Evidence of meeting #28 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just thought amending the entire thing would be quite simple and would be consistent.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No. I'm advised that it would come back from the drafter, even if we amended it. They would send it back as paragraphs (c.1) and (c.2).
Mr. Jean, amendment number one, please.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The amendment on subsection 52(1) reads:
Each year before the end of May, the Minister shall, using the most current information available, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report providing a brief overview of the state of transportation in Canada.
I would move that amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I move the second amendment on subsection 52(2):
Every five years, the report referred to in subsection (1) shall be expanded to a comprehensive review of the state of transportation in Canada which shall include
(a) the financial performance of each mode of transportation and its contribution to the Canadian economy;
(b) the extent to which carriers and modes of transportation were provided resources, facilities and services at public expense;
(c) the extent to which carriers and modes of transportation received compensation, indirectly and directly, for the resources, facilities and services that were required to be provided as an imposed public duty;
(c.1) the long term outlook and trends in transportation in Canada; and
(d) any other transportation matters that the Minister consider appropriate.
(Amendment agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I have a quick question. I note that the English version says the following:
“Every five years, the report referred to in subsection (1)”.
However, this is not stated in the French version.
Is this merely an oversight? Is this not necessary in French?
3:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
No. The French version does not refer often to previous subclauses. This drafting technique is not used in French. Generally speaking, the reference is implicit. The reference to “tout le rapport” means the report provided for in the first subparagraph.
If you read through the act, you will note that in the French version, there are very few references to previous paragraphs. Different techniques are used to draft legislation in French and in English. However, both versions have the exact same meaning.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'll call the vote on the clause.
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair, if you could just proceed as methodically as you have in the past two meetings, it would be much appreciated.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm sorry. I'm getting some pressure to keep the pace moving, but I certainly hear your comment.
(Clause 12 agreed to)
(On clause 13)
We have a Liberal amendment on page 14 in your package.
Mr. McGuinty.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment stems from a concern about vesting the minister with a serious new power, which is to review mergers and acquisitions beyond airlines in the transport sector, in federally regulated transport areas. The problem that some of us are having at the table, Mr. Chair, is that we're not sure what criteria the minister might intend to use in the review of any kind of merger or acquisition that he's being empowered to review.
I'm sure we recollect receiving a serious memo from the Competition Bureau about these provisions, raising concerns about this new power being vested in the minister and whether or not this power in any way contradicts the power or the target of the Competition Act and the role of the Commissioner of Competition to oversee all mergers and acquisitions in a Canadian context.
At first blush, when I first read this as part of Bill C-11, I was quite surprised. Unless counsel can point us in some direction, I haven't found in the federal system—which doesn't mean it doesn't exist—other areas where line department ministers have been given authority for this mergers and acquisitions types of power, which seems to be in direct conflict, or at least side by side, with the power of the Competition Bureau under the Competition Act.
What I'm trying to do is simply ask that the minister clarify, in a public way, the criteria that would be applied by the minister in making a decision about a merger or acquisition in the Canadian context. Maybe we ought to be examining what criteria are being used by this minister, whoever that person is and in whatever period of time going forward, and the criteria that are being used and applied under the Competition Act. If we have two separate bodies in the federal family conducting precisely the same review of mergers and acquisitions, using the same criteria or slightly varied criteria, what's the point? Why are we vesting this new power in the minister in the first place? That's what the amendment is trying to do.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I would like to clarify that this provision was in fact developed jointly with the Competition Bureau. We've had numerous discussions with them in all iterations of the bill.
The purpose of the provision is not to duplicate what the Competition Bureau normally does in reviewing a merger or acquisition proposal. What it proposes to do is look at factors beyond the competition factors that the bureau looks at. They normally look at the impact on services, the impact on prices, the impact of competitiveness. They take a very economic look at it.
The power the minister would be looking at would be the public interest as it relates to transportation. It would be factors, for example, such as the impact on safety issues or the impact on the functionality of the other modes. For example, if you have a merger in the railways, which was a potential happening in 2000, how would that impact the functioning of the ports, because the ports rely on the railways? We need to take all those other aspects into account, like the labour force and things like that.
They are not meant to duplicate. The applicants for a merger will continue to provide the Competition Bureau with the information it requires, and these guidelines would set out the information that the minister will require for these other factors.
4 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
You'll forgive me, Ms. Borges, but if the Competition Bureau has been consulted through this process, why did they feel it necessary to write a four-page memo to every member of this committee expressing concern about these provisions?
4 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Can I clarify whether that happened for Bill C-11? We just had communications with them two weeks ago, and we haven't seen any written documentation from them.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
We're not aware of that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm sending my staff to get it. I thought it was distributed.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think it was actually on a bill that's forthcoming, but I will wait until you get the information.
Monsieur Laframboise.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'd like something clarified. I can understand somewhat Mr. McGuinty's position on the guidelines. The proposed subsection (2) states the following:
(2) A notice given to the Minister or to the Agency [...]
Therefore, is the Commissioner of Competition the person responsible for giving notice to the Agency, or is it the official in charge of the Competition Bureau?
4 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, that responsibility rests with the body seeking the merger or acquisition. Notice must be given by that entity.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I see. The proposed new section 53.1(1) reads as follows:
53.1(1) Every person who is required to notify the Commissioner of Competition under subsection 114(1) of the Competition Act [...]
