Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, but in practice, companies already maintain these registers.

[Helena Borges]

It's rare. It happens occasionally, but it's rare. At the present time, the Act only requires that they maintain a register of the main lines.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That is what they are required to do, but in actual practice, it's different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would just like to add something to that. If we want the public transit system to be as extensive as possible, we have to be aware of all the available sidings and spurs. That's why we want to remove the words that refer to metropolitan areas. That is perfectly consistent with what we were saying earlier.

If you were to propose that it be linked to public passenger service, it would then be up to railway companies to decide whether these sidings can be used for passenger service. If they believe that to be impossible, they won't put them on the list. So, it would be better to keep the general reference. That way, we will know about all available sidings and spurs. That way, urban transit authorities and provincial governments will be able to decide to use these sidings and spurs if they so desire. In any case, there cannot be that many of them. If there are, it would useful for us to know about them.

[Alain Langlois]

I'm going to sit down with the drafters to try and find terminology that reflects what you are seeking to achieve, while at the same time trying not to broaden the scope of the clause. Despite what you think, there are sidings all across the country.

[Helena Borges]

Private companies have them.

[Alain Langlois]

In principle, if we can find terminology that would allow urban transit authorities to acquire spurs or lines outside metropolitan areas, without imposing on railway companies the huge burden of having to publish all these lists, we will have achieved some balance.

So, I undertake to try and find something that works with the drafters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Am I to understand, then, that we're going to stand this one also until we get clarification?

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, could we not just address this by adding the words “or such other area, as the Minister may determine by regulation”? Is that not an option?

[Helena Borges]

We don't have regulations for these provisions. They're laid out in the legislation itself.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So you don't want extra regulations, generally?

[Helena Borges]

We don't want to have to do regulations just to define this concept, so we'd rather try to define it and contain it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay, all right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I've had consultations with the department. I think it's valid, and they're going to check. If we stand it down, we might be able to reach a compromise. It's a good idea, quite frankly.

(Clause 42 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 43 to 46 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 47)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Clause 47, government amendment number 3, page 40 in your program.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's a wonderful idea, and people should just go for it because it's such a good idea.

Actually, what it does, Mr. Chair, is it clarifies the provincial authority. They will have within their authority the limits set out. It's just to be consistent to regulate their authority. It's more or less a housekeeping matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 47 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We go to new clause 47.1, page 41, amendment G-4.

I want to advise the committee that I do have some reservations on this, but in order for me to express the opinion I would ask Mr. Jean to introduce the clause.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's so introduced, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've been advised that new clause 47.1 is inadmissible. The amendment seeks to amend section 160 of the Canada Transportation Act, and the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

An amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 160 of the Canada Transportation Act is not being amended by Bill C-11, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment; therefore, it is inadmissible. I do have that in writing. I have it en français and in English, and I'm prepared to circulate it.

So new clause 47.1 is denied.

Now we go to amendment L-5, page 42 to 44, a new clause. Again I will advise the committee that I do have some reservations and an opinion, but I do ask Mr. McGuinty to submit the amendment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a few minutes, if I could, just to walk the members through why this is here. We all know that Bill C-11 has been derived significantly from Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. We know that Bill C-44 included parts, for example, of Bill C-3, on international bridges and tunnels, which we've already considered and has gone before the Senate. Bill C-44, of course, included many aspects of the bill that we're currently studying here in Bill C-11.

Bill C-44, for example, also included provisions regarding VIA Rail, which we do not see in Bill C-11. It included the provisions that you see before you in amendment L-5.

I'm bringing these before the committee to reflect the concerns of many shippers who are saying--this is their language--that they've been thoroughly neglected by the government in its rush to bring Bill C-11 forward. I'm deeply concerned by this, because I know the members of the committee ought to all have received by e-mail letters written on or around December 4 by groups like the Western Grain Elevator Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Industrial Transport Association, Forest Products Association of Canada, and the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.

I'm not sure if everyone has received these letters, Mr. Chair, but they contain very strong endorsements of amendment L-5, and I'd like to table that if I could for one moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty, for the record, I did submit and I believe people received copies of those letters this afternoon by electronic mail, in translation also.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

The groups that have also approached us as a committee, the various shipping parties that are interested in these amendments, asked us to take note that the Coalition of Rail Shippers, which represents some 80% of Canadian railway revenues, have come together to develop a common approach to fixing what they call “chronic service shortfalls” that are negatively impacting the Canadian economy in a very serious way. My amendment would hopefully simplify and rationalize the negotiating opportunity between shippers and railways.

Right now, the Canadian Transportation Agency permits final-offer arbitration--FOA, as we call it--as a recourse for shippers who can be held captive, sometimes, by the terms and conditions of what amounts to a monopoly, a monopoly means of transporting goods in some cases. These amendments would enhance final-offer arbitration by allowing groups of shippers with common interests and concerns to bring their grievances to arbitration simultaneously.

I just want to go a little further, if I could, on the background. Last May 5, according to the shippers who have contacted my office, Transport Canada agreed to bring forward amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, to enact such group rights for shippers. That was May 5. Some shippers I have spoken with felt that a promise was made to see these amendments in legislation by the end of June. It's now December. They are frustrated that these elements that were originally proposed in Bill C-44 are not on the agenda and certainly haven't found their way into Bill C-11.

If we examine the letters we all received with respect to these concerns, we see, for example.... I'm quoting the Western Grain Elevator Association: “We applaud and support your efforts to have provisions for group final offer arbitration included into Bill C-11.”

As a committee, Mr. Chair, I think we can agree on this modest evolution as a short-term attempt to re-balance the power between shippers and railways. We all agree that our economy depends on an efficient transport system. Enhancing that balance I think could only be a good thing.

I don't know if there's any other information, Mr. Chair, that the government wishes to share or can share with us with respect to these provisions, but they've now been delayed May through December--nine months. This is continuing to wreak havoc in the dispute settlement mechanisms in the business world. I think this is something we ought to address, which is why I put them here for consideration under L-5.