Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're in meeting 27 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 21, 2006, we are studying Bill C-11, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to bring us up to speed as to where we left off in the last meeting with regard to the point of order raised Tuesday, November 21, relating to the wording of the French version of an amendment proposed by Mr. McGuinty, which is L-01. The text of the amendment has been carefully reviewed by the legal translators and a correction has been made. I have had this corrected version of the amendment distributed, and all members, I believe, have it.

I'll refer to it, and you can check your documents. If you don't have it, it is 6.1 in bold letters at the bottom. Just for your information, at the top left hand there is a reference number. So we all have the same one, it is reference 2524438. I would ask to confirm to make sure everybody has that.

Mr. Scott doesn't. Okay. Our department officials don't have it. Apparently they were e-mailed yesterday, but I guess we're getting hard copies circulated, if you didn't get it.

Ernie, could you also distribute it to our guests at the end of the table, please? Thank you.

I want to confirm that everybody has that in front of them now. To continue, when we adjourned the last meeting, this committee was considering a subamendment by Mr. Bell to Mr. McGuinty's amendment. We're going to resume debate on the subamendment by Mr. Bell.

Mr. Jean.

(On clause 2)

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The department prepared on our behalf a synopsis of the actual declaration itself, proposed section 5, and in particular took the translation that was approved by Monsieur Laframboise and Mr. Carrier, the French translation, and translated it into English. I have a copy I would like to pass out to the members with your approval, Mr. Chair. It's in both French and English, obviously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, for my clarification, you took the French translation and translated it into English to include the words Mr. Laframboise found acceptable?

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

Indeed. I thought it would be the best place to start because it seemed liked the appropriate place. If the members look at the clause itself, in particular, proposed paragraph 5(b), this was the debate we had last time in regard to the word “directed” and the meaning of the words “at law”. Indeed, the French translation--my French is very bad--translated it directly to the words “are used”. That seems to be appropriate in the circumstances, even to the government.

In proposed paragraph 5(b), if you look at the underlined portion of that, in English it says “are used to achieve economic safety, security in environmental or social outcomes”. Our discussion last time was around the word “directed”. That was the difficulty we had. So the translation from French was approved at that point. The department translated it into English and put them next to each other so that the French and English could be compared with the new suggestion. I would propose that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

By rule, and again, I look for direction from the committee, if I can summarize it, what the clerk did was take Mr. McGuinty's English and translate it into French. I understand what the department did was take the French translation and translate it into English. I think you have a comparison there, but if we are going to consider Mr. Jean's proposal, it would have to be unanimous that we would agree that Mr. Bell's amendment would be changed to reflect Mr. Jean's.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, the proposal that's here...our proposal was to use “directed”. There was concern about that, and you had suggested at that time that we use something like “focused” or “aimed”, or something to that effect. We had a discussion with respect to that this morning and felt that “aimed” or “targeted” would be fine.

My concern with what you've proposed--“are used”--is that it doesn't indicate any focus or direction, and the term “directed”.... We had that discussion about what could amount to more than pointing in a direction, like you are being directed to do something. That, I think, was the danger in the two interpretations. That's why we felt we would agree to the use of the word “aimed”. That indicates more than the word being used, that there is a direction being implied, but not a direct order as such--a focus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think this achieves what Mr. Bell and Mr. McGuinty proposed at our Tuesday meeting. What it does is state a fact, as opposed to providing a more active approach on transportation matters, which is what I believe Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Bell were trying to achieve.

With respect, I don't think this does it. It would, of course, be up to Mr. Bell to decide the exact wording, but he just used a couple--“aimed” or “focused”--as opposed to a simple statement of fact, which is what we have before us right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

What Mr. Jean is proposing seems acceptable to me. That is the position that was adopted at the last meeting. I don’t know how to proceed right now. Do we have to vote on the Liberal proposal and then study the proposal tabled by Mr. Jean?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

To be clear, Mr. Chair, can I, without unanimous agreement, propose an amendment subsequent to the vote on this particular amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Unfortunately not. If we are going to change Mr. Bell's subamendment in any way, there has to be unanimous consent of the committee.

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

But my question was, Mr. Chair, if indeed we vote, and that subamendment is defeated, can an amendment then come forward to vote on the new wording?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

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

That's just for clarification for future purposes.

Quite frankly, because Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier specifically said they were satisfied with that, that's why it was done that way. Because we already knew the Bloc supported the French version, that's why it was translated into English. Indeed, I do see the concern there, and I'm wondering if you'd be satisfied if the change under proposed paragraph 5(b) would be: “regulation and strategic public intervention are to be used”. So we'd be adding the words “to be used”. Would that satisfy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I don't think we can have this discussion on the amendment until we actually have it on the floor as an amendment.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

If we can just return to the motion we had, with the term “directed” in it, at the time we were discussing it there was a concern about the interpretation of the word “directed”, and I don't know whether it was related to the French translation or whether it was a concern, as I understood it, that the term “directed” meant more than indicating a direction. The concern I heard was that it was like an order.

I'm suggesting we use the word “aimed” or “focused” or “targeted”, but “aimed” is easier. I think that was the word that was used, and if there is an accurate, simple French word that means aimed—as in “to point a gun”....

Is there a simple French translation for that, or is “targeted” better? This is for Mr. Laframboise, if they have a suggestion, if there is not a duality in the word in the French translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

We are in agreement to remove the words “ne sont utilisées que”, that is, transforming a negation into an affirmation. What you want to do is go further, and we don’t agree with that. Following the recommendations of Ms. Borges, who said the words “ne [...] que” could be changed to give a positive connotation to the sentence, we went along with that idea. If you want to go further, then we’re going to be obliged to vote against the amendment. We have to be careful, because if there are no other motions, the risk is we’ll find ourselves faced with the old one again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again I look for direction, but....

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Do I understand, then, that based on the word “directed”, there is a French correction, if you want to call it that, for the French translation, that clarifies “direction” to the satisfaction of the Bloc members?

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

What we want to ensure is that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 5 proposed in clause 2 of the bill get equal attention. If you push it further by using the words “are directed to achieve” rather than “are used to achieve” in paragraph (b), that means you are assigning greater importance to paragraph (b) than to paragraph (a). Obviously, that is less agreeable to us. I am quite agreeable to changing a negative into a positive: it forces us to study what is being recommended in paragraph (b) as much as in (a). That is what Ms. Borges was suggesting to us. We find that acceptable. It’s semantics, but the words used in French are as follows: “sont utilisés pour l’obtention”, and we are fine with that. It means that in the future, we will use: “regulation [...] to achieve economic, safety, security [...] outcomes.” We will agree to that, but we should not go any further, or we risk changing what was tabled by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If there is no other comment, I'll call the vote on the....

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'd just like to clarify, then, what it is you're comfortable with.

Mr. Jean, is it with the word just simply being “used”, then, without any emphasis?

I see. Well, clearly we were prepared to move, I think, from “directed” to “aimed”, if that better clarified what the intention is: to indicate a direction and a preference, not an order.

I think, therefore, we would go for the vote on our motion as it is, then.