Free gay dating site no payment before you chat in Trois Rivieres Canada

Anthony Rota :. Robert Aubin :. I will be brief. I want us to do the reasonable thing here.

I do not see how we can respectfully tell the Senate we reject its amendments without providing an explanation. That is why I am about to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion recognizing that, for the months—years almost—that we have been debating Bill C here, grain producers and transporters on the ground have been waiting for an answer. That is just to address this aspect of rail transportation.

Bill C has quite a few other things going on too, of course. I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the Senate's amendments 7 c and 8 to Bill C, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts , to be now read a second time and concurred in. We understand the concerns of captive rail shippers in the Maritimes, but it is critical that we ensure the continued viability and fluidity of the eastern rail network, including through the Montreal area.

The proposed amendments from the other place would apply to a significant portion of the tonnage moving on CN's network in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Subjecting this traffic to long-haul interswitching, LHI, could impact the future viability of CN's rail services in eastern Canada, particularly on the northernmost branch line in New Brunswick, where line abandonment has been threatened in the past.

While LHI will not be expanded to allow captive shippers in the Maritimes to access the remedy in Montreal, the bill would make significant improvements to existing remedies that would benefit these same shippers. Shippers in the Maritimes would continue to have access to other shipper remedies contained in the act, many of which would be improved by the bill, including a definition of adequate and suitable rail service; the ability of shippers to seek reciprocal financial penalties in their service agreements; final offer arbitration, FOA; and a new, anonymous dispute resolution service.

Despite the many benefits this bill would provide, some continue to push for further amendments to the final offer arbitration process, a process that is already highly valued by shippers in its current form. Bill C would also require railways to provide significant new data and performance metrics, including on rates, things that have never been available before.

This would improve transparency, which would help shippers in their negotiations with railways. Under the existing legislation, an arbitrator is already allowed to request technical assistance, including costing and legal assistance. There is nothing in the act that obligates the arbitrator to seek the consent of railways for such assistance, and the arbitrator can hold any failure to disclose information against a railway when coming to a decision.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Bill C would benefit shippers in a variety of ways. In particular, it would enable shippers to seek reciprocal financial penalties; shorten the process for level of service from to 90 days; allow a shipper to extend FOA decisions from one to two years; change the financial threshold for participating in a streamlined arbitration process; make certain temporary agency authorities permanent; recognize the agency's informal dispute resolute authority; and require railways to provide significant new data and performance metrics, including new data on rates.

Passage of the bill is of the utmost urgency. Grain farmers and shippers are depending on the bill to prepare for the coming harvest season. These groups represent hard-working Canadians who are urging parliamentarians to pass the bill expeditiously, and in turn, to fight for them and their livelihoods. The government and minister have carefully considered the risks, benefits, balance, and impacts of the policies in this bill. The bill has been thoroughly studied and debated for more than a year now in the two chambers.

Prior to this, issues were studied by the Canadian transportation review panel, chaired by the hon. David Emerson. There has been an extensive series of additional round tables and consultations. All the input provided by stakeholders and witnesses was shared with the respective panels and committees.

It is clear that the other place wants the same as the government: an effective, efficient, and balanced rail system for the long term. The essential nature of the whole transportation system requires extensive study before changes are made to ensure that we do not end up with unintended consequences that put our system at risk. This study has taken place, and the government has produced a bill that best serves Canadians over the long term. There are many Canadians who will benefit from this bill, and they are eager to see it passed. It is now time to move forward. If that is what they want, then let us go back to debate.

I will repeat my question, focusing on just one of the two amendments proposed by the Senate.

Why are the Liberals refusing to treat all regions of Canada equally, which is the very essence of the Senate's amendment 7 c? Karen McCrimmon :. There has been considerable study, work, and effort put into the policies included in this bill. All those impacts have been taken into account.

That is why this balance and an overall view is so important. I am just going to share something with this place. There is nothing more frustrating and more basic to human nature than when we get into an organization and an idea is given to the organization that maybe is contrary to the initial thoughts of that organization. If there is not sufficient buy-in, it will say it is not its idea, and it is therefore going to oppose. By opposing the amendments from the Senate, which has given thoughtful consideration to those proposals, the parliamentary secretary is, in essence, pushing the burden onto so many farmers, who cannot get their grain moving in sufficient time.

This parliamentary secretary and the government are slowing this whole process down. Will they not just admit that the reason they do not support the Senate amendments is that they are not their idea?

• free Fall River Canada gay dating services.
• where to list gay escort services Maple Ridge Canada.
• teen gay dating site Stratford Canada?
• VIA Rail Canada, Quebec: Address, Phone Number, VIA Rail Canada Reviews: 3.5/5;
• I Seeking Swinger Couples Gay bodybuilder chat in Canada.
• Debates (Hansard) No. - May 11, () - House of Commons of Canada.

That is the worst thing we can do for this country at this time. Why did the Liberals not take that initiative at the very beginning and ensure our freight was available to agriculture, natural resources, and manufacturing across the country? We have tried to look at this from a comprehensive point of view and ensure the entire system is integrated. There are some gaps, there are some choke points. We will continue to work on that to ensure it works properly coast to coast to coast.

Dan Albas :. The parliamentary secretary cannot have it both ways. The Liberals cannot say that we need to study and understand and that everything needs to be integrated, when we offered to see their proposal move forward so we could give certainty to those grain farmers who need this right now. Why are they so opposed to working with anyone except themselves?

The parliamentary committee and the Senate might as well be working in a vacuum. They spent months studying this issue and hearing witnesses and relevant testimony on all of these matters.

1. Site Index.
2. Navigation menu!
3. magicmike gay escort St. Johns Canada?
4. biggest gay dating website Kingston Canada!
5. House Publications!
6. escort gay men agency The Pas Canada!

They are proposing carefully crafted amendments that pinpoint or illuminate specific factors that the government may have overlooked in its haste. Why is the government refusing outright to approve the two remaining amendments? In this legislative ping-pong match, these are the two amendments the Senate is insisting on passing. Coincidentally, they are also amendments that were proposed by the opposition parties during the committee study. Could my colleague comment on how important important it is that we deliver this legislation in a timely fashion?

In recognition also of today, I dug deeply into my closet and found my railroad tie, which I am proud to wear today. My closet of ties is very extensive.

Gay sex club Sarnia

I rise today to speak to the government's second motion regarding the Senate's amendments to Bill C , the transportation modernization act. It has frankly taken too long. It is ridiculous that the Liberal government has taken so long to pass the bill. Just like the first response by the government to the Senate's amendments, this second motion by the government will further delay the bill's passage. It might be a little strange for me, a Conservative opposition MP, to say I want the government to pass its own bill, but that is exactly the case.

The Liberals had another opportunity to do it this morning. It is the Liberals who are delaying the passage of Bill C , as they voted against doing it this morning. This message that the Liberals are delaying the passage of Bill C is going to be the theme of my speech this morning, because it is the truth. I would like to go back in time to September I had the opportunity to join the House of Commons transportation infrastructure and communities committee for a number of full days of witness testimony on Bill C in the week prior to the House returning for our fall session.

During the days of witness testimony, we heard from many witnesses that the bill needed amending. These calls for amendments were frequent and, in many cases, repetitive among certain stakeholder groups. Had the Liberals not been so politically stubborn, they might have accepted those amendments that my Conservative and NDP colleagues put forward at that committee. They would have been better off to do so because once the bill made its way to the Senate transportation and communications committee, many of those same amendments were introduced at the Senate committee.

It is worth noting that many of these amendments were supported by senators of all political stripes, including hon. The first delay of Bill C by the Liberals was the rejection of the very reasonable opposition amendments at the House of Commons committee, recommended by the many witnesses. The second delay by the Liberals to Bill C was how long they took to decide what they would do with the Senate's amendments. The Senate sent its message to the House of Commons on April Farmers, agriculture groups, as has been mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, and Canada's manufacturing, mining, and forest industries had to wait two weeks to find out what the government would do with these amendments.

For two whole weeks it dithered on what to do. The third way the government delayed passage of the bill was by rejecting many of the Senate's amendments. When the government finally revealed its position on the Senate's amendments, shippers in these important industries were very disappointed with what they saw, not just because the government weakened or rejected amendments they felt were important but because they knew this move by the government would cause further delays to the passage of Bill C Instead of agreeing with all the Senate's amendments, which would have resulted in quickly sending the bill off for royal assent, the government chose to do a mixture of accepting a few amendments, amending a few others, and rejecting the majority of them.

Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans - Full Documentary - Directed by Jeff Gibbs

My colleague the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek , who is doing an excellent job of holding the transport minister to account, proposed an amendment to the government's motion to accept all the Senate's amendments. Had the House adopted my colleague's amendment, the bill would have gone immediately for royal assent thereby speeding up the passage of Bill C However, shock of all shocks, the Liberals delayed their own bill one more time and voted against my colleague's amendment.

I think that brings it to four times that the Liberals have delayed the passage of Bill C in the last six months. Should I say that the Liberals are not done? Here we are again. The Senate has dealt expeditiously with the government's motion, and members of the other place have voted to insist on two of their amendments, which the government previously rejected. Today, we are debating a motion by the Liberal government to once again reject amendments that the Senate has been insisting on.

Who is causing the delay in passing Bill C? It is the Liberals.