Transport committee  To the extent that it is “a charge”, you are correct, and that is why a new remedy is introduced in clause 3 of the bill. A distinction has to be drawn between the price, which is the amount billed by the railway to transport a good from point A to point B, and “a change”, which

Transport committee  Thank you. The arbitration remedy applies to applicants who are parties to an arbitration, whether we're talking about an individual or group arbitration. The remedy, in other words the decision rendered by the arbitrator, applies solely—and that's the intent—to applicants, that

Transport committee  Thank you. This section, as was said by the minister when he appeared, was drafted to allow shippers to challenge ancillary charges that are charged by railways above and beyond the freight rate that railways always charge to the shippers for the movement of the goods. This sect

Transport committee  As Ms. Borges said in her presentation, section 95.3 of this bill confers almost unprecedented power on the agency. There are no checks or balances to this power. The agency can make any decision at the discretion it deems reasonable in the circumstances. If the agency decides th

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  The notion of operational requirement refers to their obligation. They have an obligation of service to all of their shippers, so they have to take that into account. They're a railway, so obviously they have to operate their railway—they have to operate their yards; they have to

Transport committee  It's all a balancing exercise. The railways have obligations under the act. If you go to sections 113 to 116, they have an obligation; they cannot refuse traffic. If a shipper goes to them and says, “You carry my traffic”, they can't tell them, “No, I'm not going to carry it.” Th

Transport committee  I'm going to let Ms. Borges answer that, but the first concern I have is that the way I understand your amendment, you want to include this wording in the opening paragraph of proposed section 95.1. If you do so, you set out the norm. That would be the norm, and everything that f

Transport committee  Paragraph (d) of the amendment moved by the government was basically aimed at covering all the human health aspects. This paragraph, which states that the railroad must take into account "the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway", obliges the

Transport committee  I am afraid that by including very specific standards in paragraph 95.1, they cannot be applied everywhere at all times, and that the railway would have to comply with them no matter what the circumstances are. We must show some flexibility when we set standards on a national sca

Transport committee  It's one or the other. Using “and” implies that you have to comply with both.

Transport committee  This has much more to do about physical damage caused by the construction or operation of a railway and this is how the Court has interpreted section 95. This is not really about damage that may perhaps be less quantifiable from a physical standpoint. That's the way I would quali

Transport committee  It must be pointed out that section 95, in its current form, does not refer to noise. Noise was completely excluded from this section. This is what the 2000 decision was all about, when the agency lost jurisdiction in the area of noise. The agency used this provision to assume it

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  This is terminology that has been interpreted thousands of times by the courts. It is readily understandable to everyone. The day that this bill comes into effect, the railway will have an obligation to meet the standard. So it's easy for the railway, given the wide range of exi