Transport Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

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

It's very simple: regulation and strategic public intervention. And I think that's a normal definition of where the public intervenes.

Public intervention is directed to achieve economic, environmental, or social outcomes. That's no surprise; that's where public intervention comes into play. We may disagree on the appropriate mix of relying completely on market forces and having public intervention on transportation. We may disagree on the degree to which this might happen. You'd probably go more towards relying on market forces, Mr. Chair, and I would go more towards ensuring that there's a significant space for public transportation.

Regardless of where we sit on that spectrum, we would all agree that public intervention is directed to social, environmental, and economic outcomes. We might disagree on the degree to which public intervention should take place, but we would all agree that's where public intervention comes into play.

With respect to Mr. Jean, I'm saying that I understand what he's saying, but I don't think it's relevant to the exact clause that Mr. McGuinty has put forward. I think it's more a question of philosophy. But that's not what we're debating here, which is how to word that sentence and how the public intervention is directed—what it is directed to obtain or achieve.

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

I'm worried about two things. First, I'm worried about the interpretation of this and the word “directed”, and in fact the entire interpretation of this proposed section based on that.

Second, I'm worried about the uncertainty in the marketplace that it creates. What this sets up in the marketplace is very clear. We're looking for forces to invest hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, and they want some certainty in the marketplace. I am afraid of that uncertainty.

I would disagree with your analogy regarding me, Mr. Julian, because I am very interested in great transportation modes and the public investing in that. It's just how it's done.

I would like to hear from the department in relation to the word “directed”, if they could give an opinion on that, because it's fearful.

[Helena Borges]

Normally the word “directed” is a very strong term. I'm trying to think of another term that would soften it a bit.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

How about the word “focused”?

[Helena Borges]

Maybe something like “focused” or “targeted” or “aimed” would be better. “Direction” has an implied terminology that somebody is forcing you to do something, and that is the way it will be interpreted.

We would still prefer to just get rid of “only”, but if everybody else is agreeing to that....

[Alain Langlois]

Just as a comment, again, the drafter would have to review this, but legally speaking, I'm not sure you can direct a regulation. For the sake of discussing this motion, would just removing “only if they are necessary”...? We don't make a lot of changes in the French version. We still use the same terminology, sont utilisées.

For the sake of the discussion, would it be acceptable to Mr. McGuinty for us to basically say, “regulation and strategic public intervention occur to achieve economic, environmental or social outcomes”, to maintain consistency with the French that is proposed in the motion?

Would that achieve what you're after?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not hung up on the word “directed”. This is not a direction in the legal sense of the word, with a solicitor–client document that's being approved by a solicitor. It's being used in the plain English sense of the word: “...those objectives are most likely to be achieved when...regulation and strategic public intervention are directed to achieve economic or environmental or safety, security or other social outcomes...”.

That's not a direction. I don't think it's incompatible with the regulation. I think it's in the plain English sense of the word. It means that it's put in the direction of, that “regulation and strategic public intervention” are put in the direction of, are directed toward something, “to achieve economic or environmental or safety, security or other social outcomes”.

I don't understand the concern with the word “directed” at all. It's the plainest English language word we could find.

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

“Aim” is good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. McGuinty, with respect, international law—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

“Aimed” is different from “directed”.

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

“Directed” has a specific connotation in legal terms. You've heard that from the expert here, from somebody we rely on. In international law, it has a specific definition with every international organization, and in Canada it does as well.

Under your particular interpretation of it, if you substituted the word “aimed”, it would have exactly the same meaning. Would you be satisfied with that?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chairman, aiming something and directing something toward something are not the same things at all.

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

“Focus”?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Not the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Borges.

[Helena Borges]

Can we go back to first principles? Let's go back to the language that was in there.

If we heard you correctly, Mr. McGuinty, your concern was related to “only if they are necessary”, correct? I think what our legal counsel has suggested would deal with that. We would propose to drop “only if they are necessary”. Reading it, it works well. It would say “regulation and strategic public intervention occur to achieve economic, environmental or social”, and then we add in the safety and security element. That way we're not getting into any other words that may be misdirected at various intentions. We just leave the word “occur”. They occur, they happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The more we discuss it, the more I am in favour of this amendment. It's a fact that the law of the marketplace exists, but in mass transportation, particularly at the regional transportation level, it's important for a government or a regional administration to have a policy strategy. It gives greater importance to the measures and the strategies used by governments to reach the right objectives. That does not prevent the law of the marketplace from coming into play.

At some point, the government may help by investing in a mode of transportation when the cost is required by the law of the marketplace. The law of the marketplace exists, but the government strategy to implement a mode of transportation remains essential as well. That is what the amendment does. The law of the marketplace cannot exist alone. We cannot rely on the law of the marketplace.

In my region, for example, we need a train to the suburbs. We’re not doing it because there has been no government decision. There is the law of the marketplace, but that alone does not solve the problem. So that gives importance to the strategy. That’s why I will vote in favour of the amendment.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Can you call the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have a couple of more comments.

Go ahead, Ms. Borges.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chairman, are we going to get it done by 5:30?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If we're just concerned about time, we can pass the entire bill, Mr. Hubbard. I'm listening to what people are saying, Mr. Hubbard, as you are.

I have Ms. Borges and Mr. Fast on my list.

[Helena Borges]

I was just going to clarify for Mr. Carrier that we're not opposing that; we're supporting that.

We support the principle that the government has to intervene, but the only thing we do not want to see is a directive word. We want to say it’s important but, if market forces do not allow that objective to be met, yes, the government has to intervene.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In the current text, there is too much conditional.