Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

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

At the rate minority governments are going in Canada, in three years, you’re likely to change ministers three times. I think it was working fine. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to produce an annual report like you’re doing now. I have trouble accepting that. If the minister doesn’t work as hard as the former minister, he’ll get a hard-working parliamentary secretary who’ll do the work for him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I'm a little concerned about how long it takes to produce the report, having been much involved in my previous life in producing reports. What takes the amount of time, the six months? If it's simply a question of compiling the most recent monthly statistics, then it's not a six-month process. It's simply a matter of compiling those statistics and applying them to the report. I'm a little concerned that a report would take that long to write when what we're doing is compiling statistics. I certainly understand that you have to wait until the monthly statistics are available, but that's different from having a six-month timeline.

[Helena Borges]

I'm going to invite the author of the report to tell you why it takes so long. Keep in mind that this is a report on the state of the transportation industry in Canada, so it talks about all modes, all carriers, and all infrastructure types and other trends that are happening.

I'll pass it to him to explain to you.

[Roger Constantin, Policy Advisor, International Air Policy, Department of Transport]

The reason it takes a lot of time is because you're trying to cover every aspect that is of relevance to the state of transportation. So, for example, there are traffic volumes by mode that you would like to monitor and track down and report on, right? You want to look at the financial results of the different sectors as well, and you want to report the most current information as possible.

If you read carefully the way the existing legislation says to report on the state of transportation, you'll see, for example, in May 2007 that we should be reporting on 2006. I can tell you that right now, as we are working on the 2006 report, we have nothing more current than what we had reported in 2005 on many of the modes. In terms of most current information, we had the most current information of 2004, and we would not have sent anything better than that because for reporting reasons, we don't have more current information.

That has been an issue in the production of that report--to be able to produce the most precise and most accurate picture of the state of transportation.

We also cover the track record of the safety performance of the different modes. For some of the modes, meeting that deadline has been quite a challenge because you have to compile information from across the country, in all of the modes. So you have to report, for example, on the total number of accidents, and you also want to have a breakdown by region and so on, because this is of interest to members of Parliament and so on.

The issue is having timely information. If you have a one-year cycle, you're pushing your luck in being able to be as current as the legislation is asking for, simply because the burden on the industry for reporting this information to the statistical agency being what it is, it is one of the most demanding tasks. We want to make sure what we put in the public domain is good information. We don't want to put in the public domain preliminary information that would be changed subsequently, once we have revised information, because that would be misleading any one of you who might use this information to make decisions.

That's why the one-year cycle on the state of transportation is quite demanding and could prove to be to the detriment of the interests behind the spirit of the legislation. The reason it takes so much time is because we try to cover all fronts, so we have to involve different parties within the organization to be able to cover all of the aspects we want to cover. We cover environment, we cover energy consumption, we cover safety and security measures, we cover employment, and we cover the performance of the different sectors in the Canadian economy as well.

So it's a very thorough report we have been doing, and we've done 18 of them. We have done one for every year since 1996, but we've done reports from 1987 to 1994 as well. We can tell you that from one year to the other, the changes we are able to report are not significant. But if you look at a longer period, like a three-year period, then you start to have a better understanding of the changes that are taking place and we are in a better position to give you a more current and more precise picture of how the industry is evolving.

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

Thank you for responding to that question. That does raise concerns. Right now, then, we would have a report in May 2007 for 2006. Under what the government is proposing, we would be waiting until May 2010 before we get an updated report.

I have great concerns with that, because we have seen an evolution, certainly in rail transport. One of the reasons we're doing an inquiry into rail safety is because of what's happened over the last couple of years with rail safety and rail safety numbers. The counter-argument would be that some of that stuff is available through websites, but that's different from being transparent and clear with the Canadian public.

So I think I would have to disagree with the bill as it's currently written. I think Mr. McGuinty's amendment is very helpful, actually, because we need to have that report done on a much more timely basis than to be sitting from now until May 2010 before there is an updated report that essentially would leave us with the information from 2006.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead.

[Roger Constantin]

I think in the proposed change, what would be continued on a yearly basis, not on a three-year cycle, is the posting of the statistical data that are reported in the document. So what we are going to continue to do, on a yearly basis, is give to all interested parties access to the time series information...covering all of the aspects. What would not be done on a yearly basis is the report per se. The report would be done on a three-year cycle as opposed to a one-year cycle, but the data itself would continue to be disseminated on a yearly basis.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to get into a debate with the department about this. I made a political comment; I didn't ask another question. I will come back to the fact that having some material available on a website that may or may not be understandable in the form that it's produced is different from having a report that, by its very nature, has to be understandable and has to be communicated to the Canadian public. What we're talking about essentially is having a report that the Canadian public would have in its hands, where the information is actually communicated to it once every three years. That means essentially we'd be waiting until May 2010 to get any information in an understandable and effectively communicated form from 2006 on. I think that would be a real danger.

I certainly disagree with what the government is putting forward. I think the amendment helps to address that issue of understanding what the evolution is in transportation, particularly with a country such as ours that depends so vitally on the transportation sector.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have a sense that it’s perhaps the type of report that might need to be changed. Based on the way you’re talking about it, this is a report that is prepared for three years and is supposed to contain a great deal of information. By its very nature, the current bill is creating a lot of expectations. Municipalities, people who live around rail yards and urban transit companies are pinning a lot of their hopes on this bill. It seems to me that we can’t say we’re going to wait around for three years to get a report on the effectiveness of the new legislation. I think that’s kind of what’s behind the request to have the report published every year, even if it means focussing a little more on the statistics and case studies, so we can see the effects of this legislation. It would be a little inconsistent on our part to work so hard on a bill like this, with a view to improving the situation for all Canadians, and then say we’re going to wait three years to see whether it’s been effective.

[Roger Constantin]

Exactly. My colleague Ms. Borges was saying just now that under this legislation, there are two reports: one that is produced by the Department and one that is produced by the Agency. The latter report would indicate, for example, the number of cases the Canadian Transportation Agency is working on.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Is that in the legislation?

[Roger Constantin]

It’s already included in the legislation, and there is no planned amendment to that provision: it will continue to be submitted annually. Every year, you will receive a report from the Transportation Agency on the type of cases that have been brought to its attention. It will give you an idea, for example of the kind of volume of activity generated by the provisions of the legislation on issues of noise, for example. There will be a presentation on the state of the transportation industry in the report produced by the Department. On reading the Agency’s annual report, you’ll find out all about the activities associated with the legislation as such and all the cases that have been brought to the attention of the Agency.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Could you tell us what the number of that section is?

[Helena Borges]

Under the title “Report of Agency”, you find section 42 of the act, which reads as follows:

42.(1) Each year the Agency shall, before the end of May, make a report on the activities of the Agency for the preceding year and submit it to the Governor in Council through the Minister describing briefly, in respect of that year: a) applications to the Agency and the findings on them; and b) the findings of the Agency in regard to any matter or thing respecting which the Agency has acted on the request of the Minister.

That is what you’re asking to see.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Does it talk about the distribution of the report? Is it only submitted to the minister?

[Helena Borges]

It’s tabled in Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think the challenge isn't necessarily in getting all the data out. I think we've all come to realize how much data exists about everything. I think Peter's comments about the organization of the data, which is the important part, which means the report.... I think I understand that the government was trying to change the reporting from one to three years for purposes of capturing better-quality information and so on. I think what we are trying to suggest is that this should be two reports, one of which would be an annual report that would capture the information that an annual report would capture. As you say, it's not a lot a change, but it's there. It keeps the department and the minister on their toes. Reports are designed to explain the data, not just provide the data, but to speak to it and organize it and present it.

And for purposes of capturing the government's proposal to move it to three years, we're proposing to move it to five in the next amendment. I think to go from what we're doing to what we think might be done, there's an honest effort to try to propose a one-in-five solution rather than a one-in-three, so that we get the best of both worlds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The thing to recognize is that we do have a finite number of trees. Stats Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency...

[A voice]

Let the people buying paper do the worrying.

[A voice]

They're killing our trees.

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

Well, I am worried about that. Now we're asking for not only a yearly report but another report in five years, and the Canadian Transportation Agency already reports on transportation. Stats Canada already reports on transportation. The department has told us they publish the data on their website on a continuous basis. My question to everyone here is, why not? They're the ones who came up with the recommendation. It's not like they're trying to hide something. It's just that the data is already available, and they are spending tax dollars for something that's not accomplishing anything. They're bringing this forward and suggesting that we do it every three years to save Canadian taxpayers some money, because they're not doing anything of any substance for this report that they are required to give by statute. It seems fairly straightforward if the data is available elsewhere, which it seems to be, unless the Liberal Party is trying to create employment for reports.