Evidence of meeting #28 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 agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It would probably be half the length of that, yes.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
And you already tabled a DPR and a report on plans and priorities, and you have a biannual requirement to report on your sustainable development strategy, for example.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, exactly.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes, it's a lot of reporting.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
But a lot of that information, I'm sure, is interchangeable between many of those reports.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Not really. For example, the departmental performance report and the report on plans and priorities tend to be more with the issues the department is dealing with on an annual basis. It's a three-year report, right?
This one is actually on the state of the industry. It's called the industry review, so it's on the state of all the modes of transportation, the activity in transportation, the funding of transportation. I'll call it the transportation system report, rather than what the department is actually doing.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
And this is my last question, if I may. Is there any material difference in the wording here about a brief overview and the wording as it exists today, which leads to the production of this report?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The wording that exists in the act today is what's under subsection 52(1). I can read it for you. In the act today, it says:
Each year the Minister shall, before the end of May, lay before Parliament a report briefly reviewing the state of transportation in Canada in respect of the preceding year
It then has paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) under it.
We have in fact strengthened proposed subsection 52(2) to say it's going to be a comprehensive review. It will be expanded and will be a comprehensive review, and proposed subsection 52(1) is what would be the brief review that really reports on the actual data and statistics.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very quickly, I know Mr. McGuinty wasn't here last time, but the department gave evidence that indeed they have all of the information and extended versions of the information on the website, which is updated, I understand, very frequently. Much of the information that is already gleaned from these reports is available on a day-to-day basis from the web.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to understand why the amended version of proposed paragraph 52(2)(c.1) is (c.1) and not (d). For example, where you had (a), (b), (c), and (d) before, it seems to me that “the long-term outlook and trends in transportation” is not a subset of the degree to which they receive compensation directly and indirectly; it's the broader picture, and therefore it should be a subsection unto itself.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I agree, but I'll let Mr. Langlois answer.
November 28th, 2006 / 3:45 p.m.
Alain Langlois Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
The reason it's not amended proposed paragraph (d) in and of itself, but is instead amended proposed paragraph (c.1), doesn't diminish the fact that it's a separate one. It's just that, as a drafting technique, you don't want to change and renumber a proposed paragraph. In future years, if somebody does research in terms of what was done under the old law, for example, paragraph 52(2)(d) would be consistent in time.
If you add in a paragraph, the technique is to add a point one, point two, point three, etc., in between. That doesn't diminish the fact that the paragraph stands on its own. It's just that it has been interceded between two other paragraphs and it was numbered as a point-something. It's purely a drafting technique. It has no bearing on the substance whatsoever.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
It just appears, from my reading of reports, that when you have a sub, it is a detail for the category ahead of it. It seems to me that what you're really talking of in the long term is totally separate. It's the big picture. The whole importance of having it every five years is to have the big picture, and it just gives the wrong impression to me by doing it here.
3:50 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
If I can draw a parallel, it would be exactly the same principle as interceding, in the legislation, a section 52.1. You already have a section. You're amending a section. Obviously, as part of the amendment that you will add into the legislation, you're called to add section point-something. Again, it has no bearing on the substance. It's purely a drafting technique.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
What I am advised by the table officers is that if everyone is comfortable with the consolidation of amendments that Mr. Jean has passed around, we can either vote on Mr. Bell's amendments or ask him to withdraw them, and then have Mr. Jean make these as two amendments, simply because the amended version of 52(2) is an added piece. We would actually have to have two amendments on that.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So I can say to the committee that L-1 and L-1.1 have been withdrawn by Mr. Bell, and I will ask Mr. Jean to introduce the first consolidated amendment, 52(1).
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Before I proceed, Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm wondering if Mr. Langlois could confirm that if indeed I make part of the amendment to change (c.1) to (d) and (d) to (e), it would be consistent. Would there be any problems with that in my second amendment?
3:50 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
This is how it was first drafted. Then we sent it to the drafter and the drafter came back and said, you have to say paragraph (c.1) as a technique. Paragraph (d) will always be the last one. As a technique, you don't renumber the last paragraph; you just intercede them with it.
For example, if you were to add another paragraph after (c.1), it would be (c.2). You don't just change the number of the paragraphs. That's the principle that was explained.