Evidence of meeting #30 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
In the majority of cases, it's the operator himself who contacts the Transportation Agency to let it know he no longer has insurance and would like his licence to be suspended.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The Act, as currently worded, requires him to do that, but from now on, he will no longer be forced to do that.
5:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Perhaps I could just explain the context, setting aside for a moment the actual provisions dealing with discontinuance of service. Let's forget about those provisions for a moment. An operator who decides to suspend service is required to call the Transportation Agency to let it know that he is suspending service and that he no longer has insurance, and in 90% of these cases, the licence is suspended or cancelled.
The Transportation Agency carries out spot checks to ensure that all carriers maintain their liability insurance and are fully compliant with regulatory requirements at all times.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So, that carrier will have to let you know, even though he will no longer have to fill out the form.
5:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Those provisions are separate from the ones that deal with the issuance of a certificate of competency. What we are saying is that a carrier who wants to discontinue service to a given point or between two points must provide 120 days notice of his intention to discontinue service. Just because he decides to discontinue service does not mean that his insurance is no longer valid. That makes a lot of sense, though, because there is absolutely no point in having insurance if you're not operating a service.
But that obligation is completely separate from those associated with the issuance of a licence by the Agency. When a carrier decides to discontinue his service, he has to provide 120 days notice. That is the process proposed here. This gives municipalities an opportunity to present their views. That obligation is completely separate from the obligation with respect to insurance and the obligation to comply with all the conditions associated with the issuance of a licence.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm having a hard time connecting the relevance. I understand what Mr. Laframboise is asking about in terms of the process by which insurance is evaluated for licensed carriers. But it was one of your colleagues in the last meeting who said, to questions put by Mr. Julian, if I recall, that if you make this too onerous for small carriers, they will willingly revoke their insurance, which would then make their licence effectively lapse. Is that what I heard her say, that this was a technique used by small carriers, by seasonal carriers, on a regular basis? It's a technique used to basically say that they're no longer governed by your licence provisions because they have no insurance, right?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Right.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
They actually, in fact, cease operations, and they go to the agency and say they're going to stop operating for whatever number of months and they're going to cancel their insurance, because they don't want to be paying it if they're not operating, and so we terminate the service.
I think we would like to offer a compromise here. This provision has caused a lot of discussion, and I think what we would suggest at this point is to just leave it as it is today. We'll deal with the current administrative procedures that are in the act, and the operators will deal with them. We were trying to simplify their lives a bit, but given the concern that members have, I think we would be prepared to just let this provision die and just keep it the way it is in the act today.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
So you're suggesting that proposed subsection 64(3.1) would be deleted. There would be no exemption.
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Exactly.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would certainly support that. Certainly this is the feedback that I've been getting.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Then perhaps we could ask you to withdraw your amendment, Mr. Julian. Then we will ask the committee to make a decision on whether or not to delete proposed subsection 64(3.1).
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
In that context, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment, with pleasure.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No, we do need an amendment: that in clause 17, on page 13, lines 7 through 12 be deleted.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, could you repeat what you just said?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're basically deleting proposed subsection 64(3.1), which was suggested by Ms. Borges. Rather than trying to change the rules, we'll have the rules the way they were in the previous package.
Mr. Bell has so moved the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We've had a pretty productive day. I think we'll close it at that.
Mr. Jean.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I see that Parliament will probably be finished sometime next week. I'm wondering if the committee, if necessary--if we can't get through this on Tuesday--would consider another meeting.
