moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-14, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10, on page 11, with the following:
"native means of transporting the goods; f ) the nature of the goods being transported; g ) the number of markets served by the applicant shipper; h ) the number of other potential carriers available to the applicant shipper; i ) the rate differential between potential carriers; j ) the competitive effects of a rate increase on the destination market, whether domestic or export; k ) whether a rate increase would impair the ability of the applicant shipper to penetrate or to expand into domestic and export markets; l ) the financial and competitive impact of the rate increase upon the short-term and the long-term viability of the applicant shipper; m ) any other matters that appear to the''.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal first with motion No. 6 which amends clause 27(2). Members of Parliament debate legislation in the House, they vote on it in the House and then the legislation is referred to a committee.
I have to accept that they do this for some reason other than the exercise of carrying the paperwork out of the House up to another committee room and then back down to the House. I have to assume that they have some rationalization for doing this.
Subject to being corrected by the Minister of Transport, who is no doubt going to speak to this, I assume that in committee, when this is opened up for discussion and when witnesses have been
invited to come forward, they are going to listen to what those witnesses have to say.
If 100 witnesses come in and five want this and seven want something else, then the committee has to make a decision.
If 100 people come in and a significant majority of those people tell you there is something in that bill that is catastrophically harmful to them, you have to listen to them.
If you do not, why did we go through the cost of transportation, costs of the meetings, the interpreters, the technical people, the research people, the clerk and tying up the time of the House and its members? Why do we bother to go through that exercise if we are not going to listen to the people who come before that committee?
The strong majority of people who came before the committee said section 27(2) is a disaster. We cannot have it. It will cause us a tremendous amount of harm. They talk now of significant harm. It started as significant prejudice and now it is significant harm.
They do not need to show significant harm later on by the actions of a rail contract, they are getting it from the government if section 27(2) goes through. I believe that section 27(2) is very divisive on the government side. There are many members who have said they are rethinking this and who have some problems with it.
That is why I tried this morning to find a face saving way for the government to take this off the table, take it back to committee in an all-party jurisdiction and agree to make these changes the majority of the witnesses who came before that committee asked for and then bring it back to the House. No holding their feet to the coals. No saying you were wrong, I was right, I forced you to do something.
That was not my intent. I made it very clear I will try to find the most palatable way for them to make this change in the interest of democracy and in the interests of the shippers right across the country. They rejected that offer.
I said I am not here to make political points. I am here to pass a bill that will satisfy the majority of Canadians affected by it. They did not avail themselves to that offer.
When Bill C-101 was taken from the Order Paper because of prorogation Moya Greene, an assistant deputy ministers in the transport department, one I have a measure of respect for, called me in British Columbia and asked whether I would agree to unanimous consent to bring Bill C-101 back on the floor. I asked if section 27(2) had been taken away. She said: "No. Why would you want it taken away?" I said it is not acceptable to the majority of people who came before the committee. She said: "But we fixed it. We made amendments to it and we fixed it".
I made her perhaps the most generous offer she has ever had as a member of Parliament: "If you believe you have fixed it, of all the numbers of people on record as objecting to section 27(2), if you can get me two or three who say they now accept it I will reconsider my position". Her response to me was: "I do not think I can do that". To which I said: "Then you have not fixed it". The government has not fixed section 27(2).
The new Minister of Transport has listened to people. They have come out of that meeting telling me they have some cause for hope that the government is to redress what is an intolerable clause in an otherwise generally good bill.
I hope members will take this opportunity not to make a partisan decision, not just to support the Reform Party, because we are not here to bring our agenda forward. We are here to represent the people who came before that committee, as I hope the hon. members on the other side are. If they are intent to do that I congratulate them. I hope they support the removal of section 27(2).
With regard to Motion No. 7, the Minister of Transport's motion, and Motion No. 8 which is mine, both dealing with section 27(3), in essence supplements to section 27(2), section 27(2) should be taken away but if it is not we should at least try to make it as palatable as possible keeping in mind these changes are not satisfactory to those witnesses who came before the committee and asked that section 27(2) be removed.
We will support in sequence each of these motions. The most important way is to remove section 27(2). Knowing the government can pass anything it wants, knowing that even if we vote against the entire bill because of section 27(2) it can still pass it, we will at least try to disguise the bad tasting medicine a little.
During the committee meeting one of the witnesses who came forward was from the National Transportation Agency. At that time section 27(2) was still called significant prejudice. It was the same thing but by a different name. I asked him to define significant prejudice. His response was that it would be argued by lawyers for years to come. One of the primary reasons section 27(2) must be removed from this legislation is to make it a better piece of legislation.