Agriculture committee  It's already there. There's an appropriate mechanism for industry. I'll use the example of a shipper, in this case a shipper who has been granted an order for the railway to pay him compensation. If the railway fails to pay there's an ability to enforce that order through the cou

Agriculture committee  The Canadian Transportation Agency would issue the ruling. And if a carrier...and it's not just railway. I'm not aware of a freight railway ever having not complied with an agency order. But if the agency becomes aware that an order has not been complied with, they will table the

Agriculture committee  To comment on the last portion of the comment that was made, the CTA regulates the dealing with and the relationship between the railway and whoever has a contractual or operational relationship with the railways. So it's either the shippers under whoever is paying the bill of la

Agriculture committee  The comment was a fair comment. The way the current legislation is drafted calls for the legislation to sunset on August 1, 2016, unless both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to extend its life. So if your question is, do we have to go through this entire process again, to

Agriculture committee  By resolution.

Agriculture committee  This is not the typical way you draft a coming-into-effect provision, but this is not novel. This has been done in the past. The language of clause 15 of the bill is found in other legislation, and that's where we inspired ourselves in drafting this. It's not something that we in

Agriculture committee  It's not automatic. It does happen from time to time, but it's not automatic. Yes, it does happen, but it's not in every case, I'll say that much.

Agriculture committee  Under the AMPs regime under the act, the maximum penalty for 99% of the violations is $25,000. The only exception is the violation of an SLA, which is $100,000. So this would become the second exception to the $25,000 rule.

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  Currently any violation would have to prosecuted, because the obligation is set forth in an OIC that was issued under the legislation. The only remedy is prosecution, so it would have to be a criminal prosecution. If this legislation were to pass, the AMPs would establish an admi

Agriculture committee  Criminal prosecution obviously follows criminal court processes. AMPs are more administrative in nature. The department would issue an AMP. There's an appeal mechanism to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal, which is administrative. It should be faster. But, of course, there's r

Agriculture committee  Criminal prosecution on something like that doesn't happen a lot. AMPs are issued, I won't say daily, but quite often in transportation legislation. We issue AMPs throughout legislation. We have AMPs in the air sector and in the marine sector. We issue AMPs quite routinely when

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  There is currently a provision in the act, section 151.1, that talks about listing for CN and CP—those are the only two companies subject to this provision—to list provisions where producer cars can be loaded. There is an obligation to list them, there is an obligation not to d

Agriculture committee  The legislation deals with the relationship between the shipper and the railway. If the farmer's not the shipper.... The legislation only deals with the relationship between the shipper and the railway. The relationship that exists between the shipper and the farmer will be dealt