Evidence of meeting #74 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I would have deferred to the legislative counsel in terms of the ordering of these amendments, on which should come first and which would have nullified the other.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
They're very closely related to each other, so it wouldn't matter which one went first.
CPC-18 comes first.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I do apologize if I've mixed them up a little bit, because I've considered them together. I essentially see that there has been a system set up that's created a sort of small claims court. I fear if we tinker with it in the manner that Ms. Block has suggested, we're going to end up with a circumstance in which people may end up just forum shopping, essentially, for what is most advantageous, which could lead to them clogging up one side or the other.
I think Monsieur Langlois would be best positioned to offer some insight on this. I think there was a deliberate choice as to how to set up the arbitration process.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Department of Transport
Yes. Right now there are two possibilities. There is the amount currently in the legislation but it's proposed to be increased to $2 million. If the freight charge is below $2 million, then a summary process is triggered unless the shipper decides to actually elect to go to the longer process. If the freight charges are above $750,000 under the current act, or $2 million under the proposed legislation, then you're going to the longer process.
I understand the second amendment to be that you would give the shipper the choice from the outset to pick which one they want to go with, irrespective of the freight charge that is involved in the FOA, which would allow the shipper to pick and choose between the two processes, irrespective of the dollar value of the FOA.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I see no further comments on CPC-18.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 46 agreed to)
(On clause 47)
We have amendment CPC-19.
Ms. Block.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Again, I would submit that this was an amendment that was put forward by the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition. It was a change from what was in the summary process. It basically changes lines 12 to 17, which have a fair bit of detail and a monetary figure in the current amended piece of legislation.
I think this is just stating that sections 163 and 164 do not apply.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Again for staff, as I understand it, there's a desire to give smaller companies a mechanism they can use that may not be as time-consuming, difficult, or expensive and to keep the big guys out of that process, which was the reason the dollar figures were included in the original version.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Could I interrupt for a moment? The bells are ringing for our vote. Do we have unanimous consent of the committee to work for five more minutes?
5:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:15 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Mr. Hardie's point is correct. There are the two processes that Mr. Langlois specified for smaller shippers. The summary process would be more efficient. It's a paper-based process, but it's only for claims up to $2 million. Those above the $2 million would go through the normal FOA process.
It's trying to help the smaller shippers access this remedy more efficiently.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Are there any further comments?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 47 agreed to)
(Clauses 48 to 51 inclusive agreed to)
( On clause 52)
Ms. Block, do you want to speak to CPC-20?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
The amendment is that Bill C-49 in clause 52 be amended by deleting lines 11 and 12 on page 39.
I think we had put forward an amendment earlier removing this clause, and we removed it here for consistency.
5:15 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The purpose of introducing reciprocal penalties was so that the penalties applied to the shipper also applied to the railway and that there be some level of “let the arbitrator decide” the level of—I'll call it reasonableness—in terms of what the penalty should be.
If we remove this, it means that the penalty could be applied in an imbalanced way in that it would be applied to the railway but not necessarily to the shipper in a balanced and reciprocal manner. The provisions require that the agreements have reciprocal penalties for both sides.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Is there any further discussion on CPC-20?
(Amendment negatived)
We have amendment CPC-21.
Would you like us to hold off and take the break now?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We will return on amendment CPC-21 on clause 52.
I would ask everybody to come back quickly. If we continue at this pace, we may be finished earlier than we thought.
Thank you all very much.
The meeting is suspended.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I call the meeting back to order.
Thank you all very much for coming back so quickly.
We are on clause 52, amendment CPC-21, moved by Ms. Block.
Would you like to speak to it?
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Again, I will refer to some testimony that we heard with regard to this recommendation. It was, again, from Mr. Tougas. He said:
C-49 imposes an obligation in new s.169.37(3) on an arbitrator to render decisions in a balanced way. The Agency enjoys a reputation for fairness and impartiality and has enjoyed deference from the appellate courts. Arbitrators are rarely appealed. Why would such a provision be necessary? The SLA process exists precisely because a rail carrier will not provide what the shipper requires. If it turns out, upon examination, that a shipper does not require the service it seeks, the shipper won’t get it. An arbitrator has discretion in such circumstances to make the judgement calls that arise upon the very infrequent submission to SLA by a shipper.
SLA is service-level arbitration.
We recommended this amendment based on that testimony.