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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Actually, I thank the department for that. They did a much better job of explaining it than I could.
The key, Mr. Chair, is that in this particular case, we have a 50- or 60-page document, and what the department is trying to do is simplify it. What we're trying to move forward as a government is to save paper.
Again, Mr. Julian, I'm surprised the Conservatives have to come forward and save paper again and save all the trees in the environment. The reality is that they're trying to tighten it up and simplify it so that Canadians can understand it and so that we understand what we're getting.
In essence, my understanding as well, Mr. Chair, is that acceptance of this motion would actually negate the compromise from the Liberal motion of LIB-0.1. Based upon the fact that the shippers and the industry indeed negotiated this, it seems kind of ridiculous to take it away from the users.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
With due respect to the parliamentary secretary, the reality is that we're speaking about limiting the national transportation policy to the issue of rates and conditions only on interswitching and movements of goods through Canadian ports. A whole series of elements in the current national transportation policy that was adopted ten years ago needs to be continued.
They're certainly a broad series of principles that are important for our country. Transportation is absolutely vital to our country, so we can't cherry-pick and only say we're going to deal with certain elements or, as a preamble to a national transportation policy, say there are only certain elements that concern us.
There are a fairly significant number of elements that concern us. So far, the committee has done a good job of adding additional elements that may have been taken off with undue haste, and of ensuring that the national transportation policy is something we can all agree on and all be proud of.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
With respect, Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian already has mentioned at least three times that it's duplication, and he wants to reinforce it because it's duplication. Legislation, being a living thing, doesn't need duplication. What we need is concise language, simple language, so that Canadians can understand it.
To get to the crux of the matter, we've had consultation after consultation between the department and industries that are affected, and they are not satisfied with that amendment. They are satisfied with the government amendment, which is coming up next. That is why we want to reflect stakeholders: because they're ultimately the people who are going to be governed by this.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
If I understand Mr. Julian's proposed subparagraph (c)(ii) to section 5, it's covered under proposed paragraph 5(d) within the existing bill.
I understand we're not directly discussing amendment G-2, but my question is about the suggestion that this could be phrased in a different way. The one thing about the existing proposed paragraph 5(c).... If the phraseology that's been proposed by the government deals with the issue of interswitching, which I gather Mr. Julian feels needs to be better described under proposed paragraph 5(c), my only concern is—Mr. Julian's proposed subparagraph 5(c)(iv) still makes reference to ports—that there's no reference to ports. There's a movement of traffic within Canada and the exports of goods from Canada, but the emphasis on ports is gone.
As somebody from B.C., and I don't know about the Atlantic area, I'd say the movement of goods is critical to the health of the ports. That's one of the discouragements we have from China or other countries, who know that, because of the transportation problems we have associated with going through the ports, they can bypass our ports and go to Seattle or go down the west coast, for example.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I can definitely explain that. Actually, this is the same discussion we had with shippers. The concern was with both ports and border crossings, because as you know, 80% or 84% of our trade goes down to the United States. They raised concerns with this, that by focusing solely on ports we're not focusing on the U.S. trade, which goes through land ports or border crossings.
The proposed motion by the government focuses on the word “exports”; it's “the export of goods from Canada”. That means from Canada to anywhere else. It could be via a marine port or via a land port or via air—because some shipments do go by air. That is why we phrased it this way, to deal exactly with the shippers' concerns that we were limiting it only to ports.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Do you feel, then, that the import of goods, which is the other part—because the trains go one way full, with the idea that hopefully they'll come back the other way—is covered under “the movement of traffic within Canada”?
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
That's correct.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
That's because theoretically the port is within Canada—in fact it is, obviously.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, exactly.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Okay, I think I understand it.
I am not comfortable with the expanded version in Mr. Julian's presentation because I think it gets into an unfair disadvantage and starts to convolute, in my opinion, and makes it less clear in my mind. I understand that he's trying to expand it and define it, but I think that in the interests of simplicity, something other than Mr. Julian's would be preferable.
November 23rd, 2006 / 4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I’m of the view that legislation should be as concise as possible so we don’t get lost in a complex of mazes, different sections or subsections that are subject to interpretation, and we start asking ourselves which section takes precedence over which other section.
Paragraph 5(c) as proposed in the bill satisfies me because it is inclusive, it is comprehensive. As for NDP-6, it adds text, nuances in the text, for example where it says: “beyond the disadvantage inherent in the location or volume of the traffic […]”.
These are words or additions, it seems to me, that are inappropriate in legislation. That is why I would keep paragraph 5(c) as proposed by the government.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No, that's fine. It may be many words. I'm giving you the last word.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is the current wording of the national transportation policy. We're not talking about argumentation; we're not talking about adding elements that are not already there. This is what currently constitutes the national transportation policy. That's the wording from 1996.
If we're amending a transportation policy, we have to know what we're losing. Currently the national transportation policy talks about the development of primary or secondary industries; it talks about and refers to specifically Canadian ports. However, my amendment, of course, talks about export trade to and from any region of Canada, in addition to ports. So it takes ports as a basis point, but also expands beyond them. It talks about primary and secondary industries.
If we don't adopt this amendment—if we choose not to do it—then eliminate the references to “unfair disadvantage”, “undue obstacle[s]” to the interchange of commodities, and “unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries”. What we are doing is reducing what the national transportation policy does. We are reducing the scope of our national transportation policy to purely the movement of traffic within Canada and the export of goods.
I don't believe that's what Canadians, particularly in regions that are....
more remote up North and in other regions of the country that need a detailed national transportation policy to ensure the development of their primary and secondary industries. I do not think these industries are hoping for a policy that is limited in its wording. The government has held very limited discussions, unfortunately, and only with certain users, and since these consultations were so limited, what we get is a policy that is very limited. I do not think that Canadians want their national transportation policy to be limited to just two objectives. What we’ve been doing now for the last more than two hours is just that: we’ve been trying broadening the objective of our national transportation policy. If we limit the scope of that policy, it will be of absolutely no advantage to us or to Canadians.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very simply, Mr. Chair, the quote I received was “tons” of consultations. This was a proposal given forward by a shippers coalition. I would suggest that Mr. Julian knows better than the shippers do what wording they need in their drive to move things across Canada from primary resource....
I would suggest that he do perhaps a little bit more consultation.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, this deals with concerns from shippers. It cleans up the words again. Indeed, my understanding is that it reflects the tons of consultations with the shippers; they have endorsed the particular language in this motion.
