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.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
The witness provided us with a rationale. They believed that the Canadian Transportation Agency should have the ability to utilize this data to fulfill all of its responsibilities as effective decision-making is best facilitated by having the ability to receive and analyze detailed information on all aspects of railway and system performance.
(Amendment negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Ms. Block, you have CPC-3.
If CPC-3 is adopted, LIB-1 cannot be moved. I believe this is where Mr. Sikand was looking at making a motion to withdraw.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
As I was saying, great minds think alike.
Since we've heard from the witnesses, and Ms. Block has already introduced that, I'd like to withdraw my motion.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I don't think this needs any further rationale provided.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 14)
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, if I may, I would pass any points to be made on this over to my colleague Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Chair, I have proposed some of these amendments, because the concern I have with the bill as it is currently worded is that it would allow the minister to approve a joint venture that would not be subject to a full competition review. I think that this would weaken competition in Canada. It would weaken the ability of the bureau to ensure a competitive economy in Canada.
By making these amendments, we can ensure that the commissioner of competition has a much bigger role to play in approving joint ventures, as they have in the past, when they have disallowed certain transporter routes in order to ensure that Canadians have the best prices available to them for travel.
The purpose of the amendment in front of us, and we're considering just the single amendment right now—
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
—is to have the process begin with the commissioner of competition in order to ensure that a proper competition review is undertaken and that it is the arm's-length, independent law enforcement authority in the Competition Bureau and the competition commissioner who adjudicate whether or not a particular joint venture is in the public interest.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Chong.
Could we ask the officials to comment on amendment CPC-4?
Helena Borges Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The intent in the bill is for the Minister of Transport to assess whether there is a public interest in proceeding with a joint venture. As part of that assessment, there would be an assessment by the commissioner of competition to assess any impacts on competition, and the commissioner's assessment would focus on the competition aspects. He would then make his report available to the minister so that the minister can have a fulsome assessment of competition impacts as well as of public interest impacts. The minister would make the final decision.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Unless the officials tell me that I am wrong, it seems to me that, before Bill C-49, the Commissioner of Competition could, on his own initiative, block an agreement. So, my impression is that, although I agreed with all the amendments proposed by my Conservative colleagues—and that is an interesting realization, I confess—basically, the fact is that the minister can still circumvent the recommendation. The commissioner would therefore no longer have the means to block an agreement that, in his opinion, would be detrimental to competition.
Just to be sure that I understand the procedure correctly—because this is the first time I have done this kind of exercise—I could support each of the Conservative measures but, in the end, vote against section 14, because, in my opinion and in our opinion, it gives unreasonable powers to the minister and takes them away from the Commissioner of Competition.
Is my reading of the procedure correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Yes, you could by all means do that. You could be voting for each one of these and then vote against clause 14 in its entirety.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Madam Chair, regarding these clause discussions, I don't like the vibe created in the room if we just sit silently. If we're opposed to a motion, I like to offer some logic, including perhaps on some data issues that impacted the first proposed amendments.
With respect to this one, one reservation I have is really about the public interest. I know that was the intent of the proposal, but I think the policy reason behind the proposal makes sense. I don't think the competition regulator is particularly well-positioned to assess the public interest. I think that is a policy decision.
For that reason, I'll be voting against the proposed amendment. I think that sometimes we owe it to one another to explain our rationale rather than sit silently.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Chair, whether the amendment passes or not, I want to make this point. I think it's really important to understand that Canada has some of the best competition framework legislation in the world. It began with the anti-combines act some 100 years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, and it evolved with the modernization of the Competition Act in more recent decades.
The Competition Bureau and the commissioner of competition, along with the tribunals, are considered world class in their enforcement, and to that end, we enjoy a competitive economy. The conditions imposed on Air Canada and United Airlines in the 2011 time period are evidence of that.
I think the current bill weakens our competition law. It allows the minister, frankly, to override a system that I believe is in the public interest, which is to have an arm's-length competition bureau enforcing competition law and leads to less choice for consumers and higher prices for the travelling public.
That's why I proposed these amendments. I'm not going to delay much further, but I want to make the point that this is a significant deviation from current competition law, which is, in my view, world class, and will weaken what is a world-class bureau and tribunal.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
If there is no further discussion on amendment CPC-4, I shall put the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We move to amendment CPC-5.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Briefly, this amendment would simply require the commissioner to make public a summary that, as the bill is currently worded, the commissioner has the choice not to make it public. The amendment is a very simple one in the interests of transparency and open government. I think the more we can make public, the better. It also requires the minister to make the decision public. It's a simple amendment.
Liberal
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
In fact, the intent behind Bill C-49 is to be as transparent as possible, but there are concerns about some of the confidential information that may be presented as part of the submissions. Throughout the act there are provisions to protect the confidential information. While the act didn't say that the reports had to be made public, we wouldn't necessarily oppose that, but we would ask that the confidentiality provisions would have to be safeguarded in order for a report to be made public, because certain information can't be in the public domain.