Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser, go ahead.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Just for clarity, is this CPC-20 or CPC-21?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's CPC-21.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay, I do have a comment. I just want to make sure I am looking at the right provision.

I remember Mr. Tougas' testimony well. I think there is a valuable part of this provision right now, when it talks about considering efficiency in the system. When I am looking at the efficient network of rails that we have in Canada.... An arbitrator is going to have to decide whether the dispute at present fits within something I'd compare to a bus service. If we remove this provision, we would be saying, essentially, that an arbitrator decided that this is a fair rate for a taxi that takes you from a specific spot to another spot, rather than in a way that works in an overall system. If I am sitting as an arbitrator, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say, “How can I render a decision that's fair, and in the best interests of an efficient system as well?”

Just as a side point, I forget, off the top of my head, which witness gave the testimony, but I do recall someone mentioning that, except in two cases, shippers have won every final offer arbitration that we have considered.

I don't think it's inappropriate to include efficiency. I don't know if the department officials want to add anything to that comment.

[Helena Borges]

This relates back to the provision on reciprocal penalties and balance. If the penalties are balanced, that's going to incent efficiency. If they are sided in one direction or the other, they are not going to incent efficiency in the way that a decision made on reciprocal penalties would. It doesn't mean that the arbitrator has to be giving to the shipper exactly what he does to the railway, but it means that there has to be balance in how the penalties are applied. If we remove this, then there is no obligation for that balance, which is really the purpose of this provision, and shippers have been asking for that for a very long time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further comment on CPC-21?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 52 agreed to)

Clauses 53 to 59 have no amendments.

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

Clause 59.1, Madam Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That will be after clause 59.

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

Madam Chair, if you include clause 59, what happens to the amendment that I have provided in regard to proposed clause 59.1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It comes afterwards.

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

Okay, so it's not part of clause 59.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's a new clause altogether.

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

Thank you.

(Clauses 53 to 59 inclusive agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Now we are going to do new clause 59.1.

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

Clause 59.1 would amend Bill C-49 by adding, after line 23 on page 41, a new clause which speaks to this:

The Minister shall, no later than three years after the first day on which sections 2 to 59 of this Act are all in force, appoint one or more persons to carry out a comprehensive review of the operation of this Act in relation to the Canada Transportation Act

You have the rest in front of you.

Before you rule on that, I think there might be a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any subamendments on this new clause 59.1?

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

I was actually waiting to hear the conclusion and the explanation.

I am wondering how useful it is to appoint one or more people to conduct a complete review. If the review is already the responsibility of the department, it seems to me that we could simplify the amendment.

Here is what I would like to propose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin and Ms. Block, we need you to officially move 59.1.

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

Does that mean I need to read the whole thing?

[Olivier Champagne]

If you move it as is, the chair will probably declare it inadmissible, so it cannot be subamended—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You cannot move the subamendment.

[Olivier Champagne]

—or you can decide to move it with the modification already there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Effectively, it's out of order.

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

Okay, so am I going to move this amendment, and we're calling it CPC-21-A?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes.