Evidence of meeting #26 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bridge.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
That is why we're here today, to look at some regulatory changes to make that alignment easier and to increase the safety for the Canadian public. Is that correct?
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
Yes, to provide tools to government to be able to align faster, such that those standards are aligned for new standards and remain aligned as the standards evolve over time. That way the manufacturer can continue to make vehicles for both markets with minimal misalignment. Misalignment is an issue. If you have a different requirement in one market versus the other, then you're making different vehicles certified to two different markets. That's red tape on industry and that increases cost to the consumer as well.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
But it's not simply a cost to consumer issue, it's a safety issue and we are increasing safety.
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
Safety is paramount for our department.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
Safety is our first priority. I can say with full confidence that we have carried out our obligation to the Canadian consumer, to the Canadian public, and the record on the road proves it.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thanks to our witnesses this morning.
I was very intrigued, Mr. Leclerc, by one comment that you made in response to Mr. Komarnicki's questioning. You said that the “vast majority” of government legislation is not subject to prepublication today. Could you expand on that for us?
9:55 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
Yes.
Mr. Chair, it's true that the vast majority of federal legislation that enables the making of regulations does not contain a mandatory prepublication requirement. The practice existed to a greater extent before the first federal regulatory policy enacted in 1986 by the Mulroney government. At that point, the government decided to create a mandatory prepublication requirement for the federal regulatory process, in addition to increasing the amount of analysis required before any regulatory action was created.
The tendency has been in more recent years to rely on the cabinet directive in order to determine when it's most appropriate to prepublish proposed regulatory projects.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
You also mentioned that there are pre-established criteria for the application of the mandatory prepublication as outlined in the cabinet directive, so this isn't just something that you go forward with willy-nilly. There is actually a process.
You said that you would be asked specific questions as to the process that you had gone through, the stakeholders you had consulted, and what the feedback had been from the multiple stakeholders. So there really is an opportunity for input, especially on the basis of the stakeholders, before any of this would come forward.
9:55 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
Absolutely.
The other thing, too, is that we must not presume that notice in the Canada Gazette, part I, is actually consultation. It is merely a notice that the government proposes to take action. The real consultation takes place before the fact through formal committees and through notices in newspapers. Let's not forget that the government always has the option of giving notice through mechanisms other than the Canada Gazette, part I, if it chooses to do so, and it often does.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Yes. As you say, the prepublication aspect of the Gazette is not really meant to be the consultative process even today, really; it's a notice that something is coming forward. The consultation needs to happen before that. You're not going to put forward legislation that you've done no consultation on.
9:55 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
That's correct. Nowhere is it more true than in the case of an RCC regulatory project, because under the model being proposed by the RCC, stakeholders on both sides of the border would meet simultaneously with regulators on both sides of the border and jointly create the regulations that will be aligned ultimately and enacted through their respective executive regulation-making authorities.
At the point at which you're on the verge of making regulations, all of these stakeholders would have already talked. They would already know what's in the regulations. They might even have helped write them.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Leclerc, Mr. Ram had the opportunity to talk regarding safety on the motor vehicle side, and I know the same question was asked of you by Ms. Young. I'm wondering if you could respond to that.
On the transportation of dangerous goods and the safety for Canadian citizens, the aim of the regulatory alignment is again to bring further safety to the standards and also you're working with both sides of the border to increase safety and there's no slide-back in this process.
10 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
Yes, that's absolutely true, because what happens with alignment is that you get a higher and higher level of standards for safety and security, but you get it in a more cost-effective, cost-efficient way. It's more safety for less money.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Did you do any analysis on that? You talked about more safety for less money. Did you do an analysis on the aligning of our regulations? Is there a cost-effectiveness component to it that was analyzed in this process?
10 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
We didn't do a cost analysis, but in the fall of 2013 the RCC secretariat in the Privy Council Office consulted stakeholders across a wide spectrum of industries. Based on the response of stakeholders on the popularity of the RCC alignment initiative, what they've been telling us is that to the extent we can align, that makes it easier for them to do business on both sides of the border.
Because the Canadian and U.S. economies are extremely integrated, any misalignment actually translates into costs, and as Mr. Ram said, that's passed on to consumers. If you have very high standards on both sides of the border but they're delivered more cheaply and more effectively, that's good for everyone.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm going to have to cut you off there, Mr. Toet.
We move to Mr. Sullivan, for five minutes.
10 a.m.
NDP
10 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
Regarding the stakeholders, it depends on the industry.
10 a.m.
Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
Well, if you're talking about rail safety, the Advisory Council on Rail Safety is made up of multiple players. It's made up of the municipalities, transportation companies, and rail companies, obviously—CN, CP, and VIA. I mentioned municipalities and people who transport goods and people on the rail lines. Those would all be considered stakeholders.
