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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. Thank you.
I'm going to call the vote. All those in favour of the amendment to Mr. Bell's amendment to Mr. McGuinty's amendment—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The subamendment of Mr. Bell is to insert after the words “environmental or”, the following, “safety, security or other”. That's it. The rest reads the way it does, with the word “directed” included in that statement.
All those in favour of the subamendment, please--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Julian, what you're seeing here as page 6.1 was Mr. McGuinty's original motion. The subamendment of Mr. Bell is that after the words “environmental or”, we would add, “safety, security or other”.
That was the amendment, Mr. Julian, to the original. We can go back to that--
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
They're incorporated together.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The word “directed” is in the original amendment. This is the subamendment we're talking about. Okay?
All those in favour of the subamendment by Mr. Bell?
(Subamendment negatived)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Please give me one second.
Now we're back to the original amendment that was offered by Mr. McGuinty. This is where Mr. Jean was looking to make the change.
Mr. Jean.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have a document in front of us, and I can read it if you like. I'm proposing an amendment that actually does encompass something that was put in before regarding safety and security.
All members have that in front of them, and I will not try to read the French. It would say after, “Those objectives are most likely to be achieved when”, in proposed paragraph 5(b):
regulation and strategic public intervention are used to achieve economic, safety, security, environmental or social outcomes that cannot be achieved satisfactorily by competition and market forces and do not unduly favour, or reduce the inherent advantages of, any particular mode of transportation;
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Debate? Everybody's comfortable with it?
Basically, we're voting on the amendment to proposed paragraph 5(b). The French translation is there.
(Amendment agreed to)
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Now we're going to move to L-0.2. Oh, I'm sorry, we're still on that.
Shall Mr. McGuinty's amendment carry as amended? We need to get that so we can clarify it.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So now we're going to move to the NDP's amendment 6, on page 7.
Mr. Julian.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am proposing amendment NDP-6, intended to amend paragraph (c) of section 5 proposed in clause 2 of the bill on the subject of this infamous national transportation policy we’ve been discussing for several hours. We’re making progress, all the same.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm sorry to interrupt. I do have some clarification notes on my sheet just before you start, again similar to what we've been dealing with.
I'm told that if NDP-6 is adopted, G-2, which is the next one by the government, cannot be proceeded with due to a line conflict. I can suggest that the two be considered together, again to come out with the best solution. Apparently, the difficulty is that your amendment is amending lines 17 through 20, and the next one, G-2, is amending lines 18 through 20.
I would ask the committee if they would be prepared to consider the amendments together, or at least to come up with a compromise that we can all agree on.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If there is no agreement, then I would say we will deal with Mr. Julian's amendment and—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be relatively easy to incorporate G-2 into the NDP amendment. Of course, it's up to the government to make that choice.
We propose to add all of the following elements to the proposed paragraph 5(c). I will read you the text of amendment NDP-6:
c) each carrier or mode of transportation, as far as is practicable, carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under fares, rates and conditions that do not constitute: (i) an unfair disadvantage in respect of any such traffic beyond the disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected with the traffic or the type of traffic or service involved, (ii) an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities, (iii) ) an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada, (iv) an unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries, to export trade in or from any region of Canada or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports;
I am proposing this amendment because, in fact, all of these elements are part of the current national transportation policy. These are important elements that cannot be left out of the new policy. That is why, I think, such great care was taken to prepare this new presentation of our national transportation policy. After all, it has repercussions in other areas.
Mr. Chair, I am going to read you what has been in the national transportation policy since 1995-1996. I just have the English text, so I am going to read it in English.
(c) each carrier or mode of transportation, as far as is practicable, carries traffic to or from any point in Canada under fares, rates and conditions that do not constitute
(i) an unfair disadvantage in respect of any such traffic beyond the disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic, the scale of operation connected with the traffic or the type of traffic or service involved,
(ii) an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities,
(iii) an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada, or
(iv) an unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries, to export trade in or from any region of Canada or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports;
What we're proposing here, Mr. Chair, is simply reinforcing this new national transportation policy, saving the most effective elements of what already exists. We believe the current bill, which really only speaks to the issue of “interswitching within Canada or to the movement of goods through Canadian ports”, and also talks about “undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities”, is not strong enough. We're hoping to reinforce it by this motion of amendment that is more extensive. As I say, it simply reiterates what is already policy nationally.
That, we believe, is what should be kept.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My question is to Ms. Borges. We’re discussing principles and achievement of objectives. I see we’re getting tangled up, so I would tend to support your approach with respect to paragraph 5(c). But why the choice to speak of “interswitching” and “movement of goods through Canadian ports”? Why not different wording?
4 p.m.
Helena Borges Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Following discussions with carriers, we chose to bring together the three elements listed by Mr. Julian, namely subparagraphs (i), (iii) and (iv), into one sentence. After drafting new wording with the legal counsel, we were informed that it might be necessary to change the word interswitching and find another word with broader scope. That’s the objective of amendment G-2 tabled by the government. That is the amendment we’re going to consider after the discussion we’re having right now. But it was as a result of discussions with carriers that we opted for that formulation.
The NDP amendment proposes three sentences regarding the movement of commodities, whereas we prefer to have just one, but I think all of the objectives being sought are included in our amendment. It’s more concise, but I believe all of the elements are there. And I think our formulation regarding mobility of persons is stronger, more comprehensive than the one proposed by Mr. Julian. I refer to paragraph (d) of section 5 proposed in clause 2 of the bill, which says, “the transportation system is accessible without [...] obstacle [...]”. I think that is stronger than what is being proposed in the NDP amendment.
