[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 23, 1995
.0907 
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, colleagues. We're resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-101. We left off last night having completed clause 160, so we'll move to clause 161.
On clause 161 - Submission for final offer arbitration
The Chairman: I understand we have two government amendments.
Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana (London East): Mr. Chairman, amendment G-59 deals with a technical amendment to the French version.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, on amendment G-59.5, we wanted to be consistent. As you know, we indicated in subclause 27(2) that the FOA has absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings of the agency and is not a matter related to subclause 27(2). Clause 161 also indicates that final-offer arbitration is not a proceeding of the agency, and that covers off both clauses, because clause 161 deals with final-offer arbitration. So I think that ties them both together.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, do you want to say something to 33.5 or do you want to withdraw it?
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): No, no. I need to find it first, that's all. Here we are.
I found very interesting the point at which the chair adjourned last night. I realize it was at the time he had indicated, more or less, but we'd just finished doing one clause dealing with arbitration in passenger rail. The comments of the government, I believe, were that this would change it to arbitration-mediation, which requires dialogue back and forth and then a decision ultimately to be made by someone.
Now we're into a situation that is the exact reverse: final-offer arbitration, which is the very thing the government referred to. Final-offer arbitration the way it is written in fact works more like the very thing the government representatives here were speaking against in the previous clause, in 160. That is to say, it causes dialogue to go back and forth, which is not the way final-offer selection arbitration normally works.
.0910
We do talk about the norms. The government has used that as a rationale several times, that that is not what is normal in the transport industry, that what's normal in this situation or that....
In the case of final-offer selection arbitration as it's contained in clause 161, the shippers send in their final offer in the blind. The railroads look at it. They then get to decide whether or not their final offer is really good in the face of the shippers, or they determine whether they should amend it a little more to make it that much better.
If we're going to have final-offer selection arbitration, it should be just that, with bulk offers selected in the blind. Failing that, go back to arbitration and call it what it is. But don't call it one thing while doing another. This is an amendment that would make it genuine final-offer selection arbitration.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I agree there might be a problem with the wording in the sense that arbitration means precisely it. This is probably really more aptly put as ``final-offer selection''.
But let's go back to a couple of things. One is that the only people who have access to the FOA are the shipper and not the railway.
Therefore we've heard excellent testimony from perhaps the only witness that's gone through the whole system on the Wabush situation. It was very indicative, I believe, of the witness who pointed out that the opportunity for the railway to look at the final offer of the shipper was instrumental in coming to a conclusion.
So obviously that's what we want, and as we know, FOA is used very seldom. Why? Because both parties come together to resolve their issues. If the hon. member would suggest that the railways also have the opportunity of asking for a final-offer arbitration, I could see where a double blind might in fact be relevant.
In the case where only one party really has access, I think it shows, and it's indicative that the system can work when in fact one party - and the railway - has an opportunity to take a look at that final offer and then be able to draw it to a conclusion.
I think it was also enlightening when the witness appeared to say, listen, by the time you get to final-offer arbitration anyway, that final step, you practically know the limits of both parties. You pretty well have narrowed it to such a point where there really is not a heck of an awful lot of difference, unless you're completely ignorant of the negotiating process.
While I can appreciate the member's good faith suggestion here, that it should be double blind, that it should really actually work like the word would indicate it should - arbitration - I suggest that the way we have it now is probably the most workable solution.
Of course, that is subject to review. Of course, as I've said before, this bill has about four points of review, including the agency's review of any particular section of the bill to ensure that it is working properly. Perhaps that's when we'll find out whether it has really worked or not.
The Chairman: A short intervention from Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Yes, Mr. Chairman, as short as you'd like me to make it. Mr. Chairman, first I'm very surprised that the Reform Party hasn't pulled this amendment, simply because nobody came to the committee who's in favour of a double blind.
There is nobody in the collective bargaining regime and industry I've ever been involved with who would accept the double blind, because it's a scary process.
What you get out of a double blind is some person who doesn't even know the particulars of the case making a decision, when in fact the reason you go to FOA is only in extreme circumstances. This has worked so well because they've had an opportunity to look at it and make a decision before they have to go to the agency.
I'd like Mr. Gouk to explain to me where he got this belief that this is a good process, because nobody at the committee said to us, we want a double blind. In fact, they said the reverse: please don't give us a double blind, because we don't want it.
The Chairman: Bob, you'll have to stand corrected, because there were a few shipper groups that did -
Mr. Nault: Who?
The Chairman: - favour the double blind.
Mr. Nault: Out of the 200 or so, there must have been 1 or 2, because I can't recall.
The Chairman: That means there were more than none, as you indicated -
Mr. Nault: Do you want to name them?
The Chairman: We can find out for you if you're that interested, but there were -
Mr. Nault: Oh, there were?
The Chairman: Yes.
Anyway, Mr. Gouk, did you want to respond to -
.0915
Mr. Gouk: I'll start with the last intervention. When he reluctantly accepts that in fact some shippers came forward, and says, well, how many out of 200...? First, the term ``200''...and second, when someone has a gun stuck to your head, you rarely complain about them stepping on your toes.
With regard to Mr. Fontana's suggestion that only the shippers can enter into FOA and therefore the railroads have to have some advantage, if they were in fact able to initiate the FOA process, then maybe it would be more fair.
I would suggest that if the shippers were able to set the price and have the railroads stuck with those prices, unless they could get final offer arbitration in their favour, then that would be a valid point. But as it stands now, the railroads set the price and the shippers either have to do that or go to some arbitration mechanism.
The final point, if I could, is that you said it is a scary system when some person who doesn't necessarily know all the facts or know what they're doing makes the final selection.
That's what happens in any case. The only thing is, the railroads get to fine-tune theirs, whereas the shippers are not fine-tuning their own submission. That is why I don't like this particular process.
The Chairman: I think we have both sides represented on this particular amendment, so I'm going to call the vote.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 161 as amended agreed to
Clauses 162 to 176 inclusive agreed to
On clause 177 - Regulation-making powers
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier, you have an amendment, B-19.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): As usual, we would like to include something about the parliamentary committee. We move that clause 177 of Bill C-101 be amended by substituting the following at line 35:
- 177. The Agency may, by regulation, after consultation with the committee of Parliament
that normally considers matters relating to transportation,
- As usual, we would like that the Agency be required to seek the advice of the parliamentary
committee before making a decision. It is always the same rationale.
The Chairman: Ms Greene, did you want to comment on that?
Ms Moya Greene (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Coordination Group, Department of Transport): Just to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think it's the same issue we dealt with on a couple of previous occasions with respect to regulations.
If all regulations had to go to this committee before, there would probably be a measure of impracticality. There is a parliamentary committee charged with the responsibility of looking at regulations if there's any concern.
The Chairman: Thanks, Ms Greene.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We now move to amendment G-60. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, B-60 deals with paragraph 177(b) and essentially allows the agency to prescribe the maximum penalty for a violation: $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 in the case of a corporation.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Gouk: Could I just ask what the difference is from what was there?
Mr. Fontana: Really it's technical. I think it's the word ``maximum'' or ``but the amount shall not exceed''.
Ms Greene: It's just a wording change, Mr. Chairman, to make it clear that it's the maximum amount that may be charged against anybody who's found in violation.
The Chairman: Okay, Jim?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 177 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 178 - Notices of violation
The Chairman: Let us turn to amendment G-61. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, G-61 is just a technical amendment to the French version of clause 178.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 178 as amended agreed to
Clauses 179 to 184 inclusive agreed to
On clause 185
The Chairman: We now turn to amendment G-62. Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, as you know, clause 185 deals with repealing certain sections of the Railway Act, except for specific numbered sections. I think G-62, the amendment to that clause, just really clarifies that whole clause 185. So it really is technical in nature.
.0920
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 185 as amended agreed to
Clauses 186 to 195 inclusive agreed to
On clause 196 - Continuation of previous orders, etc.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, you have amendment G-62.5.
Mr. Fontana: I move to amend clause 196. The amendment is, I believe, just technical.
The Chairman: That's right.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 196 as amended agreed to
Clause 197 agreed to
On clause 198 - Continuation of road and utility crossing orders
The Chairman: There's an amendment.
Mr. Fontana: I move amendment G-63, a French-version amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 198 as amended agreed to
On clause 199 - Continuation of private crossing orders
Mr. Fontana: I move amendment G-64, another French-version amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 199 as amended agreed to
Clauses 200 and 201 agreed to
The Chairman: Now we have new clause 201.1, amendment G-64.5.
Mr. Fontana: The new clause essentially is technical in nature as it relates to the confidentiality of the information under new subclause 201.1(1) and disclosure to the minister under new subclause 201.1(2).
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 202 and 203 agreed to
The Chairman: We now have new clauses 203.1 to 203.3, government amendment G-64.6.
Mr. Fontana: These are just technical in nature. Additions were required. That's why these are new clauses.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 204 to 227 inclusive agreed to
On clause 228
The Chairman: We have government amendment G-65.
Mr. Fontana: Amendment G-65 deals with a technical amendment as it relates to clause 228.
I wonder if Ms Greene could deal with this. As you know, we are changing the Expropriation Act for railways, and I think it would be proper just to highlight this for the members.
Ms Greene: Mr. Patenaude will deal with that technical amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jean Patenaude (Special Adviser, Department of Transport): The land vested in the Crown prior to the Expropriation Act, prior to the expropriation, had certain encumbrances on it. This is to ensure that the restriction is maintained on how the railway afterwards disposed of that land.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 228 as amended agreed to
Clause 229 agreed to
The Chairman: We now have a grouping here of new clauses 229.1 through to 229.3 under amendment G-66.
Mr. Fontana: Again, they are new clauses, but technical in nature. They deal with a number of administrative matters: consequential changes, agency names.
.0925
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 230 to 237 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: We move to G-67, an amendment to introduce new subclause 237.1.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, again, this is of a technical nature as it relates to pipelines.
Ms Greene: This is simply a clarification of what's there to make it plain that before a pipeline is opened, you have to get the permission of the National Energy Board.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 238 to 243 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: To introduce new subclause 243.1, we have amendment G-68.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, obviously this is of a technical nature. I don't know if there's a need for any explanation. We're really transferring the authority of what used to be ours to the National Energy Board on a number of these matters.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 244 agreed to
On clause 245 - Continuation of certificates
The Chairman: Clause 245 has G-69 attached to it.
Mr. Fontana: Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is technical and administrative in nature.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 245 as amended agreed to
Clauses 246 to 271 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: We now have new subclause 271.1, and amendment G-70.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, again, this is an administrative matter.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
On clause 272
The Chairman: We have amendment G-70.1.
Mr. Fontana: This is a French amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 272 as amended agreed to
Clauses 273 to 283 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: We now move to the schedules, colleagues.
Schedules I and II agreed to
On schedule III
The Chairman: Schedule III has G-71 attached to it.
Mr. Fontana: I believe G-71 talks of a new schedule IV, but I might be mistaken.
Ms Greene: Mr. Chairman, the new schedule IV is simply the Robson lines we referred to last night, the light-density lines that -
The Chairman: Actually, we're at schedule III, and it's government amendment G-71.
Ms Greene: Oh, I'm on schedule IV.
Mr. Fontana: I just found it here. It's just technical.
Ms Greene: Yes, that's just a language clarification.
The Chairman: Shall amendment G-71 carry?
Mr. Gouk: I have a point of order. We have two amendment G-71s. Maybe we could clarify that before we pass G-71, given that there are two different ones numbered the same.
Mr. Fontana: I think it would be proper to name the next one G-72, because I think it introduces new schedule IV.
The Chairman: Yes.
.0930
Mr. Gouk: Just for the record.
The Chairman: Amendment G-71 is attached to schedule III. Let's carry that one first, and then we'll move to the numbering of a new schedule following it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Schedule III as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Now we'll move to a new schedule IV and we'll number it amendment G-72.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Fontana: There was none before.
The Chairman: No, there wasn't. It was a new clause.
Now we'll revisit some of the amendments we stood down.
On clause 53 - Industry review
The Chairman: These are amendments G-11 and R-13.
We have before us clause 53. The amendment is one put forward yesterday by the Bloc. Paul Mercier, you put it forward in writing. It has been translated and distributed this morning to all members. It's a subamendment.
Colleagues, do you want to have a read of it? What we have before us now, to make it clear, is on clause 53, amendment G-11 in your book, which reads:
- (a) the financial viability of each mode of transportation;.
- and its contribution to the Canadian economy and to the development of the regions
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: You are right, Mr. Chairman. I think the words "development of the regions" should be found at least once in this bill to show that that concern is not totally absent from our minds.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, do you want to speak to this?
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, we discussed it yesterday. Clause 53, especially paragraph 53(1)(d), says that the minister can deal with all transportation matters. But I don't believe we would have a problem if in this review the Canadian economy and development of the regions would be reviewed at the same time by the minister.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I have just one intervention. I have a bit of a problem with this insofar as railways are a business, and one of the problems in Canada is that we've not treated them as business. They are not tools of economic or regional development. They may provide that, and I expect they do and we need it, but I don't think they should be examined to see if they are fulfilling that role because it is not a role they are required to fill.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
.0935
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, only because clause 53 is for the minister to review how a number of things are occurring. How is the transportation system in this country working? How is this act and its application working? How is the Canadian economy and the financial viability of railways working? The government wants to assess a whole host of information, so a slight amendment by the Bloc to look at the specifics of the development of the regions and the Canadian economy - I'm not sure it would impose a greater hardship on the minister and/or government to do that.
The Chairman: I think it would be in keeping with the theme of the bill, because back in the principles of the bill I believe it still refers to the key to economic development in the country.
Mr. Gouk: Which is something I had to swallow hard to let slide by, I might add.
Mr. Nault: You've pretty well hit the nail on the head. Mr. Gouk has already supported paragraph 5(d), in which transportation is recognized as the key to regional economic development, so he shouldn't have any difficulty supporting this one either.
The Chairman: All right. We have the Bloc amendment indicating the importance of the contribution to the Canadian economy. Does amendment G-11, Paul Mercier's subamendment, carry?
We don't get our language in the bill worked over unless we deal with G-13 first.
Mr. Fontana: I think we left it last night that if Mr. Gouk and the Reform Party were amenable to change the words ``House of Commons'' to ``house of Parliament'', we would have no objection to R-13, and I believe he said he had no objection to doing that. So if we first change ``Commons'' to ``Parliament'', we can deal with it.
The Chairman: Amendment R-13 is before us now, to read:
- end of May, lay before Parliament a report briefly reviewing, in respect.
- Shall that carry?
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana, do you want to make an amendment?
Mr. Fontana: G-11 was our original amendment, and now that we've incorporated the amendments by Mr. Mercier and Mr. Gouk, we have to fix up G-11. We will fix it up by deleting:
- Council a report briefly reviewing the state of transportation in Canada in respect of the
preceding year, including
- We have to strike out that whole section.
Mr. David Cuthbertson (Committee Researcher): No, you have to strike just the words, as follows:
- Council a report briefly reviewing the state of transportation in Canada
The Chairman: So for the record in amendment G-11 we're striking the first words ``Council a report briefly reviewing the state of transportation in Canada''.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier has withdrawn B-13.
Clause 53 as amended agreed to
On clause 67 - Disallowance or reduction of basic fare or increase
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, you wanted to move this amendment.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, this is one we had submitted and for whatever reason legislative counsel didn't get back. The government kindly worked on this last night and prepared it.
It's an amendment that would allow a mechanism for refunds in the case of air fares that have been increased and then caused to be rolled back by the agency. To not have that would be ludicrous because the airline could simply put their prices up, only to be rolled back later, and they still pocket all the money that the agency later determined they shouldn't have charged in the first place. It's just in keeping with good regulations.
Mr. Fontana: This is good for the consumer, obviously. I thank the Reform party for putting it forward. It's something we can support, and I thank Moya and her officials for drafting the right legal language to accommodate it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 67 as amended agreed to
On clause 134 - Competitive line rate
The Chairman: Is this yours, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: This is something we discussed last night. It is actually a change I believe from R-27. The government in R-27 was concerned about using distance because distance may not always be available. So this is a clarification to include the requirement for the agency to consider distance unless no such traffic has been moved over a similar distance. It just makes it clearer that where distance is available that they must use it in their determination. The way the legislation is written now it only refers to type of traffic.
Ms Greene: Mr. Chairman, there's no problem with this amendment. The practical difficulty that I cited is not going to be there for the agency. If it's not available they're not obliged to use it. So Mr. Gouk's proposal seems fine to us.
Mr. Fontana: Just to remind you, Mr. Chairman, we have a further amendment. I just want to make sure we cover off both areas.
The Chairman: Yes, you're next. One thing at a time.
Does the amendment put by Mr. Gouk carry?
.0945
Mr. Fontana: Is this still R-27?
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chair, in order to make sure there is no misunderstanding, could we perhaps have this new one labelled R-27 and ask that R-27 be amended according to this and then pass R-27 as amended?
The Chairman: We'll make it simpler than that. You're going to withdraw R-27 and we'll accept this new amendment by you.
Mr. Gouk: Do we have a reference to it?
The Chairman: No, just an amendment by Mr. Gouk.
Could you withdraw R-27, Mr. Gouk, just for the record?
Mr. Gouk: I will withdraw R-27.
The Chairman: I'll call the vote on R-38.5. Are you calling it 38.5 or 27.5?
The Clerk of the Committee: I'm calling it R-38.5.
The Chairman: That's what we'll call it. The man has to write it up. So we'll number this Reform amendment R-38.5. Does it carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We're now on G-39.
Mr. Fontana: That amendment sought to clarify the limit on the rate and I think it does that.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 134 as amended agreed to
On clause 145 - Offer to governments
The Chairman: This is Mr. Gouk's. So he'll withdraw R-30 and we'll make it R-30.1 or something like that. Mr. Gouk, did you want to withdraw R-30 and then give us your new R-30.1?
Mr. Gouk: I will withdraw R-30 and offer instead R-30.1, which is basically a write-up provided overnight courtesy of the government representatives here. It reflects the verbal agreement we arrived at yesterday, where we do include district governments but blend it into paragraph (c) instead of making it a new paragraph.
The Chairman: We asked the department officials to go away and give us their opinion.
Ms Greene: Mr. Chairman, this is just fine.
Mr. Fontana: It's not a problem.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 145 as amended agreed to
On clause 146 - Discontinuation
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I had motion R-31 on that. The parliamentary secretary suggested we set it aside and that I review G-53 to see if that satisfies my request for an amendment. So we're now on it.
.0950
I did review G-53. If you refer to my R-31 in the first part, 146.1, at what would normally be the second paragraph, the second sentence, the way it's written from legal, starting ``Thereafter,'' picks up at the point at which the government bill stops.
The amendment simply says that the railway shall notify the agency of the date at which it discontinued. The point is it leaves it hanging. Now what happens? Where this picks up at that point in my amendment is to specify that from that point on, once they have gone through the proper process and notified the agency, they no longer have any obligations under this act and specify specifically which things they were allowed to discontinue having any obligation for.
The Chairman: Ms Greene, did you want to comment?
Ms Greene: The only point I would make is that Mr. Gouk's wording is more detailed in setting out that the obligations on the railroads discontinue once they have gone through the process - or at least the obligations under this act discontinue. If the committee chooses to be as detailed as Mr. Gouk cites, there doesn't seem to be any problem with it to me. It's a question of brevity and how much detail you want to set out to state that the railway's obligation is hereafter discontinued.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, this to me is a very scary clause. It suggests that thereafter the railway company has no obligations under this act or any other act of Parliament. Obviously, they have an obligation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if they want to do something with that line. You can't put that in there. I wouldn't be putting that in there.
It says basically Parliament has washed its hands of it and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Quite frankly, that isn't true. There are other acts of Parliament that dictate what can happen with that property. If he's talking specifically about no longer having to have a railway on that particular right-of-way, that's a different issue. But he's saying here that environmentally if there's a mess there, then we don't have to clean it up or do anything about it.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify this for Mr. Nault. If he read just slightly further than what it appears he did, it says ``has no obligations under this Act or any other Act of Parliament in respect of an operation of the railway line''. That simply means they are not required to continue an operation of any type dealing with a railway or have any obligation with regard to VIA Rail, if they happen to have VIA Rail running over that, if they have gone through the process and got approved abandonment.
The government's amendment G-3 does not spell out anything. It's not that mine is more detailed. There is zero detail or even zero obligation on the part of the government to release the railroad from obligations. It simply says you notify us you're abandoning it. There is no ceasing of obligations in their amendment whatsoever.
If they think mine is too detailed, I would suggest theirs has none. Therein lies the problem. If they want to try to put subamendments, which seem to be accepted on this particular go-around on this bill, I don't have a problem with that if they want to simplify it a bit. But there must be a clear end of obligation to the railroad.
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think Ms Greene has indicated it's much more specific, and sometimes the devil's always in the detail. Throughout this act it talks an awful lot about obligations for the railways and everybody else. I think it's covered off. You want it specifically there.
I can only tell you - and I would agree with my colleague - that it has some problems, especially as it relates to those words ``any other Act of Parliament''. We're talking about 101. I don't think it's incumbent upon us to talk about any other act of Parliament we may or may not impact on on property rights, and so on and so forth.
The only thing I can suggest, because I don't think it's a real big deal, is you strike out those words ``any other Act of Parliament'', because I'm not prepared to speak on every other department in government. Nor should this committee. It may have ramifications through an act we don't know of. We're talking about C-101. So if you want to strike those words out, it's not a problem. If not, then perhaps maybe you should hoist this one and look to the report stage to consider it further. Maybe we can get you a further explanation as to where we've incorporated the same thing you want throughout the whole bill.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, would you be prepared to make an amendment to your amendment?
Mr. Gouk: I just want to make one comment. I recognize the position I'm in. I have to rely on the good graces of the government in order to get something passed. If that is the only way I can get the balance passed, I will.
.0955
I just ask one last time for them to reconsider the fact that where it says, ``or any other Act'', it specifies that it's specifically relating to operation of the railroad only, not to go and do something else later to avoid the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if they build a pulp mill on the rail line or anything else. It's only as it relates to the operation of a railroad.
I think it is important to have that in there. If I can't force the government to accept that, and if the only way I can get the rest of it is to withdraw that, ultimately I will, but I ask them one last time to reconsider that.
Mr. Fontana: It's not a problem if you're prepared to strike out the words, ``or any other Act of Parliament'', only because we don't do it anywhere else; all of a sudden you've introduced it in this particular matter. If you're prepared to strike that out, I think we could incorporate R-31 into it.
Mr. Gouk: Let me just have a brief read of it, then, and see what we have.
Mr. Fontana: Sure.
I think it's only for further clarification. When you're talking railways and an obligation of the operation of a railway, it's only under Bill C-101 that it's relevant anyway.
Mr. Gouk: As I say, if that's the only way I can get it, I will withdraw the reference.
Mr. Fontana: Why don't we do a friendly amendment striking those words?
The Chairman: No, we'll do a subamendment. Mr. Gouk will move his subamendment.
Mr. Gouk: The subamendment is to strike the words:
- or any other Act of Parliament
Ms Greene: It should be struck in both subclauses, just to be consistent.
The Chairman: Okay. It applies to subclauses 146(1) and (2).
You've heard the subamendment.
Subamendment agreed to
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 146 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Clause 146.1, the new clause, is the last one we're dealing with here.
Mr. Fontana, do you want to speak to G-53?
Mr. Fontana: G-53 introduces new clause 146.1, regarding the notice to the agency by the railways.
A voice: That is covered off in Mr. Gouk's....
Mr. Fontana: I don't know if we can withdraw it or we just vote against it.
The Clerk: It hasn't really been put yet.
Mr. Fontana: Then I would just withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: So new clause 146.1 is withdrawn at the request of the parliamentary secretary.
Colleagues, I believe that takes care of all the matters we stood down yesterday. It does; I have the nod from legal.
Now we go to the very last part of this bill, which is clause 1.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.1000
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: On division.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Colleagues, at this point I want to thank you all, first, because this is a lot of work and you did a great job.
I want to thank the officials from Transport Canada for their insight and guidance on the bill. I also want to thank the assistants to the minister for their helpfulness.
Colleagues, there's a guy here by the name of Jacques Lahaie who's done a hell of a job as our clerk. He had to call all these witnesses, he had to make sure everybody was arranged and everything was on time, from the coffee to the witness. I want to thank him for the good work he did on an extraordinary bill, colleagues.
This is actually historic. There's been a lot of talk even since I was a member of this committee back in 1988 and 1989. It was always a dream of someone to try to revise the National Transportation Act and it was seen as quite a hefty load and resisted all the way along. We've done it, so thank you, and I'll report this bill to the House as soon as it's available.
Mr. Mercier, do you want to say something?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the interpreters for having done a remarkable job despite difficult circumstances.
[English]
The Chairman: Absolutely. I heaped praise on them yesterday. I thought that was enough. We thank the interpreters and the staff in the House for what they've done for us during these weeks.
This meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.