Transport Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

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

We're moving towards smart regulations, we're moving towards language that everybody can read, and I would think we would move towards simplicity as long as we get the effect of the legislation.

No disrespect, but by Mr. Julian's analysis, we should maybe put it in 10 times to make sure it gets proper emphasis.

The reality is that it's in there. It has its separate clause. I think it's very important. It's very important to Canadians, but indeed I think it accomplishes what it set out to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

The other little part I didn't quite understand is why Mr. Julian has “advance the well-being of Canadians”. Could he explain what he meant by that?

[An hon. member]

It's in the bill.

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

Yes, currently it reads, “is essential to serve the needs of its users, advance the well-being of Canadians”, and we would add to that, “including persons with disabilities”.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So it's to put that down in the section again.

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

Yes, so the rest is already in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will now call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

We're a quarter of the way through the NDP amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Should we base the amendments on the percentages that we talked about at the first committee meeting?

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

No, I just want to make clear that we're sort of at the front end. If we've been at this for an hour and we're a quarter of the way through the NDP amendments, then I think we're right on schedule--just in case anyone starts to push that we move a little bit more quickly.

Again here, when we refer to the specific statement in clause 2, it says: competition and market forces, both within and among the various modes of transportation, are the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services;

We would be adding two words, “when possible”, so it would read “when possible, the prime agents”.

I think it's fair to say, when we're talking about a policy statement, that competition and market forces are not uniquely the method by which we provide viable and effective transportation services. They are often the way of providing that; I have no doubt about that. But there are also other cases where, with public transportation, we supplement viable and effective transportation services for areas that are more remote,

areas that are more remote.

So it's balancing off competition and market forces with the need to supplement that, often through public transportation. I think it makes the statement less absolute in nature and does suggest that there is a role for public transportation to play as well.

That is why we are proposing the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Monsieur Carrier.

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

Comparing the French and English wording, I have a question. In French, it says: “si les circonstances le permettent.” The circumstances, what does that mean, exactly? However, in English, it’s “when possible,” that is, “lorsque possible” in French, which is not the same thing as “si les circonstances le permettent.” There is a difference in meaning between the two.

[Helena Borges]

We did not word it like that . . .

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

I know but I am discussing the amendment. That is why I would like to consult you, to ask your opinion about the interpretation of the two wordings.

[Helena Borges]

We are against the amendment because the proposed clause 5(b) reads that when competition and market forces do not allow the objectives to be met, at that time, the government should intervene. That is the rationale for clause 2(b): when the market does not produce the expected results, we use regulations or government investment to get there. I think that what Mr. Julian wants to achieve with his amendment is already in clause 2(b). The same part, in English, reads as follows:

cannot be achieved satisfactorily by competition and market forces and they do not unduly favour, or reduce the inherent advantages of, any particular mode

Then the government intervenes through regulation or public investment so that we step in and provide the services that are required or subsidize services that are required.

So proposed paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) complement each other. First and foremost, competition market forces should be providing; and secondly, when that can't happen, the government can intervene.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

She took the words right out of my mouth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I would disagree with the last intervention. I think we're talking about a statement of principles and making sure it is clear that there are situations where public intervention is actually very appropriate.

I think the way to do that is by amending proposed paragraph 5(a). Paragraph 5(b) is an absolute that I would not agree with, but if we have paragraph 5(a) amended, then I think there's a balance between the absolute statements made in paragraph 5(b) and paragraph 5(a) that very clearly indicates that there are times when public transportation or public transportation services are appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, you're really looking at a contradiction in terms. We state in paragraph 5(a) that “competition and market forces...are the prime agents”. It's a clear statement of direction. You completely take away the effect of that when you inject the words “if possible”.

It's unnecessary because it's only one of five different strategies that are enumerated as paragraphs here. Some of those have already been highlighted by others, which would address the balance.

We're not saying competition and market forces are the only way to provide transportation services in Canada; however, it is the prime way that we would like to deliver them. It's a statement. If you add the words “if possible”, you're then taking away from the statement, basically rendering that particular paragraph ineffective, and it means nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think we see an ideological cleavage here. I think it's the hierarchy that is presented here.

I speak only for myself. But I also concur that it is not necessarily a case where you're going to get the best product if you start out by saying this is the best way and then you qualify it in this way.

I agree with Mr. Julian. I think there are times when in fact that isn't the best way to deliver it. Whether or not the wording “when possible” is necessarily the best wording to describe that qualification, I think I would be prepared to support some form of qualification to say it is not always the case. The prime way to do this is privately.

I think we should simply agree to disagree on that view of the world.