Just very quickly, I can assure Mr. McGuinty and other members that I am very aware of shippers. In western Canada, northern Quebec, and other areas in Canada, I have had no end of shippers coming to lobby me for these provisions.
I can assure the member, first of all, that in a speech the minister made earlier this session, I think in October, he said:
The third component will deal with shipper protection provisions. Consultations are under way with shippers and the railways on potential changes to those provisions. The intent is to table a bill later this fall.
That obviously is now.
First of all, my understanding is that the wording is almost identical to yours, with some difference. It's almost identical to the Bill C-44 provisions. But there's a balance. The balance is between the shippers and the rail. Indeed, I'm suggesting that this isn't admissible on the same basis as you ruled the government amendment inadmissible, and on the basis also that it's another piece of legislation that's coming forward. It has to balance it. We have one side balanced, but not the other side.
Quite frankly, I would suggest that if we adopt this amendment, it's going to prejudice what's happening right now with the department in preparing the FOAs and the ability for them to continue with that. It's coming forward; it's the third part of the bill. If you see that, you know that 169 is consistent with Bill C-44, which is the third part of the provisions and what the minister said is coming forward.