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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Aubin, if you can work with your staff and Ms. Block's staff and put something together that the legislative clerk is comfortable with, we can deal with it again.
We'll allow clause 26 to stand, then. Everybody is good with that.
(Clause 26 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to)
(On clause 29)
Before you start, Ms. Block, let me say to Mr. Aubin that amendment NDP-2 is identical to amendment CPC-10, so it cannot be moved until there is a vote on amendment CPC-10.
Ms. Block will speak to it now.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, I believe this amendment was put forward by several witnesses. We know that at least three witnesses we heard from came forward with this exact recommendation. It has to do with clauses within the long-haul interswitching section, which, with all due respect to my colleagues across the way and to our departmental officials who characterized Bill C-49 as a crowning achievement when they were here to provide testimony to us at the very beginning of our study, every single witness without fail—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I need you to clarify whether you're speaking to amendment CPC-10 or the one that your staff has just handed out.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Without fail, every witness who spoke to us about long-haul interswitching said that for the most part, they could live with long-haul interswitching but that there were a number of amendments that needed to be made in order for it to be effective for them. That's why this amendment is in front of you today.
4:20 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Given that we are talking about two separate provisions, one proposed and one already in the act.... The act already contains a 30-kilometre interswitching zone, which any shipper can use. They can take the traffic within that 30 kilometres and have it switched to another railway. That is done at a cost-based rate. You use the long-haul interswitching when you are beyond the 30 kilometres. You would be going way beyond that. You don't, then, have to have access to the 30-kilometre interswitch. In fact, you're going further than that. If you had the 30-kilometre...that's what you would in fact be using, not the long-haul interswitching.
This is, then, really conflicting with the long-haul interswitching. It duplicates it.
When the railway is asked to move a product to an interchange under the long-haul interswitching, it's already in that direction, but it will be longer than the 30 kilometres, because they don't have access to the 30 kilometres.
I think the amendment conflicts with a provision already in the act, and it conflicts with a proposed new portion of the act, that being long-haul interswitching.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
No. Are we not talking about amendment CPC-10, which reads like this: “destination du transport, dans la direction la plus judicieuse[...]”?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Okay.
I am trying to understand what the officials are saying. I am going to take a few minutes to read the text.
My first comment was not about that; it was about congratulating Ms. Block for pipping me at the post in presenting the amendment. However, since we are proposing exactly the same thing, I was clearly going to acquiesce.
However, I am now going to take a few minutes to read over the text again in the light of what we have been told.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Maybe staff can address this. We had discussions come up about trying to avoid a shipper having to basically send his goods in the wrong direction in order to get to an exchange point. My understanding is that if in fact the 30-kilometre interswitching distance applies. Thirty kilometres is not a big deal, but if no such exchange point exists within the 30 kilometres, then in fact the shipper would be free to choose the exchange point that is in the direction he wants his material to go.
4:20 p.m.
General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Department of Transport
I would like to refer the committee to proposed section 136.1 in the bill. In the legislation, if one of the points of debate between the shippers and the railways is what the nearest interchange is, proposed section 136.1 of the bill provides that it's the interchange that's in a reasonable direction for the movement of the traffic. The concept that a shipper is going to be forced to go in the wrong direction is thus addressed by proposed section 136.1 of the legislation.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Is there any further discussion on amendment CPC-10?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is amendment CPC-11.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Well, amendment CPC-10 failed, and amendment NDP-2 is the same as CPC-10, so it doesn't require a separate vote.
We're on amendment CPC-11.