moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-14, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 49, with the following:
"must be commercially fair and reasonable to all parties."
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Canada Transportation Act March 25th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-14, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing line 20, on page 49, with the following:
"must be commercially fair and reasonable to all parties."
Canada Transportation Act March 25th, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-14, in Clause 106, be amended in the English version a ) by replacing line 24, on page 46, with the following:
"ment, bailment, mortgage or hypothec or as a lessor or"; b ) by replacing line 31, on page 46, with the following:
"tions under the security agreement, bailment, mort-"; and c ) by replacing lines 33 to 35, on page 46, with the following: b ) any event that occurred before or after the scheme was filed and that constitutes a default under the security agreement, bailment, mort-''.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-14, in Clause 133, be amended in the French version, by replacing line 14, on page 61, with the following:
"sur ses lignes-et, le cas échéant, sur des dis-".
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-14, be amended by adding after line 11, on page 94, the following:
"CN Commercialization Act
210.1 Subsections 3(2) and (3) of the CN Commercialization Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Nothing in, or done under the authority of, this Act affects the operation of the Competition Act in respect of the acquisition of any interest in CN."
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 275.
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 276.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-14, in Clause 278, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 37, on page 120, with the following:
"278. If this section comes into force before the day fixed by order under section 24 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1995, then the definition "Agency" in section 2 of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act is replaced by the following:".
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-14, in Clause 279, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 42, on page 120, and lines 1 to 6, on page 121, with the following:
"279. If this section comes into force before the day fixed by order under section 25 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1995, then".
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 280.
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 281.
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 282.
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-14, in Part I of Schedule IV, be amended by replacing, on page 135, the following:
"Central Butte M 44.0 Riverhurst (M 110.5) 66.5".
with the following:
"Central Butte M 44.2 Riverhurst (M 110.5) 66.3".
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-14, in Part II of Schedule IV, be amended by replacing, on page 135, the following:
"Gretna-La Rivière Gretna (M 14.1) Altona (M 21.4) 7.3".
with the following:
"Gretna-La Rivière Gretna (M 14.1) Altona (M 6.8) 7.3".
Mr. Speaker, all these amendments are essentially technical. They are to bring the French text in conformity with the English and vice versa on a number of motions, that is Motions Nos. 22 and 26.
Furthermore, these amendments reflect the fact that other pieces of legislation in draft at the time this bill was first tabled before the House have now been proclaimed, for example the Budget Implementation Act, 1995 or the CN Commercialization Act.
Therefore there is a need to bring it into conformity with what has been passed, Motions Nos. 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80. The final group, Motions Nos. 81 and 82, is to correct geographic references to branch lines identified in schedule IV of the bill.
Canada Transportation Act March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke and the hon. member for Mackenzie, for their kind words. I did meet with a large number of people who had concerns about this area of the bill and I did have a completely fresh look at it.
I concluded after that examination that the decision of the committee was the appropriate one. As my hon. friend from Eglinton North stated so eloquently a moment ago, it was a decision of the committee and all members of that committee.
They did take the time to examine potential alternate wordings in great detail and they came to a compromise solution which in my mind is a very appropriate one. After considering the representations made I decided the members of the House who took part in that committee discussion were correct in their assessment of what should be done.
Let me quickly go on to the issue in Motion No. 7. Section 27(2) of former Bill C-101 contained the words "significant prejudice" as a factor in the regulatory disposition of complaints. This subsection was the main target of criticism for most of the shippers. They viewed it as barring access to the agency rather than a factor in the agency's decision making.
Concerns also tended to centre on whether the meaning of the term significant prejudice was clear and precise enough in law. They were worried also that the section would be applied to final offer arbitration.
Section 27(2) was and is intended to give procedural direction to the agency and not to prevent people from getting before the agency. Section 27(2) applies to all agency decisions concerning rates and services, whatever the mode of transportation. It is an interpretive section. Its purpose is to assist the agency in carrying out its regulatory duties in an expeditious manner.
The provision as amended is consistent with objectives of the bill. One is to streamline the regulatory process to establish more commercially oriented relations between shippers and carriers. Another is to reserve regulatory intervention to cases where there is a lack of effective competition. Another is that economic regulation should always be a last resort and mindful of that policy backdrop but also of the need to respond to concerns about section
First of all, the term "significant prejudice" was replaced with the term "substantial commercial harm". The term, of substantial harm, is more familiar to the industry. Second, to add further precision, a new subsection 27(3) was introduced. It sets out factors that the agency is to consider when determining whether an applicant would suffer substantial commercial harm were the relief not to be granted.
The criteria introduced are: first, the market conditions relating to the goods involved; second, the location and the volume of traffic of the goods; third, the scale of operations connected with this traffic; fourth, the type of traffic or service involved and the availability to the applicant of alternative means of transporting the goods.
It should be noted that three of these criteria merit points now found in the policy statements at the beginning of the National Transportation Act and as such they are well grounded in law. While the criteria give the agency more precise guidance, the agency will still have discretion to consider any other matter that is relevant to a specific case. The wording of the subsection precludes any all-encompassing statutory definition since the agency's determination needs to be made in light of all the circumstances of each case. That is only fair to all parties affected by such an application.
Third, as originally worded, some argued that subsection 27(2) would require the agency to proceed with a two-step approach. The section was therefore also amended to address that concern and to make it perfectly clear that it was not a bar to access to the agency.
Furthermore, section 161 on final arbitration was amended to more explicitly stipulate that it does not apply to agency decisions such as section 27 on "substantial commercial harm".
While some may have preferred that the whole section simply be deleted, I believe the Standing Committee on Transport has done an admirable job in finding compromise wording that adds the precision wanted and yet at the same time respects the policy intent behind the new legislation, Bill C-14.
This motion which changes the word "shall" to the word "may" will allow the agency the discretion to consider the criteria set out in subsection 3 for determining "substantial commercial harm" where it considers it appropriate to do so.
In my mind, the bill, as amended, will continue to strike that appropriate balance among these competing interests.
Canada Transportation Act March 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-14, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 45, on page 10, with the following:
"section (2) may include but are not limited".
Canada Transportation Act March 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-14, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5, on page 5, with the following: a ) not more than seven members appointed''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-14, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 5, with the following:
"pointment of up to seven members under para-".
Canada Transportation Act March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment today to speak to a few issues relating to Motion No. 35.
To provide some background, the present Railway Act is a piece of virtually historic legislation. It provides railway companies with their own independent powers to expropriate land. This dates from the era when railways were used for the purpose of nation building when just about any government would make just about any deal to achieve the construction of a railway. Under the Railways Act, private land can be taken by the railways. However the Indian Act requires that governor in council approval is needed for taking of reserve lands.
Over the years statute for water related facilities like ports and bridges, although not rail or transportation, adopted the expropriation provisions of the Railway Act. This means that other private companies and some public corporations can also use the Railway Act as an expropriation mechanism to take private and reserve lands pursuant to the wording of other acts.
Bill C-14 is primarily a transportation bill and it cannot advance measures that potentially set important precedents with respect to aboriginal rights. That having been said, the bill does attempt to address some of the longstanding problems which are found in the Railway Act with respect to reserve expropriation. It also attempts to address several other issues which are of interest to aboriginal peoples.
First, the bill eliminates the private expropriation power of railway companies. These companies in future will have to apply to the Minister of Transport following which the provisions of the government's Expropriation Act will be the governing statute rather than the Railway Act, which is to be repealed with the passage of Bill C-14. Other private interests and some public corporations would, like railway companies, also fall under this expropriation mechanism and would lose under the Railway Act approach the rights that they now have.
Second, the new sale and discontinuance process under Bill C-14 requires that if a private sale of a line cannot be made, federal, provincial and municipal governments will sequentially have 30 days to exercise an option to purchase the line for no more than the net salvage value.
Initially under former Bill C-101 from the first session of this Parliament, the federal option applied only if the line crossed a provincial or international boundary. During the review of the former bill, the Standing Committee on Transport approved an amendment which expands the federal option to include reserve lands. This amendment is being made to address the concerns which have been expressed by some aboriginal groups that land in reserves over which rail lines pass might otherwise not be protected when the rail operations cease.
Third, section 96 of Bill C-14 states that a railway company cannot alienate land taken from the crown, except to transfer the land for continuing railway operations or to transfer the land back to the crown. Following review by the standing committee, section 97 of the bill was amended to indicate that nothing in this section would be construed to negate any pre-existing right or interest that anyone might have in the lands transferred under this section. That of course includes aboriginal rights.
Fourth, amended section 145 with one further proposed amendment will require an offer to the minister of any line or portion of a line which passes through land that is or was part of a reserve or that occupies land which is affected by land claims, provided the minister or the railway's owner have entered into agreement for the minister to recover the land.
I believe that Bill C-14 as amended is further evidence of the efforts of the government to accommodate the special concerns of a particular group in our society in transportation policy.
Automotive Safety March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern about safety which is the primary duty of Transport Canada and its main responsibility.
With respect to the question of all issues relating to automobile safety, investigations of accidents are carried out for all categories of motor vehicles so that a safer fleet can be created.
More stringent standards have been applied to minivans. In 1994 roof strength standards were introduced and next year a slide
protection standard is proposed for the 1997 model year. This spring the rear door latch regulation for the 1998 model year will be introduced.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there has been a continuous improvement through regulation for safety of minivans.
Aéroports De Montréal March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, up to now I have received no report on the concession operators at the two airports. Do not forget that Mirabel is not being closed. It will continue to be a major airport in Quebec and in Canada. All charter and cargo flights will leave from Mirabel.
A change is being made, but it is a change implemented by ADM and not the Department of Transport.
Aéroports De Montréal March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Dorval and Mirabel belong to the federal government, but their management and development have been the responsibility of Aéroports de Montréal or ADM since 1992 under the terms of a 60 year lease.
My job, as the federal minister, is to ensure that issues concerning security, individuals and aircraft are addressed. I would like to give the member more information, if I could do so. However, responsibility was transferred to ADM a few years ago.
Canada Transportation Act March 22nd, 1996
moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-14, in Clause 145, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 22, on page 67, with the following:
"Canada,
(ii) land that is or was a reserve, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, or
(iii) land that is the subject of an agreement entered into by the railway company and the Minister for the settlement of aboriginal land claims;".