Evidence of meeting #74 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
7:15 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The data provisions were set up so we make sure we have sufficient time for the railways to submit the information to us, and then after we get that information to make sure there is sufficient time in the case of the performance data for the agency to post that data. Also, as part of the coming into force, we're providing the railways with one year to submit that data, simply because this is new data that they haven't been submitting. We need to make sure they have the system set up to provide us that data. It gave that amount of time for the railways to submit it.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I think if you look at it, more clarity is provided. The only thing that has been added here is “for each of its railway lines”. It's asking for a more fulsome report.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Are there any further questions or comments on CPC-22?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Before you speak to CPC-23, Ms. Block, LIB-5, which follows, is identical to CPC-23.
Mr. Sikand.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
In keeping with our co-operative spirit and seeing that we ultimately do want to increase transparency and Bill C-49 increases the amount of data that needs to be submitted and calculated, I'd like to withdraw my motion.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I could. We heard testimony, and it's obvious that all of us recognize that, seeing that two identical amendments were put forward. I'll leave it at that.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 77 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 78 to 97 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 98)
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, I think this amendment is pretty straightforward. It is recommending that clause 98 be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 65 with the following:
(7) Section 77 comes into force 60 days after the day on which this Act receives
In this amendment we've reduced the period from the anniversary date of when the act comes into force or receives royal assent to 60 days, based on testimony we heard.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gagan Sikand Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I'd like to offer a subamendment, because I have something similar as well, that we increase the days from 60 to 180. Seeing as there is such a large amount of data that needs to be reported, it's kind of burdensome.
7:20 p.m.
An hon. member
What's the number?
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Quickly, there are some numbers.... I'm inclined to go 180, but I want to make sure that this is not based on a number picked out of the air.
Is there an amount of time that makes sense from the department's perspective for a workable piece of legislation?
October 3rd, 2017 / 7:20 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
We had originally included a year. This 180 days would be six months. I think that can be workable.
Part of it is going to be making sure that we're very clear on the data required, and we'll do that through the regulations. It's making sure that it's very clear to the railways what the data is that they need to file, when they need to file, and how they need to file it. To the extent that we can do some of this electronically, that should help them save time. I think we can make it work.
7:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
We did hear repeatedly that a year is too long a period.
To use the 60-day starting point, is that going to make it too difficult to make it meaningful?
7:20 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
That would be pretty difficult. Two months is hard to get....
They have to go back and get data, because the requirement is also backdated. We're getting data from the previous year. With regard to getting all of that data organized—this is for the whole of their operations in Canada—for all of the commodity groups, two months would be very, very tight.
I don't think they can even do a systems improvement on their information technology systems in order to calculate the data in the way it needs to be presented to us, and for making it public to the shippers. I think six months can work.
7:20 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I've noticed, since the beginning of your intervention on this amendment, that you spoke immediately of 180 days, whereas the friendly amendment proposes 60 to 180 days.
Is there a possible trade-off between 60 days and 180 days, or do you consider, in your experience, that the 180-day period is the only standard—less than the one year that was expected—that you might be able to respect?
7:20 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
It will be difficult, given the volume of data we're going to receive. If it's a very small volume, we may be able to do it within 30 to 60 days, but at present it will be very difficult. Therefore, we want the data to be ready for public disclosure as soon as possible. We will have to make changes to the computer systems, and that's what we're concerned about. We know it will be difficult to do that in less than three or four months.