Evidence of meeting #66 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was shipper.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In moving this amendment, what we want to point out is the importance of allowing shippers to come up with the question or questions at issue.
Once again, I am going to turn to Mr. Langlois for his expertise. In any event, it seems to me hard to justify an arbitrator dealing with points raised by a railway company and that a shipper has not himself included in the matter he wishes to submit to the arbitration panel.
Senior Legal Counsel, Team Leader Modal Transportation Law, Department of Transport
As I mentioned in my last appearance, the act already provides for what your amendment proposes. When a matter is submitted to arbitration, it is the shipper who provides in his submission to the agency the questions that the arbitration has to resolve.
The shipper's submission must include the detailed questions that the arbitrator has to resolve. The offer to the parties, an offer of conditions, is intended to resolve the matters submitted to arbitration by the shipper and not those that the railway company might submit. The act already states that the conditions that the two parties submit are intended to resolve the matters submitted by the shipper. The arbitrator must establish the terms under which the matters submitted to arbitration by the shipper may be resolved, as well as those that have been submitted to arbitration by the agency.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move to amendment NDP-9. Would someone care to move it?
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll now move to amendment Liberal-9.
My mistake. Liberal-9 can't be moved because it's identical to NDP-9, which was just defeated. We'll now move to amendment Liberal-10.
(On clause 11)
Mr. Goodale, would care you to move that?
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.
It's just to make the point once again that the objective here surely should be to be even-handed with respect to both sides in a proceeding that goes before the agency. The shippers had the concern that the results of an arbitration might, hypothetically, provide the railways with a reason for applying new charges against the shippers. This clause is to make it clear that the agency has the authority to rule on that issue and may in fact reduce any charge the railways might impose on the shippers as a result of the decision in arbitration.
It seems a fair thing to do. One would assume that the agency would already take that into account, but in order to make it explicit, this clause would do it, as the last two or three lines read, “the Agency may, on application by the shipper, reduce the amount of the charge if the Agency determines that it”—that is, the charge—“is unreasonable”. I think it's a fair thing to include in the legislation, and I would move it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Is there further discussion?
All those in favour of amendment Liberal-10?
(Amendment negatived)
Ms. Hughes?
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
I hate to say this, but only five people voted on the Conservative side and five on this side. Mr. Poilievre didn't raise his hand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Goodale has asked for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 11 agreed to)
(Clauses 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to)
Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Yes, Mr. Goodale.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
I'm just not quite sure if this is appropriate at the short title or clause 1 stage, but I have one further question that I would like to ask our witnesses.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
This has to do with the arbitration proceeding. There was an earlier amendment that proposed putting in the law certain terms with respect to the arbitration proceeding. That amendment was defeated.
My question is this. In terms of the ability of one side or the other in a contract negotiation, or in terms of a commercial relationship between a shipper and a railway, and trying to make sure, which is the objective of this legislation, that the relationship be as even-handed and on as level a playing field as possible, what is the logic of having provisions in the law that would allow railways to unilaterally impose penalties on shippers, penalties that shippers pay to the railways—not to the government, but to the railways—without the shippers having a corresponding right or opportunity?
Where is the balance in that relationship if one side can impose, in effect, damages—called “demurrage”—but the other side cannot?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The structure of the regulatory framework for railways is that railways publish public tariffs, which outline the conditions under which traffic is accepted and carried. They publish rates and they publish charges. Some of those charges are for activities or situations where there is an expectation of the traffic being loaded within a certain window. If it doesn't happen, then demurrage fees kick in.
That is all disclosed in the public tariffs, the regulatory framework that railways use to communicate with shippers on what the conditions are. All of that is known up front, ahead of time, using that approach.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
What would allow a shipper to say that if you, the railway, tell me the car is going to be here sometime between Thursday and Saturday, and it doesn't get here until a week from Friday, then you owe me so much because I've lost business for those three or four days?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The act doesn't deal with giving the shipper any particular remedy in terms of seeking that kind of a damage. What it does do is give the shipper a remedy to complain to the agency—that's already in the act—about the service they are receiving and to have the agency adjudicate a decision, which can include ordering the railway to do certain things.
The act includes a remedy on final offer arbitration for shippers who are concerned with rates or other conditions of carriage. The act provides a remedy for shippers to complain about and seek a difference in fees that are charged by railways. Under this new legislative provision in Bill C-52, there now is an opportunity for a shipper to seek sort of a proactive setting out of the entire service relationship as it would like to see it with the railway.
Those are the key remedies. There are many others, but those are the key remedies that are there for a shipper to be able to seek assistance if the commercial relationship is not proceeding the way they would like it to.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
But most of the shippers who appeared before us, and the panel that the government appointed three or four years ago, all concluded that this wasn't working, that the remedies you have described have not adequately levelled the playing field. The minister in his opening remarks said that the playing field was still uneven. And there's no way to balance it up, apparently.