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?