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.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think we're getting into some technical nuance that might have consequences that I'm not thinking of. I'm curious if the department could clarify the potential consequences of this suggestion.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Oui, I'm going to ask the lawyer.
The lawyer is going to answer.
General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Department of Transport
Strangely enough, the English version can't refer to section 113 or section 114 because section 111 of the act defines service obligations as including obligations found in sections 113 and 114.
The French version does, however, have to mention “ses obligations prévues par les articles 113 ou 114” because in French, it's not a defined expression in the act.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Just to clarify, in the English version we can refer to “service obligations”, but in the French version we have to specifically refer to sections 113 and 114, which both specify what the service obligations are. It's just a linguistic differentiation. The intent is okay.
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
Basically, I think this would need to be moved directly as your amendment because you're kind of moving the amendment and subamendment at the same time. For this to be more understandable, I think you need to move it directly as the second box that we have here plus what we just said about the French version. That would make things understandable for me.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Procedurally, would it then be appropriate for this LIB-3 amendment to be withdrawn and this new amendment now put on the table for us to consider?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I have a bit of homework to do already with one that we've set aside.
I'm getting confused myself, and my French is terrible, so it might be best if I recruit some help from the bench behind me and revisit this with an actual paper copy that I can put in front of everyone.
Is that okay?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That is a great idea.
All right, we are going to hold down LIB-3 as well.
(Amendment LIB-3 allowed to stand)
Okay, on CPC-16.... We'll stand the remainder of that. We've done very well with that clause, but we'll stand the remainder of clause 29 until later.
(Clause 29 allowed to stand)
There are no amendments to clauses 30 to 41.
Is there anyone wishing to comment? If not, can we vote on clauses 30 to 41?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
(Clauses 30 to 41 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 42)
We have amendment CPC-17.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, you have the amendment before you, and it reads that clause 42 be amended by replacing line 35 on page 34 to line 3 on page 35 with the following:
(a) forecasts, for each commodity and principal destination corridor, the total monthly volume of grain expected to be moved for the crop year by the prescribed railway company; and (b) identifies the operational plans established by the prescribed railway company to enable it to move the grain that it is required to move during the crop year, which are to include information, related specifically to the movement of grain, on hopper car fleet size, fleet utilization assumptions and train operations.
This again was put forward by a number of witnesses in terms of transparency in regard to data.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
This bill, in addition to provisions that are already in the act, requires that the railways make available lots of data, and that data will be made available through performance reporting. Some of it will be made available to the department and to the agency for rates, so already we have a lot of information, and that information is in the public domain. There will be more data coming.
In addition to that, in this bill the minister is given the flexibility to ask the railways to provide the relevant information for the carriage of their crops for the crop year, and how that information will be communicated, the form it will take, the details of the data to be provided, will be done through the regulatory system. We believe it is better to leave that to the regulation, because we need to consult with all the parties, the shippers, the railways, to make sure we are getting the information of greatest value to the users of that information. The minister also reserves the right to ask the railways for their contingency plans on an annual basis.
I think we have in the bill what the amendment is proposing, and it's really the mechanism, whether we do it through regulation or through the bill. We believe it is more appropriate to do the details in the regulation.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
This is a rare time when I do not have an amendment equivalent to Ms. Block’s, but that does not prevent me from supporting the amendment because I find that it will specify the requirements. If I understand correctly, in addition to having to demonstrate their ability to do the work, the railway companies will also have to provide a forecast, which will allow everyone to honour their timelines and contracts. That is a fine clarification that I am going to support.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Are there any further comments on amendment CPC-17?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 42 agreed to)
(Clauses 43 to 45 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 46)
We have amendment CPC-18.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, this is adding an additional point to (b) under proposed paragraph 161(2)(b):
if the shipper intends to proceed with the arbitration as set out in section 164.1, a statement to that effect;
I believe that would provide greater clarity in terms of the shipper's intentions.
Liberal
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's just about a procedural oddity. Maybe the clerk can clarify.
There are two related provisions here, and if I'm not mistaken, CPC-18 might not work unless CPC-19 is adopted. Am I wrong here?
Liberal