Transport Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Are they new amendments or were they included in their entirety in the former bill?

[Helena Borges]

It is identical to what is in the former Bill C-44.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

It’s the same thing. Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Quite simply, I really don't understand. I understand what Mr. Julian is trying to push forward is an agenda, and I understand his synopsis on that. But I'm indeed wondering if there's anything he sees in paragraph 5(b) that may be left out.

First of all, we look at the primary purpose as being competition. Secondly, if they don't meet the objectives of the economic, environmental, and social outcomes, something else has to be done. I don't see it as being contrary, but I'm wondering if Mr. Fast isn't correct on that.

I'd like to hear from the counsel whether or not it indeed weakens the strategy of the declaration itself.

[Alain Langlois]

The way this policy was drafted was to declare that the objectives that are set out in the opening paragraph are to be achieved in a certain context. You have five criteria to examine in order to see if you have achieved the objectives, the first one being competition and market forces as the prime agents.

Paragraph 5(a) has to be read with the other ones. As a matter of construction and having interpreted the previous section in numerous cases, you don't simply focus on one and say this is the primary one. You have to read the section as a whole, and you then establish whether or not the case before you meets the objectives that are stated in the opening statement.

But the concern that I personally have, from a drafting perspective, is that the safeguards to paragraph 5(a) are set out in paragraph 5(b). It was constructed in that way so the five paragraphs would be read as a whole. Each paragraph would balance against the other to establish a balance in terms of what should be put in the system to achieve the objectives that are stated in the opening paragraph.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Here's what the current national transportation policy says--and this was adopted under the Liberals. It says that:

(b) competition and market forces are, whenever possible, the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services,

(c) economic regulation of carriers and modes of transportation occurs only in respect of those services and regions where regulation is necessary to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travellers and that such regulation will not unfairly limit the ability of any carrier or mode of transportation to compete freely with any other carrier or mode of transportation,

(d) transportation is recognized as a key to regional economic development and that commercial viability of transportation links is balanced with regional economic development objectives so that the potential economic strengths of each region may be realized,

So we have a major shift in what exists now and what this intends to do. The amendment is designed to bring it more in keeping with what we have right now, that “competition and market forces are, whenever possible, the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services”. So this is a shift if we don't adopt these amendments. It's a significant shift in how transportation policy evolves.

I would disagree with that emphasis. Mr. Scott and I are on the same wavelength, and hopefully the majority of the committee will be, as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, I will ask if the amendment shall carry.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're moving now to pages 6.1 and 6.2, Liberal amendments. Mr. McGuinty, you'll be presenting this, I presume?

Just as comment and information from the chair, there is a line conflict with your second amendment. If the first amendment is adopted, then the second one cannot be proceeded with. But again, as we did with the first set of amendments, they can be grouped together, then a third amendment brought forward and voted on.

So I'll ask you to speak on it, and then we'll have some discussion that way.

[Allison Padova, Committee Researcher]

Chair, can we get copies if we don't have any?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You should have them, yes.

[Allison Padova]

That would be helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Does everybody have that? It's pages 6.1 and 6.2.

I think we'll wait until everybody has the document.

If I'm correct, everyone has the document now.

Similar to what we did with the first group of amendments, I've asked Mr. McGuinty to debate or discuss both of the amendments together. We'll then get an amended amendment for the committee to either vote for or against or debate.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Both of these amendments, taken together, fall hard on the heels of what we were just discussing a moment ago, about the overall thrust of the policy statement for transport in Canada. I'm cognizant of what Mr. Langlois just said, which is to take paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) together, as one whole, and to try to situate them.

I would tend to agree with the interpretation of a few members of the committee. The general reading of the policy objectives tends to have a harder free market competition and market force edge to it.

The import of what I'm trying to propose here is that we do two things. I'd like to see more directly reflected, in this particular paragraph, the question of security and safety. By inserting safety and security into the policy statement as valid reasons for either regulation or strategic public intervention, it would properly state the importance of the federal government's role in the safety and security of our national transportation system. I think the current policy understates the importance of the federal government's role in the safety and security of our national transportation system. So one part of this, Mr. Chairman, is the insertion of the words “safety, security”. That's part A, if people can bear with me for a moment.

The second part of this speaks more directly to when regulation and strategic public intervention can occur. As presently worded, we talk about regulation and strategic public intervention occurring only if they're necessary, as if to say and to imply that the Government of Canada's role in regulating and in bringing about strategic public intervention should be tempered by a test whereby we decide whether or not the free market's being fettered or not. I'm not sure that's wise, given some of the unpredictables that this bill is purporting to allow us to address on safety and security alone, for example.

My view is that I'm not so sure we want to limit or fetter the federal government's power to regulate for the benefit of Canada and Canadians generally, and not simply juxtaposed against the free market and fully functioning competition and market forces that are cited in paragraph (a). That's the general thinking, the rationale, Mr. Chairman, behind these two. The wording basically is trying to state clearly not only that would the federal government regulate and bring about strategic public interventions if these are necessary, but that the federal government in fact would be directed to do so to achieve specific outcomes. That's my rationale.

Does anyone understand what I've said?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have asked Mr. McGuinty to redraft what he has just said into an amendment, and I'll ask someone at the end...because we are considering two amendments, as we did in the first discussion.

Mr. Laframboise, and then Mr. Julian.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I see no reason to split those two amendments, because they are completely different. That’s how I see them.

In fact, the French version of the first amendment is intended to change lines 10 and 11, by removing the words “ne” and “que si elles sont nécessaires.” The clause would thus read: “b) la réglementation et les mesures publiques stratégiques sont utilisées pour l’obtention de résultats [. . .]”. All we are doing is completely removing the words “ne” and “que si elles sont nécessaires”. That is the first amendment.

In the second amendment, we are adding text. I think we can vote on the two amendments separately.

Mr. Clerk, I would like to know what you think, because it's important to me.

I think the first amendment is of interest because we are not making the proposed clause 5(b) a secondary condition but in fact a condition equal to clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e). That is what Mr. McGuinty wants to do.

So we mean, “regulation and strategic public intervention are directed to achieve [. . .].

I think the objective of the first amendment is that clause 5(b) is not a condition if the other does not apply; it is as important a condition as clause 5(a).

In the second amendment, we add the words “economic or environmental” and we also add “safety or security.”

Mr. Clerk, I would just like to hear your opinion, because splitting those two amendments poses a problem for me. I consider them fine as tabled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think the major difficulty, and you've maybe outlined it in your opening comments, is that on the English side the first amendment is amending lines 10 through 14 in the English version. The second amendment amends line 11. You can't amend something that you've done previously, so that's why I've asked Mr. McGuinty to put them together and come up with one amendment. I know Mr. McGuinty has something prepared to read so that we can actually hear a complete amendment.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I would like to intervene along the same line as Mr. Laframboise. We could perhaps hear the answer now and I will speak to the principle of the amendment after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty, in light of the rules and regulations, we actually need to have someone else.... I'm certainly prepared to let you read it into the record, but someone else will have to move it.

Mr. Bell will move the motion, but Mr. McGuinty is going to read the motion into the record. He's going to clarify it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'll share my time, and I will try to clarify it.

If we begin with “those objectives are most likely to be achieved when”, then we go to:

regulation and strategic public intervention are directed to achieve economic or environmental or safety, security or other social outcomes that cannot be achieved satisfactorily by competition and market forces and do not unduly favour or reduce the inherent advantages of any particular mode of transportation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Might I ask you to read it one more time?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

With respect, cutting to the chase and getting to the meat and potatoes, I think the safety and security aspect added to this is good. Even though this isn't a safety bill, I think it's good and it doesn't detract or take away from the clause itself.

I have a real problem with “directed”. I even think, in essence, what you've done with that little play on words is change the focus and really the whole bill itself, or at least the policy. I'm very uncomfortable with the word “directed”. I've been listening and listening and trying to keep an open mind here, but I can't find how it remains consistent with the bill at this stage, with this drafting.

Quite frankly, I'd like to hear from the department in relation to that.

[Helena Borges]

We would agree with Mr. Jean that we wouldn't have an issue with adding safety and security in the list of outcomes.

Mr. McGuinty deleted the words “occur only if they are necessary”. As we were speaking about proposed paragraph 5(a), it basically says that competition and market forces are the prime agents. If we change this wording, we are now in fact suggesting that regulation and strategic intervention become the prime force again. It is really meant to be only when market forces and competition do not provide that outcome. It changes the sense of the provision considerably.

We don't, however, have an issue with adding safety and security. That would be fine.