Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Jean.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

My comment is along the same lines, Mr. Chairman. It was my impression that we were not dealing in this bill with the kinds of things the Liberal Party is suggesting in its amendment.

If people want to discuss it and use it to gain political capital, that's fine, but I have a problem with this amendment. If it is out of order, I would like to know when the mover should have been informed of that. Should he have been told when it was tabled or is it proper to tell him that today? My impression was that this amendment was out of order.

I would not like to see people being given false hopes with respect to what they're asking for. That is legitimate and I believe Mr. Jean is right. This will probably be dealt with in a new bill. It was part of a separate section of former Bill C-44. I wouldn't like to see people being given false impressions and false hopes if the amendment is out of order.

My feeling was that it was not in order because this issue is not dealt with in the bill we are currently reviewing. As I have said on several occasions, I like to see the Committee discussing what it's supposed to be discussing and I'm aware that a number of other things could have been added to the bill to resolve a great many other issues. But that is a choice the government made and it will have to live with it.

So, I'm a little bit uncomfortable today. I'm very much in favour of the idea, but the bill under review is not the proper vehicle for resolving that problem. That is my feeling. I would like the law clerk to clarify matters for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

While there's great sympathy from the chair also with Mr. McGuinty's amendment, I am advised that it is inadmissible. The ruling I have states that

Bill C-11 creates, among other things, a new mediation process for transportation matters. Amendment L-5 proposes a new clause, which would create a separate scheme for multiple shippers within the final-offer arbitration process, and Bill C-11 does not address any issues relating to the final-offer arbitration process.

I would refer you to page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the introduction of a new scheme for shippers within the final-offer arbitration process—while I think there is agreement around the table that it is needed—is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-11 and therefore inadmissible.

I'll entertain one comment from each party, and then we'll move on.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the ruling.

I sympathize with Monsieur Laframboise,

because if we had known from the start that this amendment was out of order, we would have avoided a lot of work. But that's all right. We're learning.

I'd like to go back, though, to comments made by the parliamentary secretary, if I can get his attention for a second.

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

You have it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, sir.

There is, of course, rampant discussion about elections, and there are all kinds of possibilities in our immediate future. Can you give some indication? A speech in the House by the minister, with all due respect to the minister, who I'm very fond of, doesn't tell us where this sits, in fact, in terms of the government's legislative agenda. We've seen no bill. It's not on the order paper. Bill C-20 was on the order paper; I guess it still is. We haven't seen that.

Can you give us, and perhaps all shippers and all railway companies in the country involved in this important matter, a better understanding of timing? When will this be deposited in the House? When can we expect the minister to address this, if it's the third leg of the stool, having deconstructed Bill C-44? This is a huge issue, as we all know. Can we get some kind of clear indication so that those involved will get some idea of when this will be resolved?

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

First of all, I hope I can quote you in the House sometime on the fondness for the minister, or maybe in my next press release.

The election is going to be up to your party, quite frankly, so as long as you keep us in power, we can move forward that legislation and the shippers can be very happy to have that in the new year. I see it being introduced in the new year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

That doesn't really answer the question. Are you suggesting, then, that you'd be moving that forward early in February?

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

I can't give you a date. As you can tell, this is the third part of a leg, and the reason it's the third part of a leg is because it is the most important part of the leg to this government. It's very important to shippers, and we have to get it right the first time. We're not just going to sporadically spread it out there to get great public reviews. We're going to do the job right so that shippers and receivers get along and they have some ability to count on what they need to get done and the economy keeps flowing. So I would say it would be in the new year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I just want to be sure we understand one another, because there are two ways of getting bills passed: to divide them up to ensure that they pass, as the Conservatives have done, or to put everything possible in one bill to ensure that they won't be passed, as the Liberals used to do. So, I want to be sure we understand one another.

Our hope is that you will be tabling a bill of limited scope so that we can get it through as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

With that, we will now move on to clause 48. There are no written amendments to clause 48.

(Clause 48 agreed to)

(On clause 49)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have amendment NDP-22, on page 45 in your program.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, this is consequential to the amendments that we brought forward on clause 29, which we've stood. I'm not sure how best to deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm wondering if you might just give us a little bit of an explanation. I have nothing in my notes to suggest that one impacts another clause.

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

It's related to a regulation that we've put forward in clause 29, so the legislative drafters saw it as a consequential amendment to clause 29.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask, then, if the committee is prepared to stand it until we go back to clause 29. I have nothing on my records from the drafters or from counsel to suggest that there's a conflict. I'll look for the direction of the committee.

(Clause 49 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 50 and 51 agreed to)

(On clause 52)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're on page 46, and amendment G-5.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, it's just to bring consistency between the French and English versions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, but could you allow us a moment?

Could the parliamentary secretary explain how it's inconsistent right now?

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

Maybe we could ask the department to do so. My French is not as good as yours, Mr. Julian.