Transport Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to meeting number 26 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Today we're following the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us today are Helena Borges, director general, surface transportation policy; Brigita Gravitis-Beck, director general, air policy; and Alain Langlois, legal counsel. As everyone should know or will know, they're here to offer us advice on some of the amendments that we'll be reviewing today.

I want to make a couple of comments. We do have some amendments. I should thank the people who submitted their amendments last week so that the department could look at them, so the legal counsel could look at them. I will have some comments on them as we go through the process, reflecting the advice I've been given on those issues. As we go through them, we'll certainly try to address them individually with the staff that's here today.

With the committee's indulgence, I'm looking for agreement on something. If it's there, fine, and if it isn't.... One of the things I've asked the Transport people in general to look at is the clauses that are currently in the bill for which there are no amendments or that are not impacted by any of the amendments that are coming forward. I'm looking for direction, to see if there might be a willingness to move through it in that order and deal with the clauses that we know we can move through quickly, and then spend more time discussing and debating the amendments. We'll go over them line by line, if there are any questions. If there hasn't been an amendment put forward for a clause, then it would be something that we could pass, and then we could move into the more difficult amendments that have repercussions throughout the rest of the bill.

I ask for the committee's indulgence, if there's a willingness to do that. If not, we can proceed line by line.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The only question I have--and this may be purely academic--is what if there was an amendment defeated in a clause that would have a bearing on one to which there were no amendments? If it were defeated but would have a bearing later, could we reserve the right, if we passed all of the uncontested clauses, to have an opportunity later to say that one doesn't pass because it bears on something. As long as you would recognize that possibility.... In other words, there are clauses here that may not have amendments, but a failure of an amendment someplace else may have a bearing later on them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Jean.

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

I actually had exactly the same concern, Mr. Scott, in relation to that, and I put together a list of clauses that required no changes--actually, the department put it together--and of course there is one change to that. I think it was clause 27, on which Mr. McGuinty brought forward an amendment today, or found one.

I have a list of those clauses, which I could circulate within the committee, Mr. Chair, if that would be your wish, and certainly I could read it into the record. Some of the clauses require minor changes. Some of them require more modest changes, and some will be contentious. The list is, in essence, divided into those categories so we could get to the meat and potatoes at some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I have reservations about that suggestion, because, after all, there is a certain logical sequence in the bill. It does not seem to me a good idea to try and adopt particular clauses quickly because they have not been amended. The way we are proceeding helps us to follow the thread of the bill, and I wouldn’t want to lose that. I don’t think it requires a greater investment of time. We have to spend the same amount of time on each of the amendments anyway; we have to examine them one by one and adopt them; we have to say yes, etc. Let's examine them as we go along then. That way we won’t lose the thread of the text; we’ll follow the bill step by step, which will give us a better understanding. I hesitate to adopt clauses selectively, as is proposed, in case there are minor changes to make subsequently. Therefore, I am opposed to that proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I share Mr. Laframboise’s opinion, because it is a fairly complicated bill, after all, and if we go from one clause to another and come back to a clause later, it’s more difficult for us to grasp all the points made and to determine what should be changed. I also understand your concern, Mr. Chair, that we manage to get the work done within the three or four days we planned to spend, but I think it makes more sense to go from one clause to the next. Of course we will have more discussion, but this Thursday and next Tuesday, the pace should pick up. I don’t think anyone here wants to prevent the bill from passing. We are all working in good faith to improve it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I was putting that out there for the will of the committee. I suspect that some of the later amendments, simply because of time, haven't had a chance to be reviewed by legal counsel. If anything, it would be buying time for them to actually form an opinion.

Mr. Jean.

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

Indeed, that is the case, and I would agree with Mr. Julian and Mr. Laframboise. That's why I think we need the proviso that we have the ability to go back at any time to deal with any other section or paragraph. We might need to do so. The difficulty is, of course, that the department received some of the amendments only yesterday. As such, we haven't had a good chance to go through and look at the ramifications of them.

The will of the committee is the will of the committee. I just think it might be simpler to go through and at least deal with them on the basis that there's no contention with the issue, and to recognize that, and then, at the end of the day, if we want to go back and make changes to them or leave them open, that's totally the will of the committee. But to go through them line by line and adopt them and then find later on that we have some problems with a particular issue because of whatever reason Mr. Scott brought forward, that it might not pass, or as the case may be...we could take an analysis of that and go backwards and deal with it.

I just thought it would be simpler, and then we would at least deal with the contentious issues by themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Might I suggest that we put clauses aside where there has been a more recent amendment and simply stand them? And there's a particularly difficult issue around railway noise. That may take a few days to work through, so I'm going to propose that we stand on that as well. We end up accomplishing the same thing by working relatively quickly through clauses that are less contentious, standing aside the clauses that require further work, and then coming back to them Thursday or next week.

We're doing what the chair proposed, but just in a way that makes sense sequentially. We're not going back and forth into different parts of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, very briefly.

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

Very briefly, I would agree with Mr. Julian. As long as there's flexibility one way, why not have it the other way? If indeed there is a clause on which we haven't had a thorough study or on which the department wants to put some of their spin, we can go back and do that. As long as we have the flexibility to do that, I think that's very fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

What we'll do is proceed, and when we run into those difficult clauses, we'll remember the words of wisdom that we've just heard.

On Bill C-11, we're going to start with clause 1. There are no amendments put forward on clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

That first one didn't hurt at all.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

It's all downhill from here.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're into clause 2, and we do have several amendments.

I have actually been asked just to advise the committee—and I know, Mr. Julian, that you have the first amendment—that the advice the chair has received is that there is a line conflict with the amendments. The fact is that if amendment NDP-1 is adopted—it is the first one—the second amendment by the NDP cannot be proceeded with.

The only option we have—and I would put this out to Mr. Julian, if he is interested at all—is for lines 1, 2 and 3 to be grouped together for a committee debate, and then we would basically come out with the best result we can.

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

Mr. Chair, are you suggesting that our amendments 1, 2, and 3 be grouped?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm suggesting that NDP amendments 1, 2, and 3 be grouped. If amendment NDP-1 is adopted, then NDP-2 cannot proceed. Because of their similarities, what I'm understanding is that if we were to group them together, perhaps we could come up with an amendment that may be agreeable to the entire committee.

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

Yes, I'm agreeable to the idea that we regroup them, Mr. Chair.

In fact, our amendments up until NDP-4 could be regrouped. Essentially, what we have is a series of modifications from the government, from us, and from the Liberals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've been advised that if we have a general discussion on NDP-1, -2 and -3 because they are all impacted, and if we did come to a clear amendment at the end, it would have to come forward as a motion, just more for the technical side of it.

If you would like to take the lead on your motions, Mr. Julian, there are three of them.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, what we're endeavouring to do by these motions of amendment to clause 2 is broaden the definition that is contained within the act itself. If we look at how the act is defined now—and please excuse me if I go back and forth on this, with the three pages—what we currently have is the emphasis on a competitive, economical, and efficient transportation system. What we're looking to do is broaden the accessibility and broaden the definition of how our transportation system would respect the environment and have the highest practicable safety and security standards.

It's a way of redefining the approach of our national transportation policy that I don't think anyone at this table would disagree with. I do think it's important that we be very specific when we put forward what is essentially a preamble of intention in terms of policy. It is important that we cover the bases in a way that we would all define that policy, and we're putting forward these motions in a way that defines more specifically what the national transportation policy should do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I think, if we group them together, the French version of clause 2 of Bill C-11 would be “Il est déclaré qu’un système de transport” and we would add the word “national” before the word “compétitif” which would make it: “un système de transport national compétitif”—I am not against that—“rentable et bien adapté . . .”. Then the words “qui est sûr” would be replaced by these words: “et qui rencontre les plus hautes normes possibles de sécurité . . .”. I think that would be better than the words “qui est sûr . . .”. That is what Mr. Julian’s amendment NPD-2 proposes.

As his amendment NPD-3 proposes, the words “respecte l’environnement” would be replaced by “favorise un environnement durable et utilise tous les modes de transport au mieux”. That improves the text. I have no objection to grouping those three amendments together.

So, in French, we put the word “national” after the word “transport” and before the word “compétitif” that is, “transport national compétitif, rentable et qui rencontre les plus hautes normes possibles de sécurité” rather than “qui est sûr.” Then the words “qui respecte l'environnement” would be replaced by “qui favorise un environnement durable et utilise tous les . . .”. I would agree to grouping those three amendments together, as proposed by Mr. Julian.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Just to move things along, Mr. Julian, I'm wondering if I could ask you to take the first amendment as you and Mr. Laframboise have referred to it, and perhaps edit it with the second and third amendments. We can then read the new version into the record. But it has to come forward as a motion on the amendment.