Evidence of meeting #5 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make committee members aware that I can't keep up to my e-mail coming in about the amendment. The Western Grain Elevator Association, Cargill Limited, Canadian Dehydrators Association, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Tolko Industries Inc., Millar Western Forest Products Ltd., the Coalition of Rail Shippers, and the Propane Gas Association of Canada are sending in correspondence saying they're opposed to this amendment. I want to let the committee members know that.
December 4th, 2007 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All I wanted to say was that the whole purpose for this legislation was to ensure that the shippers didn't have disproportionate costs that they would incur in getting these disputes settled. The word “equally” introduces so much ambiguity into the amendments that are before us that there's a virtual guarantee the shippers are going to end up spending many years in court litigating this whole issue of what does the word “equally” mean, and what does it apply to? In the end, the shippers may actually end up with a result they did not want. That we have this negative response from virtually the whole industry on this amendment I think speaks clearly to the fact that this is a word we don't want to insert.
I understand where Mr. Carrier is coming from. We share his sentiments and we want to make sure the shippers are treated fairly across the board. But given the fact that Canada is so diverse, one specific industry may have different circumstances in different regions of the country. Because of that, applying a ruling or an application equally across the country would really be counterproductive.
I would encourage Mr. Carrier to perhaps withdraw this amendment, if he would. I believe it's actually working against what he's trying to achieve.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Are there any other comments?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to)
9:25 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:25 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill, as amended, for the use of the House at report stage? My advice is that it may not be necessary, simply because it is a very small amendment.
I will ask again, but think of a tree.
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill, as amended, for the use of the House at report stage?
9:25 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you. It shall be reprinted, but it will be on recycled paper.
I thank you for your good work on this bill.
Just for the information of the committee, on Thursday of this week we will be dealing with railway safety--that's Mr. Bell's motion--and we will have Transport Canada officials in here to answer questions.
On Tuesday, December 11, I'm asking for a subcommittee meeting, so there'll be no transportation meeting that day other than for those who are on the subcommittee. And I'm hoping that on Thursday, December 13, we'll either deal with the infrastructure programs or with the introduction of the bill that's currently before the House, Bill C-23.
Go ahead, Mr. Carrier.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I thought the infrastructure study wasn't on the agenda for next Thursday as initially planned. Is that what you mentioned?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I said it would either be one or the other. If Bill C-23 is put forward to this committee, we will deal with it on Thursday, but if it's not available to us, we will deal with the infrastructure.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
We think it's important not to delay the infrastructure study, which was already scheduled. If we could maintain this study, then we could start the study of Bill C-23, if necessary.
Do we agree on that?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I will see that the subcommittee addresses that next Tuesday. We have an understanding that as bills are referred to this committee, they take priority, but I'll certainly see that it's brought up at the Tuesday meeting.
Is that all good? All right.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
