Evidence of meeting #27 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I feel like asking you, what have you got against Canadian seaports? Why are you replacing the phrase “[...] movement of goods through Canadian ports”?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
We are trying to broaden the definition to cover the border crossings with the United States and also the airports. We’re talking here about exporting goods from Canada. So the phrase “Canadian ports” includes seaports, cross-border ports, bridges, highways and airports as well. It’s a phrase that encompasses more.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
But why was that not decided right from the outset?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
We were hoping to maintain, as Mr. Julian suggests, a certain resemblance to the original wording. When we talked to shippers, they asked us what was happening to cross-border trade, because those words were not included in the formulation. They were included in the term “exports”. It means all exports, regardless of how they are exported.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
As I understand it, ultimately, in an effort to capture the objectives of Mr. Julian--he may not agree with me in my interpretation of his objectives--it was expanded conceptually, not necessarily in the number of words necessary to pick it up.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The problem here is that we now have an amendment that actually eliminates a specific reference to Canadian ports. I think that is unfortunate. I think it's an amendment that does attempt to do, on a very small scale, what the previous amendment attempted to do, but in so doing it eliminates an important reference.
Certainly for coastal regions like the Lower Mainland, where I come from and where Mr. Bell comes from as well, the elimination of the reference to Canadian ports I think is problematic.
November 23rd, 2006 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, what's beautiful about the clause that's drafted here is that it is broad enough to cover everything. In my experience in the legal profession, the profession has moved towards and the law societies have moved towards something called plain language. They've even established a plain language institute. People who use the legal system and who have to read this terminology want something they can get their minds around.
Quite frankly, I did have some difficulty with the previous version in Bill C-11. The one that we have before us today, which is the government amendment, in its scope and its generality, covers everything Mr. Julian has been harping about for the last few minutes. It's difficult to conceive of anything in what he was proposing that would not fit under this. In addition, this is even broader than that, so it can take into account future changes in the movement of traffic throughout Canada.
It's there. It's general. It's going to do the job.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Ms. Borges, when you tell us you consulted the shippers, does that mean all existing carriers?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It’s a coalition that represents intermodal carriage, the industry of—I don’t know the name in French—fertilizers, mining associations, forestry associations, propane, gas , like the Shell Corporation, for example, grain. It’s a coalition that represents, I think, 24 different associations.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
They’re the ones who asked you to amend the wording?
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes. I think you received a letter from the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Industrial Transportation Association. That’s the wording they themselves used in their submission.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The other industries, the railways, mining, forestry and everything—
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, they were all there. The representatives of the railway terminals at the Port of Vancouver, the TSI transportation company and the companies that operate railway terminals in the ports are also in agreement, because rather than putting the emphasis on the mode of transportation, we’re putting it on exports, on international trade.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The other ports, in Montreal and elsewhere, you didn’t—
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
They’re included, yes.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Further to Mr. Laframboise's question and the focus Mr. Julian had on ports--which I share--I think if we were to keep the word “ports” in there to satisfy the deficiency, which I heard was identified by the shippers, you would have to add the words “ports, airports, border”, and any other method then of exporting goods or services from Canada.
