Bill C-8 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 29, 2007
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJan. 28, 2008
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 13, 2008
- Became lawFeb. 28, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Janis G. JohnsonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Robert CarrierHe describes the bill's aims constructively and notes Bloc interest in a positive role.
- Hon. Joseph VolpeHe notes the bill originated with his former government and passed with unanimous consent.
- Pat MartinHe announces NDP support for the bill at this stage.
- Donald H. OliverSenate · SenatorMoved third reading after committee reported without amendment.
- David TkachukSenate · SenatorDescribed the bill as giving shippers leverage and supported quick passage after committee review.
- Rod A. A. ZimmerSenate · SenatorAs critic, confirmed total support for the bill as a compromise supported by all parties.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,124 words introduced, 2,718 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core amendments on tariffs, unreasonable charges, railway line returns, sidings, mediation and final-offer arbitration were retained with only minor wording shifts. Two substantive additions were made: an explicit clarification that the new charge-setting power does not touch rates, and new tight timelines plus a deemed-conformity rule for carrier replies in joint-shipper arbitrations.
- Added a new subsection clarifying that the section on unreasonable charges does not apply to rates.
After: “(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply to rates for the movement of traffic.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill mixes fixed time limits and procedural steps with open-ended standards that turn on the Agency's views. Readers cannot know in advance exactly what charges or conduct will be allowed without Agency rulings.
Open to argument
“demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Agency”
Replaces an objective test with the Agency's subjective judgment on whether mediation was attempted.“commercially fair and reasonable”
Uses an undefined, value-laden phrase that invites argument over its meaning in each case.“if he or she considers it necessary”
Allows the arbitrator to extend deadlines based on personal assessment rather than fixed rules.
Clear-cut
“at least 30 days before its effective date”
States a clear, measurable notice period that leaves no room for interpretation.
Discretion. The Agency decides reasonableness, selects additional factors, sets order length up to one year, and runs mediation and arbitration, leaving broad scope for officials rather than ministers or regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'unreasonable' and 'to the satisfaction of the Agency' could support a section 7 Charter vagueness argument or administrative-law overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A railway company can readily dispute whether its charges meet the undefined 'commercially fair and reasonable' test or whether the Agency properly weighed the listed factors.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.