Evidence of meeting #26 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Okay, Mr. Chair. So, that would be done in the French version. I support Mr. Laframbroise.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may, the rules state that it actually has to come from somebody other than you, because it's an amendment to your motion. Maybe I'll ask Mr. Laframboise to come to the terminology.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Yes. So, before the word “compétitif” we add the word “national,” that is, “un système de transport national compétitif, rentable” and we move on to amendment NPD 2. We replace the words “et bien adapté qui est sûr” by “et qui rencontre les plus hautes normes possibles de sécurité”. Then, rather than “respecte l’environnement” we say “qui favorise un environnement durable et utilise tous les . . .”.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to give this a shot in English, and if everyone agrees, basically it would say:
It is declared that a competitive, economic, efficient and adequate national transportation system that is safe and efficient, that meets the highest practicable safety and security standards, and contributes to a sustainable environment
And then the rest of the sentence.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's very good, Mr. Chair.
I should note that the French is much easier to understand.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, but the way...and it's quite possible that my office drafted it first in French. The way Monsieur Laframboise said it in French is perfect, and you did an adequate translation.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I would ask if there are any comments from our guests.
Ms. Borges.
3:50 p.m.
Helena Borges Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
What we were trying to do with the revised statement was to simplify it, in fact, rather than make it as verbose as it is in the current act.
I'll just take one example. The word “adequate” in English does not have a comparable word in French. “Bien adapté” is the same thing as “efficient”, right?
We always have a hard time defining what “adequate” means, whereas the other words in there are all objective. The word “competitive” is objective, “economic” is objective, “efficient” is objective, as are “safe and secure” and “respects the environment”.
The whole concept of sustainability, as you may or may not know, encompasses the three factors--economic, social, and environmental. We believe that the clause, the way it is written now, with the sub-elements, has that concept in there. So we were just trying to keep it simplified, rather than throw in more language that makes it convoluted--keep it very precise, very flowing, very simple.
Some of the other motions address some of the elements in the enumeration following the opening statement. The word “national”, for example, is in the title. It is the national policy statement.
That was the objective of trying to simplify it. I think all the intent that you have is there. We don't normally talk about standards in a policy statement. It's the objective that we want to have a safe system and a secure system. The actual standards and regulations are dealt with through different acts of Parliament, for example, the Aeronautics Act or the Railway Safety Act, where they prescribe regulations or standards. This one deals with economic issues.
We would favour keeping it simple. I think all the key words are there, all the objectives remain there; it's simply how they're enunciated.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I would pick up, Mr. Chairman, on the use of the words “sustainable environment”. That means something very different from the wording in the bill at present. It fits into the preambular nature of the concept of sustainable development in most government bills these days that have a bearing on the environment and on sustainable development. It connects to the sustainable development strategy of the department.
I think it means slightly different things than simply the protection of the environment, or respecting the environment, as opposed to, in the sense of Mr. Julian's amendment, fostering a more sustainable environment. I think they mean two different things.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just looking at the current national transportation policy. It talks about “a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of viable and effective transportation services accessible to persons with disabilities and that makes the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost”. It goes on to talk about the “highest practicable safety standards”. It doesn't speak as much to the environment. However, I think it would be fair to say that Canadian society is involved to a certain extent.
Given that we do have the details in the current transportation policy, which is the current Canada Transportation Act, it would make sense to reinforce those principles, including the issue of sustainability, in this bill that we are bringing forward that provides amendments.
I think Mr. McGuinty is correct, though. I would argue that it's perfectly logical and reasonable for us to do that, because I think that's certainly what the Canadian public is looking to. It would hopefully guide government policy.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I’m coming back to your statement, Ms. Borges. Your text said “bien adapté qui est sûr” and we are proposing “et qui rencontre les plus hautes normes possibles de sécurité”. Do you think that, if we require that the system meet the highest possible safety and security standards—because we’re not asking the impossible—that’s too much? You would have preferred to make it softer by simply saying “bien adapté qui est sûr”? It seems to that, in the public interest, the words “les plus hautes normes possibles de sécurité” are more reassuring than “qui est sûr.”. Do you think we are going too far?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, I don’t think you are going too far. I think the objective is to have a safe and secure system. The standards to be reached are explained in the legislation, for example, on aeronautic and railway safety. But the objective we are trying to meet is for transportation to be safe, secure, economic and efficient. That is the objective and we are not talking about standards, in this case, in the preamble of the proclamation.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Except that you are telling us those standards exist. So it’s not serious if we don’t talk about them since they exist.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
In other legislation, yes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. I have the wording drafted, and I'll ask Monsieur Laframboise to read it into the record, and then we can move on.
Go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That would make the French clause 2 of Bill C-11: “Il est déclaré qu’un système de transport” followed by the words “national compétitif, rentable et qui rencontre les plus hautes normes possibles de sécurité, qui favorise un environnement durable et utilise tous les modes de transport et au coût le plus bas possible est essentiel à la satisfaction des besoins . . .”
November 21st, 2006 / 3:55 p.m.
Alain Langlois Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
To follow up on what you just said, in new federal business terminology, the French term “sécurité” referring to railway safety, for example, or aeronautic safety, has been replaced by the term “sûreté.” The term is no longer “sécurité” but “sûreté.” Rereading your proposal, it would be more appropriate, in French, to say “les plus hautes normes possibles de sûreté” given that the “sécurité” aspect is already mentioned in the previous lines.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If my colleagues have no objection, we can make the change, but I’m not a legal advisor. If you tell me the term “sûreté” replaces “sécurité” . . .