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.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
So may I ask further, in terms of the application, the way it's written, it's to their satisfaction?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It's to their satisfaction.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
And on the bearing of costs--which is the other part, which intimidates some shippers in terms of getting involved in litigation--if that be the case, I would have no trouble with it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. I will call the vote on amendment G-2.1.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 11)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have two amendments on clause 11, one on page 13 in your program and one on page 13.1. We'll deal first with amendment L-1, which is on page 13.
Mr. Bell.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Chair.
The proposal would be that the minister prepare a report yearly rather than every three years; and if you look at--just to respond to the question--page 13.1, which is amendment L-1.1, if we just take it in context, that every five years the minister give an expanded report.
The intention of this section, of amendment L-1 on page 13, would be that “the Minister shall prepare”, and other words, “a report briefly”--which is what the proposed bill says, “a report briefly”--but we're suggesting that every year the minister should report briefly, and that every five years there should be an expanded report that includes the areas addressed within the act at paragraphs 52(1)(a) to 52(1)(d).
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I know you didn't expect me to say anything, Mr. Chair.
I'll give my reasoning afterwards, Mr. Chair, but I'm wondering if the mover of this particular motion would be prepared to consider a compromise of a three-year timeframe for the review and include within that three-year timeframe an expanded long-term assessment of the trends in transportation in Canada. The reason why is as follows.
First of all, the updates done by the agency are done and put on the website. My understanding—and the department can help me on this—is that it's done almost immediately on a week-to-week basis or thereabouts. Any information that would be available in the report is available to the public.
It also takes a year to get the report done. Obviously the minister is not the person doing it, but it would give meaning and substance to the report, something that has been suggested by the department itself.
In essence, the argument is to have a three-year report—some sort of compromise between the two—in order to have the report, which takes a year to prepare, have real substance.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Can I ask you a question, Mr. Jean? Does it take the staff a year to prepare the brief report, the short version?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
There's currently an obligation on the minister to table, every year in Parliament, a report that talks about the state of transportation. Internally, we've already started preparing that report. We work on that report all the way through to May of next year, when it will be tabled in Parliament.
You have to appreciate that the department is quite large and there's a lot of data coming in. This report is almost an inch thick. In addition to that, we are routinely putting up and have available on our website detailed information that stakeholders can access. All the report does is provide a summary. What we're finding is that it is very difficult year after year to try, in the summary, to elaborate on the changes, because while transportation is important, it doesn't grow that much one year after another.
What we would like to do is to have a three-year report so that we can elaborate more on what's been happening and talk about the future trends, as you suggest in the motion, but only table it every three years. However, the data will still be available on our website every year.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I guess my concern, Mr. Chair, was that under the previous existing legislation, Bruce Hood, the hockey referee who was reporting, did have to report on trends. Trends are not contained in the proposed amendments.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
That's a different amendment.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
That was the concern. We wanted to see those trends, because it's important that they be viewed.
I would personally find having a summary done annually to be an advantage even as a member of Parliament. However, you're telling me it amounts to being a year behind. The three-year expanded summary version—not the brief report—includes the trends that we're making reference to in L-1.1. Is that what you're saying?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Let me explain.
This bill actually requires two reports. There's this report that we're talking about here, which is tabled by the minister, and it is done by Transport Canada. In addition to that, the Canadian Transportation Agency also files an annual report, and they do the reporting on the air travel complaints commissioner. That's discussed further on in this bill.
Liberal
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Yes.
Liberal
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Correct.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
If I understand it then, Mr. Jean, your suggestion is that we would in effect take L-1.1 and say three years, but with the wording that's in L-1.1, on page 13.1.