I bring your attention back to Bill C-62, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act of 1988, upon which, in large measure, this bill is modelled.

A hybrid approach would enable smaller, short-line railways to be represented collectively, or by a pooled approach, an attribute associated with the marine model, whereas the larger class I railways can choose a self-insurance approach, an attribute more in line with the pipeline model.

Toys (e.g. model railways, model aircraft, etc.)

Toys (e.g. model railways, model aircraft, etc.)

Question No. 132 Mr. Robert Oliphant: With respect to the new United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) user fee requirements for Canada: (a) what did the government do, if anything, to negotiate this fee change with the United States; (b) what communications occurred between Canada and the United States in preparation for this fee change; (c) what notice, if any, was provided to Canadian railway companies by the United States government of the August 25, 2007 interim rule authorizing APHIS to collect fees to cover costs for agricultural quarantine, inspection as well as planned incr ...[+++]eases to the program’s inspection capacity related to ports of entry in Canada; (d) does the Government of Canada know why the exemption removal was issued by the United States government, as an interim rule, as opposed to publishing a proposed rule for comments; (e) why was the targeted risk management model for customs reforms in North America not followed; (f) what overall purpose did the additional inspection under the APHIS proposal demonstrate; and (g) why is this fee being imposed on railway companies seeing as railways do not engage in the shipping of any substantial quantities of agricultural products across the border?

It was modelled after Canada's Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act.