Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to add to the department's comments that other jurisdictions such as the European Union and the United States have recognized the need for flexibility in the air passengers' rights approach, and both have included the details in their regulations, not in their legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If there any further discussion on NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 19 agreed to)

Clauses 20, 21, and 22 have no amendments.

(Clauses 20, 21, and 22 agreed to)

(On clause 23)

We have amendment CPC-8.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Chair, this speaks in particular to level of service. We heard from a number of witnesses some concerns about some of the wording in Bill C-49.

This bill includes an addition to the level of service provisions that requires the agency to dismiss a complaint if it is satisfied that the railway has provided the highest level of service that is reasonable in the circumstances. What we heard was that this unfortunately does not tell shippers what they must prove in order to succeed in a level of service complaint.

If the intent is that unless the railway has provided the highest level of service that is reasonable in the circumstances it will be found in breach of its obligations, then the proposed new subsection should be amended to say so clearly. That's what this amendment is intended to do, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

Does the department choose to comment?

[Helena Borges]

We believe that the language already in the bill achieves the objectives of the amendment. It specifies that the shipper is entitled to receive the highest level of service possible and that really, we don't need to add additional language that specifies that. It also includes the factors that the agency would have to take into account in determining that level of service, so we believe it accomplishes what the amendment is trying to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments and discussion?

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I have a question about the way the French is written because I do not really grasp it. According to the amendment, proposed paragraph 116(1.2) would read, “L'Office ne décide que la compagnie s'acquitte de ses obligations prévues par les articles 113 ou 114 que s'il est [...]”. The rule in French is that, if the word “ne” is used, it must be followed by “pas”. So it would be “ne décide pas”, but that is not the meaning of the amendment, if I understand it correctly.

Would it be right to say, “L'Office décide que la compagnie s'acquittera de ses obligations prévues par les articles 113 ou 114 que s'il est [...]”, which would be followed by the series of conditions that we want to do away with? It seems to me that the French wording, as presented, makes no sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would you like to add any comment?

[Olivier Champagne]

I am not a legislative drafter or a grammarian, but this “ne” is what is called the “expletive ne” and that it is optional. It's a matter of style, of how it looks. It would not be impossible to take it out, I imagine, but I do not think it is an inherent problem.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would just like to know if I have grasped the spirit of the amendment.

[Olivier Champagne]

Yes, absolutely.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

So the company is fulfilling its obligations, not withstanding the conditions that we want to take out. Is that the spirit of the amendment, in fact?

[Olivier Champagne]

Yes, that is what I understand myself, but the department could perhaps confirm it.

[Helena Borges]

I would like to ask my legal colleague to answer your question.

[Alain Langlois, General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Department of Transport]

I think you have understood the essence of the amendments correctly. The language used in the bill is formulated in the positive. So it would be: “L'Office décide que la compagnie s'acquitte de ses obligations si... ” rather than formulating it in the negative, as the amendment does. The reason why the positive is used in the drafting is that, elsewhere in the act, the agency is asked to determine whether the company has fulfilled its obligations. So that was done in the positive. The amendment proposed in the bill is consistent, in terms of the description of the required services for which the agency is responsible under the act. That is why this formulation was proposed.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further comment on amendment CPC-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 23 agreed to)

(Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to)

(On clause 26)

We have amendment CPC-9.

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Chair, this section and this amendment have to do with access to competing railways. We heard an awful lot of testimony about long-haul interswitching. I think we would all agree that we heard from many of our witnesses that they thought this bill got a number of things right in many ways, but that the long-haul interswitching remedy was creating a lot of problems for our shippers, and in particular that the long-haul interswitching remedy in Bill C-49 is far less user-friendly.

I believe this amendment is being put forward to ensure that the extended interswitching that our shippers have come to enjoy remains in some way, shape, or form a remedy for them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the department like to comment, please?

[Helena Borges]

As both the minister and I said at one of the last appearances, the extended interswitching provision was really a temporary measure under the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. It was introduced to address the very unusual situation that happened in 2013 and 2014, with the largest grain crop ever as well as a very difficult winter.

That provision presented numerous difficulties in terms of the cost-based rates. In continuing it, we were just propagating a problem: that there will at some point arise a scenario whereby the railways will not be investing in their infrastructure, which will then lead to the deterioration of the system.

For that reason, we did not renew that provision in this bill. The provision actually ceased to exist as of August 1 of this year because it was not renewed. That was in the previous bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

As a general comment, I think this amendment is, as you described, to say that some people like the extended interswitching and that in your view it's superior to the proposed long-haul interswitching.

To follow up on the comments made by our officials here, I think that Bill C-30 was the right thing to do. It was actually very smart at the time to help move product that was stranded, and I would have supported it at the time.

We've now had the benefit to consult across Canada. I keep thinking to myself that the starting point is not the draft legislation we all started with. Right now, there's not a system in place. I see long-haul interswitching as part of a pretty intricate balance that extends the ability of producers and shippers to move goods in different geographies, in different commodities.

When I look at some of the protections that are available here to shippers, I view this as a very positive bill from a shipper's perspective. I'm looking at data disclosure, retaining the maximum revenue entitlement, reciprocal penalties, adequate and suitable service.

I understand that there are some shippers in the grain industry in a limited geography who are familiar with a certain system, but I want to have my voice on the record as saying, given the starting point that we have right now, this is a pretty intricate balance that I think is really going to help shippers in different commodities, in different geographies, get their goods to market. I can't in good faith support an amendment that's going to essentially dismantle the long-haul interswitching system that is really the focus of a major portion of this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I think the previous government wisely put a sunset clause on this because it was brought in to apply to a particular situation. Although the distance prescribed, 160 kilometres, was I think never used—it might have been used once in that period of time—what it did was introduce, if you like, a replacement for what would ordinarily or hopefully be a competitive situation.

The extended distance in the long-haul interswitching would do two things. First of all, it would open up more of the country to competitive rates. Second, it would also open up more commodities. The original provision was specifically, of course, to move grain. Now we have a lot of interest in the mining and forestry sectors in British Columbia, in northern Quebec, etc., and I think there are some amendments coming up that will also address those interests and, in my view anyway, enhance the ability of long-haul interswitching to do what it was intended to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block is next, and then Mr. Aubin.