.
Joe.
Mr. Fontana: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, we heard a lot of testimony. There was a lot of clarification, which I think was required; hence the new wording in our amendment G-7.6 tries to structure clause 27 to deal with a number of issues.
One is that it was never intended to, but we wanted to clarify that access to the agency wasn't a two-step system, that there wasn't a fence towards access to the agency, that the whole intention of 27 was to be dealt with on the remedy side. I think the words must indicate that there is no fence being put around the agency. The shipper has total access to the agency and the agency doesn't have any discretion as to whether or not it can hear from that shipper or that complainant.
Secondly, it was obvious to us that the words ``significant prejudice'' caused a number of people some problems, perhaps because they had never been adjudicated upon. So we looked at words that perhaps could better explain what the intent was. We came up with the words ``substantial commercial harm''.
.1625
Having said those new words, we also thought it would make sense, as the witnesses and the NTA representative who were here have indicated, to try to apply a criterion to what that substantial commercial harm might mean. Hence, we have included a number of factors:
- (a) the market or market conditions relating to the goods involved;
- (b) the location and volume of traffic of the goods;
- (c) the scale of operation connected with the traffic;
- (d) the type of traffic or service involved;
- (e) the availability to the applicant of alternative means of transporting the goods; and
- - I think this is an important factor - -
- (f) any other matters that appear to the Agency to be relevant.
- In saying so, I think this covers off a number of areas.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say to all those witnesses who had some concerns that the government heard what they were saying. With the new wordings, we tried to put in place a regime that we feel, firstly, will give them access to the agency; secondly, will require the agency, in applying the remedy, to take into consideration a number of factors, and we've given them some guidance with regard to the criteria; and thirdly, makes it perfectly clear that the shippers are not losing anything with regard to their access to final-offer arbitration.
So we put forward the amendments, and we look forward to the good work that Mr. Gouk and the Reform Party have also done on this one.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I know it's a little bit unusual but most of Mr. Gouk's amendments are covered in the government's amendment, with the exception of the last one.
The Chairman: I think Mr. Gouk is going to speak to that one in a moment.
Mr. Nault: The reason I ask is that we have to vote on this one first before going on to the next one.
The Chairman: Yes, we'll take it one amendment at a time.
Mr. Fontana: I think Mr. Gouk wants to give some clarification.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, do you want to speak to this before we vote on it?
Mr. Gouk: Yes, and just so it does clarify tying the two together while we're dealing with this one. In reading this one, I am satisfied that it addresses my concerns covered under R-3, which I will subsequently withdraw.
Under R-4.... Do you want it now? It addresses -
The Chairman: You're on a roll. Go ahead.
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
In R-4, I think the government has gone a long way, but I'm still not quite satisfied. I will deal with it at report stage, however.
I withdraw R-5 as it relates to this.
So you have two out of three, and we agree to disagree on the other.
An hon. member: You've pulled them all then, eh?
Mr. Gouk: Yes. I have to amend the wording according to what you have now done in any case. It's out of order to just carry on with mine.
The Chairman: So R-3, R-4 and R-5 are withdrawn. It's irregular but we'll go with it.
G-7.6 has been moved. Is everyone in favour of the amendment?
Mr. Mercier, you're opposed to the amendment.
An hon. member: No, everybody is in favour.
The Chairman: It's on division.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We agree with clause 27.
[English]
Mrs. Terrana: They agree.
The Chairman: All right, they agree.
Mr. Fontana: It's unanimous. That's incredible. See how good work pays off.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 27 as amended agreed to
On clause 28 - Orders
The Chairman: Clause 28 has an amendment, R-6. Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I have to get through all my other Rs first. I thought I only had to learn the three Rs, but now I'm up to six already.
This is again a matter brought forward from the NTA. In discussions with the government it has been suggested that this is covered under clause 28. I think the explanation in the clause-by-clause booklet clearly suggests that it has not been covered in this. In fact, it has been specifically eliminated. I don't agree with the elimination of the ability of the agency to make an ex parte order.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think we've had this discussion before to a certain extent. I think some witnesses have indicated for the reinsertion of such a thing. We believe it's already in the bill, and it's reflected as long as it's known that the agency must notify the other party. That's the only caveat.
.1630
To tell you the truth, I think this is redundant, because the agency does have the power under the new bill to give those orders, provided it communicates that to the other party.
Mr. Gouk: Just for clarification, I would refer the parliamentary secretary to the government document on Canada transportation, a clause-by-clause analysis on page 18 that specifically states:
- Ex parte orders have been eliminated as this authority was considered extraordinary and no
longer required.
- So it does contradict what the parliamentary secretary is saying.
Ms Greene: Could I clarify? I think ``extraordinary'' is a poor word and I apologize for that inartful drafting.
The powers of the agency are very broad and include the power to grant interim orders for matters that have to be dealt with right away. In this day and age, when there are all kinds of means of communicating by telephone in a hurry, the need for ex parte orders, that is to say, orders that would be made without even notifying the other interested party, is no longer there. So in the view of the department this is not needed, and the powers of the agency are certainly every bit as large in scope as the agency will need to deal with all manner of issues, including urgent ones.
The Chairman: So we have R-6 before us as an amendment.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 28 agreed to
On clause 29 - Time for making decisions
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, do you have an amendment to clause 29?
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I move amendment G-8, page 26 in the book. For all intents and purposes it's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We have another Bloc amendment, B-4. Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I move that clause 29 be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 11, the following:
- (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the House of Commons may, at the request of the
committee of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to transportation, pass a
resolution prescribing periods of less than one hundred and twenty days within which the
Agency shall make its decision in respect of such classes of complaints or applications as are
specified in the resolution.
- Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the prescribed period of 120
days in case of emergency.
The Chairman: Do you want to speak to that one, Mr. Fontana, or maybe Ms Greene from the department?
Ms Greene: Mr. Mercier, the Governor in Council has the power to shorten the period of time in the bill for making a decision, if need be. It can be done by regulation. The regulations, as you know, are normally reviewed by the committee charged with that responsibility, so I don't really understand the amendment proposed.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The objective is to have matters referred occasionally to the House rather than to Cabinet.
[English]
The Chairman: Your amendment, I think, is understood. We have an amendment moved, B-4.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 29 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive agreed to
On clause 34 - Costs
The Chairman: Do you want to speak to that, Mr. Fontana?
.1635
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, we would like clause 34 to be entirely struck. If that is not possible - I believe the clerk has indicated it is not - we will be voting against clause 34, which for everybody is the frivolous and vexatious section of the bill.
The Chairman: So to remove clause 34 is out of order, according to Beauchesne's. We will call the clause anyway and vote against it to accomplish the same end.
Clause 34 negatived
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to
On clause 37 - Approval of regulations required
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I ask that clause 37 be amended by replacing line 45 on page 12 with the following:
- approval of the Governor in Council and the committee of Parliament that normally considers
matters relating to transportation.
[English]
Ms Greene: The only thing I would suggest is it is highly irregular for regulations to be reviewed by committees, other than the parliamentary committee that is charged with the responsibility to review regulations.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: As I indicated, our amendments reflect certain general principles, one of which is to occasionally give the legislative arm powers which we wrongly feel are reserved for the executive branch. That's why we will be proposing in some of the upcoming amendments that certain matters be referred to the committee for approval and for recommendation to the House.
You will note later on that we have also put forward some amendments calling for certain decisions to be referred to the provinces and to the committee for approval, and thereafter to the House.
Therefore, as a rule, each time we have introduced an amendment calling for certain powers over the decision-making process to be extended to our committee, we have done so with this goal in mind. The same is true when we call for provinces to arbitrate certain decisions.
[English]
The Chairman: That is understood, Mr. Mercier. Your point is taken. I think it has been explained that it is highly irregular.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that in the Red Book the government or the Liberal Party said it would give more responsibilities to members of Parliament, that is to the elected representatives. This particular amendment gives concrete expression to that undertaking.
[English]
Mr. Fontana: I think Bill C-101 is a perfect example of how our government is keeping to a red book commitment. It has submitted this bill to this committee in advance of second reading for us to essentially analyse it and look at ways of improving the bill.
While philosophically the Bloc makes a good point about involving committees, the committees are masters of their own houses and can essentially do what they want, when they want.
.1640
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the interests of the Bloc are, but it's practically impossible to do what he suggested. If it was in the interest of the Bloc to shut the federal government down, then in relation to the agency this one would do it.
If you had to send every technical regulation to this committee to look at in a serious fashion, we'd never get a train across the country or a ship through the seaway or anything like that. These regulations are changed on a regular, daily basis, on a monthly basis. That's the reason why they don't come to us.
In conclusion, I think Mr. Fontana hit the nail on the head. This committee can look at any one of those regulations any time it likes. If there's one in particular that the Bloc wants to have reviewed, name it, pick it, and we'll look at it. But to say that every single one coming to the committee should be checked means that you would shut down the ability to regulate that particular transportation mode.
The Chairman: Not to mention, I suppose, that there's a whole elaborate process in place to cover off the eventuality that -
Mr. Nault: One last thing is that the Government of Quebec does the exact same thing this bill does when it relates to regulation. It goes to Order in Council. It doesn't go to committee, so why would it be different here?
The Chairman: Closing remarks from Mr. Mercier and we'll vote on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I admit we are trying to introduce a new way of doing things here today. As Mr. Paré mentioned, Mr. Fontana said that the government was keeping to its Red Book commitments. We wanted to ensure full compliance. That's what we are proposing.
[English]
Mr. Fontana: When the next election comes we'll have another red book and we'll just build upon that.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, that's what is known as a tu quoque argument.
[English]
The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Mercier.
Amendment negatived
Clause 37 agreed to on division
Clauses 38 to 40 inclusive agreed to
On clause 41 - Governor in Council may vary or rescind orders, etc.
The Chairman: Clause 41 has amendment B-6. Is it the same argument, Mr. Mercier?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Yes.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 41 agreed to on division
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to
On clause 44 - Policy directions
The Chairman: Clause 44 has amendment B-7. Is that the same argument, Mr. Mercier?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, it's the same argument. I would have thought that elected representatives and not only officials would have liked to have their say from time to time, but this appears not to be the case.
[English]
The Chairman: We won't get into a debate, but for the record there is a lot of opportunity for elected -
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: That's what a debate implies.
[English]
The Chairman: Some say there's too much opportunity for elected members to have their say.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 44 agreed to on division
Clauses 45 to 47 inclusive agreed to
On clause 48 - Governor in Council may prevent disruptions
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, R-7.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, R-7 deals with reporting to the Governor in Council only when Parliament is not sitting, the intent being that if you read further into it, it suggests that when it does go there, it should be brought to Parliament as soon as practicable. I would suggest that if Parliament is sitting, that is when in fact Parliament is sitting. It should go directly then to the parliamentary body. It's kind of a new, improved, reformed version of the Bloc amendment, you might say.
.1645
Mr. Nault: Could I ask the officials if there's anything on record of an extraordinary disruption where we had a Governor in Council order in that fashion? I can't recall one in my lifetime, so I'm just curious as to whether it's ever happened.
Ms Greene: No, it hasn't. This is a new set of provisions. It's never expected that these would be used. It's meant to deal with a quite extraordinary set of circumstances. As the provisions lay out, if they were ever to be invoked, which is highly unlikely, the intention would be to lay any order under the provision before both houses of Parliament as soon as you could practically get into both houses of Parliament.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: R-8, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: The way it's couched here, I have to read it first, Mr. Chair.
It is simply that if we're going to do this for extraordinary disruptions, and given that the one example we have seen and been active on in Parliament is a labour disruption, if this clause itself is to have any meaning, then I think we have to deal with the real problems we're going to see, and a labour disruption is the most likely of those. I can't see why that is taken out when other...Mr. Nault seems to be concerned about things that we rarely use and so why worry. However, this is the thing that we're most likely to use. They want the rest in there. Why not have the thing we're most likely to encounter?
The Chairman: It strikes me that the government always has the power to intervene at any time.
Mr. Gouk: Then why not strike the whole clause?
The Chairman: Ms Greene, did you want to speak to this?
Ms Greene: There are fairly well-established procedures for the houses of Parliament to deal with labour disruptions. It is a matter of personal opinion on my part, but I think that while labour disruptions can be, by their nature, disruptive, they are not extraordinary disruptions.
What this clause attempts to address is that highly unusual situation where, given the structure of key components of our transportation industry, if you were to face a potential failure of both airlines at the same time, for example, or both railways at the same time, you give the government and the houses of Parliament a little breathing room to figure out what, if anything, they wish to do in the face of such a truly extraordinary disruption. So for those two reasons, labour disruptions, while certainly a nuisance for many people who rely on the services, are not extraordinary in their nature. Because there are well-established procedures for the houses of Parliament to deal with disruptions of that type, it was suggested that they be excluded.
Mr. Gouk: Could I ask Ms Greene to give me an example. If a labour disruption such as the last one we had, which shut down both national railways, our passenger rail system and most of the ports, and potentially shut down pulp mills, smelters and all kinds of other operations in the country, is not extraordinary, could she kindly give me an example of what is beyond this that would come under this bill that she considers extraordinary?
Mr. Nault: War. That's what it's for - when we go to war.
Ms Greene: It's certainly very critical, Mr. Nault, but we have seen it before and we have well-established procedures for dealing with it.
Mr. Nault: We did it during the war.
Mr. Gouk makes it sound as though we don't have a process for labour disputes in this country, where, of course, we go to conciliation, mediation, and it just appears out of the horizon that we get a railway strike. There isn't anybody in the country who doesn't know a railway strike is coming for months in advance. So for him to suggest that Parliament won't be in a position to deal with it in an expedient fashion I think is stretching the argument significantly. We know that under the process the Minister of Labour has powers to make sure the strike doesn't occur at a particular time just by conciliation and mediation and delaying the inevitable. So I don't think this is necessary.
.1650
Mr. Gouk: It seems clear from my interpretation that the intent of this act is to provide some extraordinary measure for Order in Council before Parliament deals with something. There was a strong potential for the last strike to occur during the winter recess. If you wish to deal with it before recalling Parliament or faster than the ability to recall Parliament, then you want something, which this addresses, that gives the Governor in Council the clear ability to do so. That's if you wish to have anything in the act at all to deal with it.
You're saying no, because Parliament can deal with it. You're saying they'll know it's coming and they can deal with it. What are they going to do with anything?
The Chairman: We've heard the arguments.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: R-9 please, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: As it stands, the bill is open-ended. It says ``as soon as possible''. That becomes very interpretative. I've unwillingly been stung before by things that have been left open. I think that two days is a reasonable time. They say ``as soon as possible'', but if the intent is really to bring it there, let's put some specific time parameters in and make it two days.
The Chairman: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Fontana: We can be helpful here. I think we agree with the intent of the amendment, but two days is not enough. If we had a printer breakdown, two days could cause some difficulties. If by unanimous consent, or if the Reform Party and Mr. Gouk would agree, we could accept seven days. Two days is completely out of the question.
If seven days is acceptable to the Reform Party, we'll allow you to amend it to seven sitting days.
Mr. Gouk: Okay, I can live with that.
The Chairman: So the amendment....
Mr. Fontana: We would allow him to change it to read seven days.
The Chairman: Do you want to bring forward your amendment?
Mr. Gouk: Yes, with the approval of the committee, I would like to amend my amendment R-9 to change it from ``two sitting days'' to ``seven sitting days''.
The Chairman: First, we're voting on the amendment to the amendment.
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: Now we're voting on R-9 as amended.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we go to B-8.
Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, here's the problem. Clause 48(4) reads as follows:
- The minister shall have any order made under this section laid before both houses of
Parliament as soon as possible after it is made.
- This includes the Senate, and we would prefer that such an order be laid only before the
House of Commons. The Senate would be excluded.
The Chairman: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, do you want to address that?
Mr. Fontana: We might want to be helpful here too, but with all due respect, Parliament is made up of two houses, the House of Commons and the Senate. If the Bloc had indicated it wanted to suggest both houses of Parliament, we would accept the amendment. The Senate exists in this country and it will until such time as the federation decides that it shouldn't.
I'm trying to be helpful. If you want it to change to both houses of Parliament, that would be acceptable to us. If not, then obviously we would have to -
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
Mr. Fontana: Oh, I'm sorry. That's what's already in there. He's moving to get rid of it and say ``House of Commons''. We can't agree. As much as some of us might like to, we can't.
The Chairman: Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why the Bloc would be opposed to it going to the Senate. There are a lot of Bloc senators, aren't there? Castonguay is there with a few others. They're separatists. Why is he opposed to it?
The Chairman: You've heard the terms of this amendment.
Thank you, Bob, for being so helpful on these matters.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment B-9, Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: It's still in the same spirit, Mr. Chairman. It's the same argument.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, thank you.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1655
The Chairman: Amendment R-11.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I'm trying to interpret the legislative counsel's wording as opposed to the original intent. It's a very strange way to word it.
It refers in the act right now to -
Mr. Nault: What section is that?
The Chairman: It's R-11, clause 48.
Mr. Gouk: It's R-11. It actually falls into subclause (5), where it says it ``shall be referred for review to the standing committee of the House of Commons'' or `` of the Senate''.
I have a problem with something that is laid before Parliament being referred for study to the Senate committee as opposed to the parliamentary committee. That's it, pure and simple.
I realize things flow through the Senate, but -
The Chairman: But technically, Parliament is the House and the Senate.
Mr. Gouk: Can I have a clarification from the government representatives? According to this, could something that comes before the House of Commons be referred to the transport committee of the Senate instead of to this committee and be dealt with from there, not by this committee, when it is a matter that is still before the House of Commons?
Ms Greene: Technically, but only if Parliament were to designate that.
The Chairman: No, not necessarily. The Senate can at any time initiate anything it wants to vis-à-vis legislation.
Mr. Gouk: We're talking about specific referral.
Ms Greene: There's a specific provision for referral, and certainly the intent of the provision was that it should be left to Parliament to decide which committee or committees should look at this.
Mr. Gouk: Do they need authorization in this act to do that?
Ms Greene: Not in this act. The act is entirely silent on that.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): Mr. Chairman, why couldn't you just say that it would be for a standing committee of Parliament?
Ms Greene: There may not be a standing committee in the future. That's the reason why the language is a little more general.
The Chairman: As we've recently learned, standing committees have been reduced from twenty or so to nine or eight. That's why it's a little more general in the legislation.
But Mr. Jordan's remark is well-taken. It could be -
Mr. Jordan: Because it's designated to Parliament for that purpose.
Mr. Gouk: I'm more comfortable with that if we're talking about amending the amendments again for the harmony of all so that we can move on, as I know the chairman would like to do.
Mr. Fontana: Do you want an amendment to your amendment here?
Mr. Gouk: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, could you move the amendment to your amendment?
Mr. Gouk: I should get Mr. Jordan to make the amendment. He had the wording.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, you can make the amendment to the amendment.
An hon. member: You get your name on the record.
The Chairman: Put it on the record.
Mr. Jordan: The amendment will have it read in subclause (5) that:
- (5) Every order laid before Parliament under subsection (4) shall be referred for review to the
standing committee designated by Parliament for that purpose.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment?
Subamendment agreed to
Mr. Nault: That's very irregular, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: In the spirit of cooperation.
Mr. Gouk: I like it.
The Chairman: Does amendment R-11, the amended amendment, carry?
Mr. Nault: If we're going to make these amendments on the fly, since we won't be finished by tomorrow or by tonight, could I ask that we get a copy of that amendment just read by our colleague tomorrow to make sure it's what we intended it to be, so that it doesn't get lost in transit?
The Chairman: We don't even have to wait until tomorrow. I'd prefer you to be comfortable when you go to sleep tonight, Bob.
Mr. Nault: Well, yes, I've -
The Chairman: We'll take one moment and we'll get it all down right.
Mr. Clerk, do you have it written down there?
Mr. Nault: Because it gets lost, and all of a sudden it turns out a little differently than what we imagined. I've seen it happen before, but only in collective bargaining, mind you.
.1700
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, just for purposes of keeping things clear...if you withdrew R-11, then we could go ahead with Mr. Jordan's suggested amendment.
Mr. Gouk: I thought what he did was he amended mine. You could do it either way.
The Chairman: But this starts from a line above. You're going to change the lines, etc. Could you withdraw your R-11?
Mr. Gouk: Sure.
The Chairman: R-11 is then withdrawn.
Mr. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, could you read it, then?
The Chairman: Yes, we'll read it back slowly for Mr. Nault.
Do you want to write this down, Mr. Nault?
Mr. Nault: Yes, I want to hear it.
The Chairman: I want you to be perfectly comfortable with this.
It strikes out lines 31 to 33 on page 16 and replaces them with ``view to the standing committee designated by Parliament''. Following that line I just gave you, which is ``view to the standing committee designated by Parliament''...``shall be referred for review to the standing committee designated by Parliament for the purpose''.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 48 as amended agreed to
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to
On clause 51 - Regulations re information
The Chairman: We have a Bloc amendment. We have all kinds of amendments on clause 51.
Mr. Mercier, the Bloc B-10 amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, we withdraw our amendments B-10 and B-11.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, sir. Amendments B-10 and B-11 are withdrawn.
Amendment G-9, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, this is one amendment that deals with adding to subclause 51(1) as written ``for the Minister to review...'', and I should say in this bill there are a number of review points to make sure we have it right. We're back to some four, I believe, where the minister and the government and the CTA and hopefully this committee will review to make sure the new Bill C-101 works. We're going to add grain handling in (a), and also we'll add (b), where we are striking lines 30 to 34 on page 17 and substituting ``the purposes of'' and a number of categories.
The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Fontana.
.1705
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment R-12, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: It's fairly straightforward. It's just a concern by the railway that it is required to provide, with whatever cost and problems it may contain, the government with information that is otherwise available to it through other sources, specifically from either the agency or Statistics Canada.
Mr. Fontana: If Mr. Gouk would read amendment G-10, which deals with clause 52, he will find that's covered there. That should satisfy him. It talks about administration of this act or any other act of Parliament. So perhaps you want to move G-10.
I believe your R-12 is satisfied by G-10, under the next clause.
Mr. Gouk: Let me just read it for a second.
The Chairman: Okay.
Jim, don't bother reading it because -
Mr. Gouk: I'm having a lot of trouble putting -
The Chairman: So am I.
Mr. Gouk: I'm trying, Joe, I'm really trying.
The Chairman: The chairman doesn't see the linkage here, so we're going to get clarification.
Mr. Fontana: I apologize profusely to this committee for confusing everyone, including myself. Amendment R-12 can stand on its own with regard to clause 51. We can't accept it, but he can make his point.
Mr. Gouk: I thought after that faux pas that would be the least you could do, Joe.
Mr. Fontana: I apologize, but I can't accept.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 51 as amended agreed to
On clause 52 - Confidentiality of information
Mr. Fontana: There is a technical amendment in G-10 as it relates to clause 52.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: B-12. Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Again, it's the same argument. We would like the Committee to have broader powers so that elected representatives can have their say in matters.
Mr. Paré: This would be in keeping with the Red Book.
Mr. Mercier: Perfectly in keeping!
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 52 as amended agreed to
On clause 53 - Industry review
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, R-13.
Mr. Gouk: Instead of having it reported to the Governor in Council, the basic intent of this is to have it reported or laid before the House of Commons.
Mr. Fontana: I would offer to Mr. Gouk that if he's prepared to change the ``House of Commons'' to ``both houses of Parliament'', we could accept amendment R-13. But if he insists on putting it to the House of Commons only, unfortunately we have problem.
Mr. Gouk: I don't mind if it's ``and'', as long as it's not ``or''.
Mr. Fontana: That's fine.
Mr. Gouk: I don't care who else you give it to, Joe, as long as you give it to us.
The Chairman: Sorry, colleagues, just give us a minute.
.1710
Mr. Gouk, did you accept the proposal?
Mr. Gouk: I am prepared to amend my amendment by striking out the words ``the House of Commons'' and replacing them with ``Parliament''.
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: The Bloc does not agree, but it's still carried.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Of course, the Bloc does not agree.
Now we move to G-11. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Yes, I'm prepared to move G-11, which amends clause 53 to add:
- (a) the financial viability of each mode of transportation;
- to the review.
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, we would agree, but we would like to move a sub-amendment. Therefore, in the case of the amendment which reads:
- a) the financial viability of each mode of transportation;
- we would like not only the financial viability of each mode of transportation to be
considered, but the general interest as well, and we would add the following:
- and its contribution to the Canadian economy and to the development of the regions.
- One can hardly object to such an amendment.
Mr. Nault: Is there a copy of that somewhere?
The Chairman: We'll just take a moment.
Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, with regard to what the Bloc member, Mr. Mercier, has just indicated, I think if he reads subclause 53(1) in total, especially as amended, he will note that the (d) part of that section says ``any other transportation matters that the Minister considers appropriate'', which may very well mean reviewing those matters the member has just put forward.
Obviously there's a certain amount of latitude for the minister to review the state of affairs in the transportation sector in each mode. If he reads (a) through (d) I think he will find it's covered in that particular clause.
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, of course the minister can review these matters, but given the way in which the amendment is drafted, he can also choose not to. We would like him to be required to do so. I would also like to have my text, if possible.
[English]
The Chairman: For the sake of expediency, I'm going to ask Mr. Mercier to slowly -
Mr. Nault: May I have a point of order? When these little amendments come up off the floor like this, why don't we just stand that one down and let the clerk do his job? He can translate it and get it photocopied, and we can just keep on going and come back and revisit it. It's not fair to just have the member read it. If the translators miss something, then we don't know what we're voting for or against here. It won't take the clerk long to do that.
.1715
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Nault, that's not a problem.
Mr. Mercier, we're going to have to ask you to take your amendment to this particular G-11 amendment by the government and have it written in French clearly, please, so that the clerk can take it, do it in English and then distribute it amongst the members. I'll try to accommodate you on this one, but normally it wouldn't be accepted at all because we're trying to.... That's why we do all these things in advance. I do, however, understand the time problem you had, etc., with the translation.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We have just now received the French translation.
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, I understand. That's what I just said. I'm trying to be as accommodating as I can. So we'll look forward to your wording so we can have that amongst the members.
I'll stand clause 53. We'll revisit that.
Sometimes I think it's worth it just to hear back. We can easily understand it. It was seven words. Sometimes the chairman's discretion has to be allowed a little bit here.
Clause 53 allowed to stand
On clause 54 - Statutory review
The Chairman: Under clause 54, colleagues, we're looking at R-14.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: This one simply calls for having the comprehensive review, report or study carried out by the auditor general rather than someone who may have his objectivity challenged in terms of his being a patronage appointment. I'm sure the minister would be excruciatingly fair in who he picked, but it would still leave him open to that criticism, and I wish to protect the minister at all costs.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, that's not the auditor general's mandate, nor should it be. The auditor general has neither the staff nor the resources to start doing reports for every single department of Parliament. I think this is a very serious precedent that Mr. Gouk is attempting to set. The auditor general's job is to pick and choose certain areas of government that he wants to do an audit on. It's not to write reports of any fashion, whether it's for Transport, Labour, you name it. I therefore think this is a totally inappropriate amendment.
Mr. Gouk: Can I just add my clarification, then? If Mr. Nault's contention is that there are insufficient resources and we're trying to economize, and if the report is going to be written in any case, it's going to be written at the behest of the House of Commons and someone has to do it. It is simply not a question of whether it is done or not, but rather who is doing it. Under those circumstances, I think it is appropriate to have someone who's objectivity could not be challenged doing that kind of job.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, let me get back to what I said before.
I'm sure Mr. Gouk knows what an auditor does. He must have met the odd accountant in his life.
Mr. Gouk: That's your term, not mine.
Mr. Nault: Auditors don't check these kinds of things; they don't do these kinds of reports. This is done by transport people who have technical knowledge of how the Department of Transport works and of what we do in the country as it relates to transport. If he wants to put some other Reform hack in there, maybe I'll look at the recommendation. I don't think the auditor's job is to do that, however.
Mr. Gouk: I have a sling right beside where you guys patted me.
The Chairman: Okay, you've heard the terms of amendment R-14.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Can you carry on with amendment R-15, Mr. Gouk? Is it consequential? Is it the same thing?
Mr. Gouk: No.
The Chairman: It reads ``Auditor General shall''.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, but obviously if he doesn't do the report, we can't report on it.
The Chairman: So you're withdrawing R-15?
Mr. Gouk: Yes.
The Chairman: What about R-16, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: Same thing.
The Chairman: Withdrawn.
What about amendment R-17?
Mr. Gouk: I have to find it. Hold your horse, I've lost my page numberings, here.
.1720
This is not my language. It's somebody else's.
The Chairman: Are you withdrawing this one, Mr. Gouk, because it's the request and it is consequential to the others?
Mr. Gouk: Yes.
The Chairman: All right. Amendment R-17 is withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to
Clauses 55 to 59 inclusive agreed to
On clause 60 - Prohibition re sale
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I would move G-12, which is a technical amendment to the English version, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 60 as amended agreed to
Clauses 61 to 66 inclusive agreed to
Clause 67 allowed to stand
The Chairman: Shall clauses 68 through 81 carry?
Is there a problem there, Mr. Paré?
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: Specifically, in clause 70.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have a prepared amendment? If you don't....
[Translation]
Mr. Paré: No, we are opposed to clause 70. I simply want to vote against it.
[English]
The Chairman: I see.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to
Clause 70 agreed to on division
Clauses 71 to 81 inclusive agreed to
On clause 82 - Inquiry into licensing matters
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana has an amendment to clause 82. That would be G-13.
Mr. Fontana: Yes, and it's a technical amendment. Amendment G-13 adds the words ``or other document''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 82 as amended agreed to
Clauses 83 to 86 inclusive agreed to
On clause 87 - Regulations
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana?
Mr. Fontana: I will move amendment G-14, which substitutes some words, ``requirements'' and ``services''.
The Chairman: So it's technical in nature. Shall amendment G-14 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: What about G-15, Mr. Fontana?
Mr. Fontana: It's a technical revision to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 87 as amended agreed to
On clause 88 - Definitions
The Chairman: You have an amendment to clause 88, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
We move amendment G-16, which amends clause 88 by adding the definitions of ``point of origin'' and ``point of destination''. This clarifies matters as they relate to shipper access to interswitching and competitive line rates, ensuring that it is maintained for those shippers whose lines are transferred to a provincial short line.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: G-17, Mr. Fontana.
.1725
Mr. Fontana: I move G-17, which is a clarification to definitions.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: G-18.
Mr. Fontana: I move G-18. Again, it's for clarification and adds some words, ``a partnership of such persons or a person who''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 88 as amended agreed to
On clause 89 - Application
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: We have moved a technical amendment, ``person who operates a railway'', in G-19.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 89 as amended agreed to
Clause 90 agreed to
On clause 91 - Certificate required
Mr. Fontana: I move amendment G-20. It's a technical amendment: ``ate a railway without a certificate of fitness''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 91 as amended agreed to
Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to
On clause 94 - Variation of certificate
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I move amendment G-21, which clarifies clause 94, on certificates of fitness.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 94 as amended agreed to
An hon. member: Just out of curiosity...the third word in the third line of clause 94: is that just a misprint, or is that a new word I don't know about? Is it pronounced ``termini''?
The Chairman: Plural of ``terminus''.
On clause 95 - Notice of insurance changes
Mr. Fontana: I move G-22. It's a correction to the French version of clause 95.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 95 as amended agreed to
Clause 96 agreed to
On clause 97 - Land taken pursuant to section 134 of Railway Act
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I move G-23. As you know, this clause places restrictions on the disposition of crown lands used by the railway, so we're making these amendments to clarify that. I wonder if Ms Greene -
The Chairman: Ms Greene, would you like to comment on G-23?
Ms Greene: Yes. I have fear, given the technical nature of these apportionment amendments.... This will be another one, Mr. Chairman, that you will characterize as being as clear as mud. But let me have a go at it.
A subset of railway land under the old Railway Act could not be alienated except to the Crown, depending on how the railway got hold of it. If we want to allow the railways to sell land to short-line railways so we can get short-line rail up and running, there has to be an amendment to that for that subset of land that could be sold to the short-line operator. However, in Quebec the technical language you have to use in the transfer of land is different from in the rest of the country. So there had to be a subclause to cover that off.
.1730
Finally, we wanted to make it plain, in response to representations made to the committee from aboriginal people, that nothing in this section in any way affects prior existing rights of other interested parties, including aboriginal people.
So there are those three technical aspects to the amendment. One was to make the section accord with what is actually being done under section 144, the sale of lines; two is to make the language appropriate so that all jurisdictions will be covered, including Quebec; and three is to make it plain that nothing that will be done in the transfer of any lines pertinent to a sale to a short line, for example, will affect prior existing rights, such as the rights of aboriginal peoples.
That's the effect of the amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now turn to amendment R-18. Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: R-18 and R-19 are just clearer versions of what we just passed, but because they're already passed, I will withdraw them.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: That is a subjective opinion.
The Chairman: How about R-20, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: Let me see which part we haven't dealt with yet.
Mr. Fontana: It's the same as R-18.
Mr. Gouk: Yes.
The Chairman: So you're pulling R-20 as well.
Mr. Gouk: R-20 as well.
The Chairman: R-20 is pulled.
Clause 97 as amended agreed to
On clause 98 - Land obtained for railway purposes
The Chairman: Next is amendment G-24. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: G-24 is a technical amendment to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 98 as amended agreed to
On clause 99 - No construction without Agency approval
The Chairman: Clause 99 has an amendment, G-25. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: G-25 speaks to ``exempts railways from obtaining approval for construction of rail lines in some circumstances'' and we're making some clarifications there with regard to what a ``rail line'' is, (a) and (b) in that clause.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 99 as amended agreed to
On clause 100 - Filing agreements
The Chairman: Clause 100 has an amendment. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Again, G-26, amending clause 100, is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 100 as amended agreed to
On clause 101 - Definitions
The Chairman: Clause 101 has a Reform amendment. I'll ask the clerk to hand it out.
A voice: Wait a minute. We're not on clause 102 yet. Hang on a second.
The Chairman: It's okay. The clerk is excited about his work and jumped ahead of us a little bit. He saw those sandwiches and lost his head for a minute. So there is no amendment for clause 101.
Clause 101 agreed to
On clause 102 - Filing agreements
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: G-27 again is technical in nature.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 102 as amended agreed to
Clause 103 agreed to
On clause 104 - Other crossings may be ordered
The Chairman: Clause 104 has two Bloc amendments. Mr. Mercier, B-14.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, our two amendments would place a company under the obligation not only to construct but also to maintain a suitable crossing.
Clause 104(1) currently reads as follows:
- 104.(1) If a railway company and an owner of land adjoining the company's railway do not
agree on the construction of a crossing across the railway, the Agency, on the application of the
owner, may order the company to construct a suitable crossing if the Agency considers it
necessary for the owner's enjoyment of the land.
We find that it is not enough for the company to construct a crossing; we also think that after constructing it, it should be required to maintain it. It's just common sense and that's why we move that clause 104 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 43 with the following:
- to construct and maintain a suitable crossing
Mr. Fontana: I believe that 103 and 104 distinguish between the different types of crossings, and therefore B-14, because of the amendments just passed, becomes redundant.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We want the company to be required to maintain the crossing that it has constructed. That's just common sense.
[English]
Ms Greene: I don't know if this will be helpful, but in subclause 104(2) the agency's powers in the order include the terms and conditions governing the construction and maintenance of the crossing.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Then it's a question of agreement.
Subclause 104(1) states...
[English]
The Chairman: From what I understand, it is covered.
Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: The reason why they're separated is because the agency can't order the railways to construct or maintain. In most instances, if it's a private crossing the owner pays the maintenance fees. That's why there's a difference. So you have to separate the two.
If he puts it in the other clause, every time there's an order to put in a crossing, the railways will have to pay for it. You know how many there are across the country, including Quebec. It would bankrupt the railway in about ten minutes. That's why they are separated.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I understand the objection.
We don't want the requirement to maintain a crossing to be left to the Agency's discretion. We want it made clear that the company is required to maintain the crossing.
[English]
Mr. Nault: They do in subclause 104(2).
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Yes, but in subclause 104(2), it says that the agency "may include in its order" a requirement to maintain the crossing, whereas we don't want this to be left to the Agency's discretion. We want this to be a mandatory requirement.
It seems obvious to us.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, you've heard the terms of the motion. Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Could I just get one clarification? I just want to make sure I understand. I believe I'm in agreement with, God forbid, the government side.
If I understand it there are two distinctions here. One is where the railway splits an owner's property, in which case it has to provide the crossing. But this is referring to the clause where it is simply adjacent to the railway and someone wants a crossing to get to his or her property; then the onus is on the property owner.
Ms Greene: Exactly.
Mr. Gouk: I just want to make sure we're clear on that.
Mr. Fontana: About Mr. Gouk's comments, one should know there are about 25,000 or so private crossings. To make it mandatory would be absolutely unreasonable.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Amendment B-15, Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The spirit behind it is the same. We are moving that clause 104 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 43 with the following:
- The railway company shall pay the...
The Chairman: Pretty close. You've heard the terms of amendment B-15.
Amendment negatived
Clause 104 agreed to on division
On clause 105 - Deposit and notice of mortgage or hypotheque
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I'd move G-28 if I could, but I would also ask the committee's indulgence to do something else. The French version is correct but the English version is not. In addition to what's before you in amendment G-28, we have to make just a couple of technical amendments in English.
.1740
At line 20, where in the English version it uses the word ``Act'', we'd like to change that to ``law'' or ``statute''. We also want to do the same thing on line 37 and change the word ``Act'' to ``law'' or ``statute''. The French version already says that but the English version doesn't. So in addition to what's before you in G-28, there are those additional items on line 20 and line 37. They are friendly amendments to amendment G-28.
The Chairman: Does everybody understand that friendly amendment?
Subamendment agreed to
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 105 as amended agreed to
On clause 106 - Deposit of documents
Mr. Fontana: I move amendment G-29. It's ``hypothec...or security agreement relating to it''. That's a neat word, by the way.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, amendment R-21.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, to help Mr. Gouk we'd be prepared to accept his amendment, except it needs a spelling correction.
The Chairman: That's not his fault.
Mr. Fontana: Instead of ``appartenances'', it should be ``appurtenances'', and then we'll help you out.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 106 as amended agreed to
On clause 107 - Scheme may be filed in Federal Court
Mr. Fontana: There is a correction to the French version in amendment G-30.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 107 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Clause 108, Mr. Fontana.
Sorry, what's going on here.
Mrs. Terrana: There is an amendment to clause 107, page 44.
Mr. Fontana: Could I just take a moment?
The Chairman: Our list is not numbered correctly here. Just give us a minute.
Colleagues, you'll notice in your group of amendments it's listed as clause 107, page 44. We're going to list that as amendment G-30(a), under clause 107. So clause 107 still needs another amendment.
.1745
Mr. Fontana: On page 95 we'll number it G-30(a). Essentially, this provides 60 days for the financing of railway equipment, akin to what's happening in the United States. So that's what G-30(a) is all about.
The Chairman: So this will be G-30(a) for the purposes of the minutes.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 107 as amended agreed to
On clause 108 - Assent to scheme
Mr. Fontana: On clause 108, amendment G-31 is just a correction of the English version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Fontana: Amendment G-32 is a correction of the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 108 as amended agreed to
Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to
On clause 111 - Copies of the scheme to be kept for sale
Mr. Fontana: Amendment G-33 is a technical correction to the English version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 111 as amended agreed to
On clause 112 - Definitions
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, amendment R-22.
Mr. Gouk: On clause 112, the intent in the bill, or at least the wording in the bill, makes it so that an interchange can take place only when two railways own two different sets of lines, and then the interchange is in effect. What it excludes is where a railway operated, but not necessarily the line owned by a second railway, comes into that same situation. They do not, in accordance with this bill, have the same entitlement for an interchange. The wording of the amendment deletes the words ``of the railway'' and substitutes the words ``operated by''.
Mr. Fontana: I would want to ask Ms Greene if she could do it. Probably it would have the effect of amending agreements already in place, and that would be really problematic.
The Chairman: Ms Greene, did you want to add to that?
Ms Greene: Mr. Fontana is correct.
Also, it has the effect of expanding quite considerably the points where competitive line rates could apply, such that there could be cases where Canadian rail traffic would be siphoned onto the American railroad system.
I would just point out to the committee that the definition of ``interchange'' is a very important, carefully crafted definition to link up the situations where it is possible to move traffic from one railroad to another. In the Canadian statute that is possible for Canadian federal railroads, and it is not the intention of the statute to make those sorts of provisions available so that traffic could be shifted from the Canadian system onto the American system.
So while this definitional change that Mr. Gouk is suggesting appears on its face to have the limited effect that he mentioned, because of its very critical link-up to other provisions to the bill it has a much wider impact.
Mr. Gouk: I have a bit of trouble with that explanation, because if the American rail line where the crossing took place owned its rail line and crossed our Canadian rail line, by this definition it would have an interchange.
.1750
Where we don't have an interchange, whether it be in Canada, wholly between two Canadian operations, or not is if one of the two operations doesn't happen to own the rail. Even though it is wholly in Canada, they would not be able to get an interchange.
Ms Greene: Mr. Gouk, if it's the intention as part of the agreement between the two railroads, the one that owns the track and the one that is leasing the track, that such will be the arrangement between them, then it is negotiated between them.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to on division
On clause 114 - Accommodation for traffic
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Pursuant to this amendment, a company entering into a confidential agreement must send a copy of such agreement to the Agency. I move that clause 114 be amended by replacing line 5 on page 48 with the following:
- be fulfilled by the company, in which case the company shall submit forthwith a copy of the
confidential contract or agreement to the Agency.
- (5) The Agency shall examine the confidential contract or the agreement and if, in its
opinion, the contract or the agreement does not serve the interests of consumers, it may make
recommendations to the parties to the contract.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think the effect of the Bloc amendment would be to do something we're trying to get the agency not to do, and that's to examine thousands and thousands of confidential contracts...and hence to expedite and make the system work that much more efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, what is being suggested already exists in law now. It's called the Competition Act. There are protections for consumers.
What he's suggesting is that if there's a contract, it's somehow almost illegal. If that's not his intention, could he give us an example of something we would want to have reviewed by the agency and how the recommended change would affect a consumer? I'm not sure what he would be talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I have no specific examples in mind. It's simply a matter that when a confidential contract is concluded, the Agency must be made aware of it in order to ascertain whether or not it serves the public interest.
[English]
Amendment negatived
Clauses 114 and 115 agreed to on division
Clauses 116 and 117 agreed to
On clause 118 - Rates to be charged
The Chairman: Clause 118 has an amendment. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, G-34 is a correction to the French version of the clause.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 118 as amended agreed to
Clause 119 agreed to
On clause 120 - Increasing rates in freight tariff
The Chairman: R-23, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, this puts the time of notice from twenty days up to thirty days.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I've carefully considered the representations made by a number of people to move the dates from twenty to thirty days, and the effect of this amendment - and I'm sure the Reform Party would not want to encumber railroads essentially to have to keep two sets of books....
.1755
The U.S. provision for a tariff notification is twenty days, and therefore Canadian shippers moving into Canada have to comply with that provision. We thought it was only consistent with what's happening in the United States that we should stick with the twenty days. That's also consistent with other modes of transportation, where twenty days is an acceptable timeframe.
Mr. Gouk: That's a U.S. timeframe.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, you have an amendment?
Mr. Fontana: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move amendment G-35, which I would say is technical in nature, adding some words here and there.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 120 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clauses 121 through 128 carry?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We are opposed to clauses 127 and 128.
[English]
Clauses 121 to 126 inclusive agreed to
Clauses 127 and 128 agreed to on division
On clause 129 - Regulations
The Chairman: Colleagues, at this point we're at clause 129. I propose that we take ten minutes for a bite and we'll return at 6:10 p.m. We're only scheduled to be here till 7 p.m., so we'll start at 6:10 p.m. and go to 7 p.m. Thanks.
.1757
______________________________________________________________________________
.1812
The Chairman: Where were we before we were pleasantly interrupted? Okay, we're at 129. G-36, parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, the amendment G-36 dealing with clause 129 deals with interswitching. It is being amended to make it clear that interswitching rates set by the agency may not be less than the variable costs of performing the service, and the amendment clarifies that point.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment R-24, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I think amendment G-36 covered off what amendment R-24 had purported to do.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, you got it right. I'll withdraw amendment R-24.
Clause 129 as amended agreed to
On clause 130 - Application
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Amendment G-36.5 for clause 130 is a technical amendment that says ``For greater certainty''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment R-25, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Fontana: I think amendment R-25 does exactly what amendment G-36.5 does, and that's why you should be moving some of these government amendments, Mr. Gouk.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Gouk: All you have to do is withdraw them, Joe, and then the correct wording is right behind them.
The Chairman: Are we withdrawing amendment R-25, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: Yes, I will withdraw it.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Clause 130 as amended agreed to
Clause 131 agreed to
On clause 132 - Shipper and connecting carriers must agree
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I move amendment G-37, which deals with the CLRs for greater certainty.
The Chairman: Any discussion?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1815
The Chairman: G-38, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: It just adds a couple of words: ``is available''. Therefore it's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: R-26, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: It's pretty straightforward and self-explanatory. The government has suggested to me it's already there. I place on it the onus of convincing me of that. Then I can live with it.
Mr. Fontana: I'll let Ms Greene do that for you.
Ms Greene: Mr. Chairman, under subclause 4(2) of this bill, the Competition Act for the first time very clearly applies to transportation matters, such that all the refusal-to-deal provisions in the Competition Act would be available if a shipper were being treated in a manner contrary to those provisions. Secondly, under this bill, in clause 119, the shippers can now force a carrier to quote a rate. So my suggestion to Mr. Gouk is that for those two reasons the provision is covered off elsewhere.
The Chairman: Do you want to withdraw it, Mr. Gouk, or do you want to vote on it, if it is covered off somewhere?
Mr. Gouk: No, it doesn't matter where it's covered off. I do want to see it. I can live with 119 as the explanation.
Clause 132 as amended agreed to
Clause 133 agreed to
On clause 134 - Competitive line rate
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, R-27.
Mr. Gouk: I move it as it's written. It's pretty self-explanatory, subject to the tirade I might get as a result.
The Chairman: Do you want to explain it a bit?
Mr. Gouk: I knew you were going to do that to me. I haven't had a chance to go through that. I have to find all my amendments.
The Chairman: Maybe Ms Greene....
Ms Greene: Mr. Gouk, I may be mistaken, but I think what you were proposing to get at with the amendment was not only that substantially similar traffic be considered but that the agency look as well to substantially similar traffic covered over a comparable distance.
Mr. Gouk: Where there is no reasonable comparable traffic to use, they can go to this.
Ms Greene: The only thing I would point out to Mr. Gouk, and he may be interested in knowing, is that as a matter of practicality the agency has informed us that if they had to have two factors to do the comparison, it would be almost impossible for them to do. Leaving it with just ``substantially similar'' traffic makes it possible for them to do the comparison. To force on them a second factor, including comparable distance, is very difficult and impractical for them.
Mr. Gouk: I would trust you would agree that by comparing a short haul with a long haul and trying to use that to develop rates is a very unrealistic thing for providing some justifiable figures.
Ms Greene: I agree with you completely in the concept. However, I'm told it will make the comparison very difficult to do, and the agency is able to do the comparison by relying simply on similar traffic.
.1820
Mr. Gouk: Again, I have trouble. If there is nothing for the agency to use for distance, then clearly they have to do the best they can. But I want to ensure that it has been required as a consideration where it is available.
Ms Greene: They have to take into consideration all traffic that's moved over the lines that is similar. But to impose the specific requirement of the distance comparison, we are told, would make it very difficult for them to do.
Mr. Gouk: I don't see where it would be difficult if that exists. If it doesn't exist, then they're going to have to substitute some other method of calculating, which is what they do. All I'm saying is that if that type of traffic is available, then they must use it, pure and simple - that they can't do it on the basis of the type of traffic alone, that they have to take that into consideration wherever it is available to them.
I don't think that's a particularly onerous problem for them. It's onerous only if we say that you have to use distance where distance sometimes isn't available and we say, ``Tough; find it''. Obviously, that's unreasonable. But if a similar distance comparison is available, then they have to use it.
Ms Greene: If it would be helpful for the committee, I can see no reason, if distance is available and would not in any way diminish their ability to make the comparison, why it ought not to be included. But I'm told that it's very difficult.
Mr. Nault: It isn't, unless I'm misreading the bill itself and the portion we're dealing with, because if you read further and you go to C, D, and E of clause 134, C, D, and E deal with the different distances. So I don't understand why there's a necessity to put it in A when in fact some of the other factors that are looked at are, in C, the total number of kilometres of the movement of traffic that generated the total revenue and, in D, the number of kilometres over which the competitive line rate is to apply....
Does that not do the same thing as Mr. Gouk is suggesting?
The Chairman: May I suggest that we stand this clause down until tomorrow. We'll give the officials a chance to have a look at it and come back and see if we can come to some arrangement on this one. All right?
Mr. Gouk: It's just an interpretive thing.
The Chairman: Yes. So we'll have clause 134 and both the R-27 and G-39 amendments stand until tomorrow.
Clause 134 allowed to stand
Clauses 135 and 136 agreed to
On clause 137 - Obligation of carriers to provide cars
Mr. Fontana: Amendment G-40 is a technical amendment of the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment G-41, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: The clause deals with the agency's authority to determine limitations of railway liability in cases where shippers and carriers do not agree on a limitation of liability, and this will avoid protracted shipper-carrier negotiations and potential litigation. Therefore this amendment covers that off.
The Chairman: So it's a new clause, 137.1, which is the amendment G-41.
Mr. Fontana: I'm sorry; it isn't clause 137, then. So you can deal with clause 137 first -
The Chairman: We can deal with clause 137 first.
Clause 137 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: On amendment G-41, is there no discussion?
Mr. Fontana: I should say that both the shippers and the carriers wanted this amendment, so it's supported by both parties.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 138 - Application by railway company
The Chairman: Amendment G-42.
Mr. Fontana: It is a change to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Amendment G-43.
Mr. Fontana: It is a change to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1825
Clause 138 as amended agreed to
On clause 139 - Request for joint or common use of right-of-way
The Chairman: Amendment G-44 is next.
Mr. Fontana: G-44 is a French version change.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 139 as amended agreed to
On clause 140 - Definition of ``railway line''
The Chairman: We're on amendment G-45.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, G-45 is an English version change.
The Chairman: It's a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 140 as amended agreed to
On clause 141 - Three year plan
The Chairman: Amendment G-46.
Mr. Fontana: It's a French version change, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next is amendment G-47.
Mr. Fontana: The amendment is to strike out lines 27 to 30 on page 62 of the bill.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Jordan: What's the significance of that, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, why are we striking out lines 27 through 30?
Mr. Fontana: The amendments we just passed to section 97 make this subclause unnecessary and therefore we're striking it out.
Mr. Jordan: Okay.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: As a result of that, amendments R-28 and R-29 probably don't apply.
Mr. Gouk, did you want to withdraw those two? The lines you're referring to have just been done away with.
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
The Chairman: Amendments R-28 and R-29 are withdrawn.
Clause 141 as amended agreed to
On clause 142 - Compliance with steps for discontinuation
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, you have amendment G-48 to clause 142?
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, as you know, clause 142 is part of the discontinuance section, and this amendment proposed in G-48 requires a railway to wait 60 days after amending its plan before beginning the line discontinuance process. It's a loophole we wanted to fill to ensure the integrity of the three-year plan. While the railways can amend it at any time, we wanted to make sure it didn't circumvent the notification period and the times available for everyone to be notified of a sale, a lease and/or a conveyance.
Ms Greene might want to cover that.
Ms Greene: Mr. Fontana, I think you've covered it very clearly.
The Chairman: Are there any other discussions on amendment G-48?
Mr. Mercier.
Mr. Mercier: On division.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, there's an amendment G-48.5.
Mr. Fontana: Yes. It's a technical amendment.
The Chairman: It's a technical amendment on the wording?
Mr. Fontana: Well, we're substituting. I might want Ms Greene to do this because this takes into account the Robson lines, which are of great interest to a number of people.
The Chairman: Ms Greene.
Ms Greene: There is a series of light-density lines that all the interested parties in the handling and shipment of grain believe should be removed expeditiously from the rail network. They are never likely to be made into short lines. They end up costing grain farmers money as long as they are there.
.1830
For the past several months Mrs. Robson has been studying a subset of these light-density lines, with a view to getting them out of the system without having to go through any further process, since everyone agrees that they are a cost burden on grain farmers in the system.
This provision makes plain that for that subset of lines they can come out of the system at a date fixed in March or ten days after the coming into force of this bill.
Mr. Fontana: All parties involved in this are in agreement. The producers, the stakeholders, the carriers, everybody is in place, and so I think this would help expedite the situation very well.
Mr. Gouk: The only thing that makes me nervous about it, Joe, is that I have a railroad line running through a community called Robson in my riding, and I don't want anybody getting nervous.
Mrs. Terrana: There is a Robson Street in Vancouver.
The Chairman: Shall the amendment G-48.5 carry?
Mr. Fontana: It's worth about $5 million, isn't it?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 142 as amended agreed to
On clause 143 - Advertisement of availability of railway line for continued rail operations
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: There is an English version change in G-49.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: G-50, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Clause 143 essentially specifies what the railway must include in the advertisement for the sale of the line, and this amendment requires that the railway, if it is not transferring all of its interest in the line, for example, if it intends to lease rather than sell, specify in the advertisement how it intends to transfer that interest.
The Chairman: For greater certainty.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 143 as amended agreed to
On clause 144 - Disclosure of process
The Chairman: G-51, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, G-51, dealing with clause 144, is related to the amendments that we have just passed in clauses 142 to 145, so it brings all those clauses into line.
Does Ms Greene want to add anything to that one?
Ms Greene: No, I think it is pretty clear.
The Chairman: It is a straightforward technical....
Mr. Fontana: The railway company has four months.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 144 as amended agreed to
On clause 145 - Offer to governments
The Chairman: G-52, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I believe Mrs. Terrana is going to do this one.
The Chairman: Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana: This amendment relates to clause 145. It clarifies the cases in which the railways offer to the minister, and it also brings the time for the three levels of government to make the decision from fifteen days to thirty days each.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, R-30.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, most of the members will probably remember the submission by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We have three provinces in Canada that have an additional level of government, the regional districts.
Within my riding, for example, I have a line that I expect to possibly be considered for abandonment at some future time. In addition to running through two municipalities, it runs through a number of unorganized areas that can only be described as being in a specific regional district.
This amendment is designed to give an additional level of consideration, where that level of government exists, so that before it goes to the municipalities it would go to the regional districts, as I say, where they exist, for possible purchase by them before it goes to the individuals.
.1835
The Chairman: Ms Greene, can you explain why the department wouldn't put regional governments into the...?
Ms Greene: We have been advised that there's such a wide variation across the country on regional governments that it is probably not wise to go at the issue you cite in the way you suggest. If a line passes through several municipalities where there is a regional government, the likelihood is that the municipalities would get in contact with the regional government in any event.
Our concern was that to specify another level you had to go through, first, would not apply in many circumstances across the country, and secondly, could very well end up just delaying matters without having the curative effects you're seeking.
Mr. Gouk: With regard to the fact that it doesn't apply in many circumstances, then you have no problem with my amendment. Where you have a problem is where it would apply.
Using my own province as an example, I have areas where the municipalities are not strung together. I don't know how they do this in provinces where they do not have regional districts. What is the resolution of the disposal of that land after the province, where the rail line goes between two municipalities or cities but is not in a municipality or city at that time, only in a regional district?
Ms Greene: I understand a problem could emerge, but in that case.... First, let me say that as a federal statute we tend to recognize three orders of government or three levels of government.
Mr. Gouk: Tend to?
Ms Greene: Well, I don't know of a case.... I'm not going to be definitive about it, Mr. Gouk, because I don't know.
Secondly, in the case you cite, would you not think the province in that event would take hold of the matter and ensure that all of the interested municipalities come together on it?
Mr. Gouk: Yes, but you see the problem is we're not talking about interested municipalities; we're talking about specific sections of rail that aren't in anybody's municipality. They're in a regional district in certain provinces where regional districts exist.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why Mr. Gouk is coming at it this way. If you read subclause 145(2), it says:
- (2) After the requirement to make the offer arises, the railway company shall send it
- and then it says:
- (c) to the clerk or other senior administrative officer of each municipality that the railway
line passes through.
Mr. Nault: Unless it's different in B.C. from what it is in Ontario, if I put my old municipal hat on from when I used to be a municipal councillor, the regional government of the municipalities is a second tier of government. In fact, the first tier is always the municipality itself. They have authority over their particular area. If in fact the request or the information was sent to individual municipalities that the line goes through, then it would end up through those municipalities to the regional government themselves so that if they wanted to deal with it, it's in its total form.
To suggest that you put the clause in the way Mr. Gouk is suggesting, unless it's totally different in B.C. - and I can't speak for B.C. -
Mr. Gouk: I think it is.
Mr. Nault: - what you're doing is causing a confrontation as to which jurisdiction has the ability to deal with this issue.
In fact, the way it should go - at least it does in Ontario - is that the municipalities themselves have powers above and beyond and separate from the regional government, and then they have certain services that are applicable to the region as a whole. That's why I think it's best left this way. Then everybody will be informed. If the regional government wants to entice individual municipalities to buy a line, then they can do so.
Mr. Gouk: Where the problem still lies - and I haven't heard anybody explain to me how this is done. I've suggested to the parliamentary secretary when we discussed a lot of these amendments that if you guys have an explanation, I'm quite willing to listen to it. But the problem is, what do we do with a rail line being abandoned?
We've dealt with the federal government because it's all in Canada. In the case of British Columbia, we've dealt with the provincial government because we're talking about B.C. Now before we get to the individual municipalities, we have a substantial amount of the rail line that is not in anybody's municipality.
Mr. Nault: That's provincial jurisdiction.
Ms Greene: That's provincial jurisdiction.
.1840
Mr. Gouk: So it has to be done by the provinces. Hey, that's your area; we're not -
Mr. Nault: If the municipality has no jurisdiction outside of its boundaries and that railway isn't within their municipality, they have no right to suggest it is their obligation or the federal government's obligation or the railway's obligation to inform them. It then becomes a provincial jurisdiction.
If the province says, no.... I thought what you were saying is that it was within municipalities, but if you're saying it's within a district that happens to have municipalities in it - it's the district of such-and-such a municipality -
Mr. Gouk: It's a regional district.
Mr. Nault: That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, it does. It is a regional district. It is a recognized level of government in British Columbia, with specific authorities provided to it by the provincial government in exactly the same way as a municipality.
The Chairman: Just as a point of clarification for myself, Mr. Gouk, in a regional municipality - and we've got them in Ontario, too - there are no voids between municipalities. A regional municipality is made up of a number of municipalities. In my area, for example, you have Hamilton and Dundas and Flamborough, etc. These are little communities on the map, but their borders meet with one another. The regional municipality -
Mr. Gouk: And they are recognized municipalities.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Gouk: We do not have those in British Columbia.
The Chairman: No, but the regional municipality is the other tier of government that brings those together.
Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Gouk and I have had this discussion. I think what we're trying not to do is to confuse regional governments or regional districts with municipal governments. Because different provinces may have different municipal regimes, by saying ``municipalities'', it is fair to say it's covered off in terms of the notification and the opportunities that come with that level of government.
As I understand it, a regional district in British Columbia, as you just said, is recognized as a municipal government by the Province of British Columbia. It is therefore better for us to stick to a generic term that everybody across the country can understand, which is ``municipalities'', and one that designates a certain level of government. I'm sure the regional districts in B.C. will have the opportunity of the notification and those opportunities that come with regard to that particular rail line that they may want to acquire.
If we mention regional districts and regional governments, what do we do in other provinces, for example, where those things don't exist? We just confuse the situation immensely.
Mr. Gouk: It will simply happen where they exist. You're saying the regional districts don't need to be in here because they'll be notified by the province. Why do you bother having the municipalities in here, then? Let them be notified by the province.
Mr. Fontana: No, they'll be notified by the railroads, because the railroads have the obligation to do so.
Mr. Gouk: To notify the regional districts?
Mr. Fontana: They have the obligation to notify the municipalities, which may be regional districts.
Mr. Gouk: If you want to put a definition in here that for the purposes of this act a regional district shall be considered a municipality, I have no problem. But that's not what it says.
Mr. Fontana: It's not our jurisdiction to say that. It's the jurisdiction of the province to determine what is and what is not a municipality.
The Chairman: I think with the definition of ``municipality'' in this sense - and I can be corrected, by the way - we have federal government, we have provincial government, and we have local government. I think local government is what they mean by ``municipality''. So if it's regional, municipal or whatever they want to call it in whatever province, I think it means local government.
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan: I think I understand what Mr. Gouk is getting at: districts. There are some parts of this nation that are not in any municipality. They are in something called ``districts''.
Mr. Gouk: That's right.
Mr. Jordan: What we should do then is amend paragraph 145(2)(c) to read: ``to the clerk or other senior administrative officer of each municipality or district'' -
Mr. Gouk: Well, as long as all my territory is covered, I'm happy. This is one way to do it and that's another.
Mr. Jordan: - ``that the railway line passes through''.
Mr. Gouk: If you prefer to liberalize my amendment, I can probably live with it as long as the area is included.
The Chairman: All right, then. Why don't we take this? The suggestion has been made about using the word ``district''. Why don't we stand this one down as well? We'll ask the officials to have a look to make sure there are no complications with the word ``district''. Maybe there's a better word that we can come up with by morning.
So with your indulgence, colleagues, we'll stand clause 145 down until tomorrow morning.
Mr. Gouk: Sounds good to me. Sleep tight all regional districts, we're on watch.
Clause 145 allowed to stand
.1845
The Chairman: The department will come back with an agreement or explanation on that one.
On clause 146 - Discontinuation
Mr. Fontana: May I just mention one thing on R-31? I think we've partly covered that in G-53.
Mr. Gouk: Which part do we still need to deal with?
Mr. Fontana: I knew you would say that.
Mr. Gouk: I will do something that will help expedite things. I will take the two that did not show up and deal with them at the tabling stage instead.
Mr. Nault: I would prefer to dealt with them here, if we could.
Mr. Gouk: I intend to deal with one of them there in any case.
The Chairman: We could stand down until tomorrow.
Mr. Gouk: I don't know if they'll show up or not. It's 7 p.m. now and I haven't seen them, and we're going to reconvene at 9 a.m.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Gouk might want to look at G-53. As I said, it partly covers that. If he's still waiting for another one that is supposed to be working its way back to him, I think we should stand down clause 146 until tomorrow,
Clauses 146 allowed to stand
The Chairman: Amendment G-53 is for a brand-new clause 146.1, so that's a carry-over. Do you want to wait on that one as well?
Mr. Hubbard, are you withdrawing that one?
Mr. Hubbard: Yes.
Clauses 147 to 151 inclusive agreed to on division
On clause 152 - Higher rates in respect of joint line movements
The Chairman: Amendment G-54, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: It's a French version correction on clause 152.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 152 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 153 - Higher rates in respect of certain railway cars
The Chairman: Amendment G-54.5, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Government amendment 54.5 is another French version amendment to clause 153.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 153 agreed to on division
On clause 154 - Prescribed railway companies
The Chairman: Amendment B-18, Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Again, it's for the same reason.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 154 agreed to on division
On clause 155 - Review
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Amendment R-32 makes the change from doing it during 1999 to doing it on or before December 31, 1997. That still provides over two years to do it.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, did you want to address that?
Mr. Fontana: I only want to say a couple of things. Ms Greene might want to do it.
.1850
The rate cap obviously is going to be reviewed in 1999. The members should know there are ongoing consultations among all the stakeholders to develop a new calculation for that rate. We hope it will occur sooner than by 1997. In fact, it may occur after we pass C-101 and before the budget, at which point we would have to amend this bill. So I think we should allow all the partners and the stakeholders to try to work this out themselves, rather than impose certain changes at this time.
Ms Greene: I think that captures it, Mr. Fontana. This process will probably not be complete until budget time. So as amendments come forward, which is likely, they will be in 1996. At that time, if it's felt appropriate that the review should be advanced, it can be. But for now, this gives us a reasonable period to assess what's happening in grain transportation.
Mr. Gouk: She agrees with you, Joe. I'm surprised. I'm waiting for the time she smacks you and says no, you're wrong, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I'm a masochist, but I'm not sure I'd go that far.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 155 agreed to on division
On clause 156 - Uniform accounting system for CN and CP
The Chairman: G-55, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, G-55 makes minor but necessary amendments to the agency's powers to prescribe a classification of accounts to allow comparison of railway performance. These amendments do that.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 156 as amended agreed to
On clause 157 - Regulations for determining costs
The Chairman: G-56, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: It's the French version amendment to 157.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: G-57?
Mr. Fontana: It just adds the words ``the Agency must'' at line 70.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 157 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Now we go to G-58, which is a new clause 157.1. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Ms Greene....
The Chairman: Ms Greene, do you want to give us an explanation for this new clause 157.1?
Ms Greene: In cases where short lines are being set up, often the provincial government will wish to adopt rail safety laws that have been on our books, for example, almost holus-bolus into their laws. In other cases provinces that may be taking over some jurisdiction of rail that they have not had since the turn of the century will want for the administration of that jurisdiction to leave it with the agency or to leave it with officials of the department. This provision merely makes it clear that the minister is empowered to make agreements with his provincial colleagues to carry out the mutual administration of acts that may come into force in provincial governments. It's a clarifying provision.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 158 and 159 agreed to
On clause 160 - Rail passenger services
The Chairman: Clause 160 has a Reform amendment, R-33. Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Ms Greene, you'll explain that one for us.
The Chairman: She can explain why it might not work.
Mr. Gouk: Of course - unless Joe has got the nod.
Basically, it's a process to provide arbitration within certain types of rail service, and a method of doing that, and time parameters.
Now we'll hear the other side.
.1855
The Chairman: Ms Greene, do you want to comment on that one?
Ms Green: As I understand the clause, it proposes a type of arbitration different from the one that has commonly been in the transportation law. It's a kind of mediation style of process rather than a strict final-offer process.
I would suggest to Mr. Gouk that the final-offer process is generally regarded as the one that prompts the parties to engage most firmly in negotiations. A mediation process allows the parties to use a third party to a much greater extent than the pressure that is on them to negotiate with one another. So it's really a difference in philosophy: do you want somebody else to solve their problems, or do you want an arbitration process that forces the parties to solve their problems?
The Chairman: Thanks, Moya. That was a straight explanation.
Mr. Gouk: We will hear the reversal on the next one.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 160 agreed to
The Chairman: At this point I'm going to call it a night. We've been working since 3:30 p.m. It's now 7 p.m. I appreciate how far we've come this evening, and we'll be looking forward to seeing you tomorrow at 9 a.m. in this room. By then, hopefully, the department will have some responses on some of the matters we stood down and Mr. Gouk will have a response from the legal people on a couple of the missing amendments.
This meeting stands adjourned.