Transport Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a little bit confused, first of all with the wording that's been used and the translation, and secondly, as to what the reasons behind the amendments are. I still don't quite understand. Could I have the clerk read back the English version of the subamendment as it's presently proposed?

[The Clerk]

It is declared that a competitive, economic, efficient and adequate national transportation system that meets the highest practical safety and security standards and contributes to a sustainable environment and makes

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right, so the word “national” is just before “transportation system”. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Why are we using the word “adequate”? My understanding is that we hire very skilled drafters in government to do this job for us. They draft something in context, and we run a serious risk, when we start nitpicking and inserting our own terms, of upsetting that very delicate balance that drafters use when they put together legislation. Later on there are some further amendments, and I'll be raising the issue again that there's a danger of our losing the balance between some of the parts of this particular clause because we're mickey-mousing around with the wording.

The word “adequate”, quite frankly, to my mind, coming from a legal background, is inviting litigation. It's returning uncertainty to something that the drafters had hoped was going to be certain. If this is any indication of where we're going with some of these amendments, I'm a little discouraged. I do trust our staff. It doesn't mean we don't exercise oversight over what they do, but at the same time, we have to trust them to a certain degree to provide us with the kind of wording and the flexibility that are required to deliver what we're hoping to deliver with Bill C-11.

I'm not sure this is a great start for us.

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

I was actually going to echo something that Mr. Fast said. I do have a problem with “adequate”, but the rest I don't, quite frankly, see as much of a burden on us. But “adequate” I think does invite varied opinion, and I agree with Mr. Fast on that particular wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've always seen “adequate” as “minimum”, but that's only my thought on the issue.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Julian.

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

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, it's perfectly within our purview as a committee to seek improvements to the bill based on what we've heard or on what we know. The issue of sustainability is something that's out there in the community and that Canadians feel very strongly about.

Does it upset the apple cart? Does it in any way throw into some uncertainty the bill? No. It's a statement of principles around a national transportation policy. What we have is a change or a shift from the national transportation policy that is currently in place, which is very detailed.

Even with the amendment that Mr. Laframboise is presenting, it's certainly not more detailed than the current transportation policy, but what we are trying to do is address a couple of weaknesses within that particular clause of the bill. I don't think it's a big issue. The one on sustainability I think most of the public would agree with, and it doesn't in any way contravene or upset other parts of the bill. And that's why I moved those motions, though I think Mr. Laframboise's consolidated motion is an improvement.

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

All I was going to say, and I didn't mention it, is that I think “adequate” does, as you said, weaken the purpose of the legislation, and for that reason I don't like it. But I think the amendment that Mr. McGuinty specifically put forward on environment is clear, and I think that's good. I couldn't support the motion on the basis of “adequate” myself, but if that word were removed, I would certainly be prepared to.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I have a question, maybe through to the staff who are here.

In terms of the word “adequate”, I understand the reason for it. Having drafted municipal legislation in the past, I appreciate the danger of fuzzifying a word, but at the same time, if somebody were to raise an issue with us, if the word “adequate” wasn't in there and we were to get complaints, as we may well do, from constituent groups or constituents that in fact a particular service is not adequate, as they describe it when they come to us as representatives... I realize that “adequate” is subjective, but if we agree with them that, based on a population in an area, the service going in is not appropriate or that it isn't appropriate for commercial purposes or whatever it would be, doesn't this at least gives the opening to argue a point? If it's not in there, if there is no reference to adequacy, where would a level of service--whether it be a level of security, a level of frequency, a level of economic return, a response--be addressed by someone who had a concern? Or could their concern be dismissed as not being in the act?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I ask you to answer that question, careful perusal of the amendment by Mr. Laframboise shows that it does not include the word “adequate”.

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

I withdraw my comments.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would still like an answer, if I could, for that reason.

[Helena Borges]

When there is a complaint filed--it doesn't matter which part of the act it is--there's usually the section of the act that deals with the adequacy of the service. In fact, the way it was being proposed, it talked about an adequate system. So it's the adequacy of the system, not the service.

There are provisions, for example, in the rail section, part 3, section 116, which deals with service levels, and in there you will find definitions that use the words to talk about the service specifically. This is not a provision in and of itself; it's a guiding statement. It's a statement that sets out the objectives for the transportation system as a whole, and that's what these are talking to. But if there's an actual complaint or whatever, they are dealt with in the specific sections of the act.

[Helena Borges]

It would depend on the service to which you're speaking, but for example, there are provisions in the act that deal specifically with the recourses available if the service isn't provided or if there are complaints about the service. It's not through the statement that you would deal with it.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for clarification, I'll read it again, and then we can perhaps move on.

It is declared that a competitive, economic, efficient national transportation system that meets the highest practicable safety and security standards and contributes to a sustainable environment and makes

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm glad the word “adequate” is not in there. It was only one of two other terms that I found problematic. I think the words “highest practicable” again raise some ambiguity and invite litigation, and also the term “sustainable environment”.

Mr. McGuinty had made some comments about that term and I may have misunderstood him, because I understood he had his own concerns about that term. Or were you simply supporting it?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I was supporting it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You were supporting it. Okay.

I also want to make the comment that the term “highest practicable safety” implies that this is in fact primarily a safety bill. It isn't a safety bill. In fact we've discussed this a number of times at this table, that we will be dealing with rail safety in the future. I'd like to defer again to the counsel at this table and ask whether they see any difficulty in incorporating the terms “highest practicable” and “sustainable environment”. If they feel that fits into this legislation and there's no significant change in the balance within the legislation as they've drafted it, I would feel comfortable with it--because I'm not an expert in the area.

[Alain Langlois]

I can give you a bit of background. These words are in the current policy statement. The reason they were removed is that it's unusual to find in a policy statement something that will establish or refer to a specific norm or standard. A policy statement is usually meant as establishing objectives. The rest of the act, including the amendment that will be proposed to this bill, is designed to achieve the objectives that are set out in the policy statement.

When you refer to the highest safety standards, it's not clear what standards you're referring to. You don't know what those higher standards are. Those standards will be established through legislation and a clear provision that will determine specifically what those standards are--the Railway Safety Act, for example, and the Aeronautics Act, which established it in terms of the airline industry. That's why it was removed from the current policy statement. It was to remove the reference to any specific norm, because it was inappropriate to find that in a policy statement.

With respect to the word “adequate”, and I know that we have moved on, the word was removed for the same reason. Not only were the drafters unable to find where this term fit in respect of any of the other terms that were used and therefore found it very repetitive, but also it created some ambiguity, and that's why it was removed.

So that's the bit of background I can provide to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

The current national transportation policy, under section 5, starts off by saying:

It is hereby declared that a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of viable and effective transportation services accessible to persons with disabilities

It then goes on in paragraph (a) to say:

the national transportation system meets the highest practicable safety standards

If we don't adopt Monsieur Laframboise's motion, we're diminishing or watering down what currently exists as our national transportation policy.

Just to get a little bit ahead, the next amendment we're bringing forward is on persons with disabilities. We're referring to the current national transportation policy. So this already is in place--talking about the highest practicable safety standards, meeting the needs of people with disabilities, and having an adequate network of viable and effective transportation services. That's all here. We're making a political choice if we take all those words out, and that's what's in the version that has come before us of Bill C-11.

It's certainly not an inconsistency to say this transportation policy has been streamlined, but there are some elements that must be contained within it, and they're already there. If we choose not to adopt Monsieur Laframboise's motion, then essentially we're watering down what the current national transportation policy, as adopted by Parliament, says.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think if we're trying to articulate the objectives in a general statement in advance, one could read that statement in terms of the pursuit of particular economic, competitive, efficient...and competing against those efficiency-type objectives would be safe and sustainable. Sometimes those two objectives wouldn't necessarily be consistent, and I don't think anyone here wants us to argue in favour of an economic, efficient, competitive system at the expense of safety.

I think, just to make it clear, that is the reason that kind of language is being requested, so that we understand the balance we're trying to find.

As far as the argument that we're trying to make it clearer goes, I don't think we want to make it clearer at the expense of safety or economic integrity.