Finance Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Kash Ram]

Mr. Chair, I can reassure the committee members that there is no trade-off. The reality is that under the cabinet directive on regulatory management, broad stakeholder consultation is required prior to the part I publication, and this involves all affected stakeholders across the economy. This would include the regulated community and manufacturers of vehicles and equipment. It would involve the general public through public safety organizations, as well as the provinces and territories.

That does occur and that will continue to occur even if there is an instance where there's a need to go directly to the step of a part II final regulation, so there is that transparency now. There is stakeholder consultation, and that is certainly not being sacrificed in the interest of expedience.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

You said that some of the stakeholders are concerned by the amendments made to the public safety or protection measures.

However, is it known whether all those organizations—as they are clearly more than one—have been informed of those amendments to regulations? Are there any organizations that could be forgotten or that the government could fail to inform? Are there any people who are not members of those organizations, but who are also concerned by road safety in general?

We may be talking about people who have been affected by a situation that would require new regulations. They could be related to past victims.

I am wondering who decides who should be consulted on or informed of such changes. So far, all that information has been published in the Canada Gazette, which is available to the public. That way, organizations and stakeholders to whom such information is communicated are not selected voluntarily or involuntarily.

[Kash Ram]

With regard to our proactive outreach to stakeholders, we count, among our stakeholders, public safety organizations very broadly. We discuss the issues of potential regulatory changes in open fora with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and its working groups. The CAA, which represents six million members, is an important stakeholder, as is the Canada Safety Council. These organizations are aware of our activities. There is an e-mail distribution list that covers a large number of stakeholders.

In addition, it would be worth mentioning that we have two 1-800 numbers through which we receive direct feedback from the Canadian public. That helps shape our regulatory opportunities and initiatives. We receive tens of thousands of phone calls per year from the Canadian public who are very interested in public safety issues governing consumer products.

In addition to tens of thousands of phone calls, we also deal with thousands of e-mails from the general public. We believe that we have a very good idea of where the general public is going, through their thoughts with regard to public safety issues.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand what you're doing. You're doing your job, and you have explained the reasons and the motives behind that. I'm afraid we're moving toward a slippery slope where we are going to remove [Inaudible—Editor]. We're talking about car safety, for example. That logic can be applied to any type of regulation that government is going to propose, either this government or any future government.

This justification doesn't make sense to me. We're supposed to be broadcasting any change, or changes, in the regulations to the public at large; that's why we have a Canada Gazette. If we are starting to make exceptions and increasing the number of exceptions, because it's more expedient and because government knows how to reach those people who are directly impacted buy those regulations, then why bother to make these changes public?

In that sense, I am puzzled.

Monsieur Leclerc.

[Michel Leclerc, Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport]

We shouldn't presume that the part I of the Canada Gazette is the only means by which the government can give notice of its proposed regulatory intentions. There is a requirement for government departments to publish, on their websites, regulatory initiatives that they are going to be working on in the very near future. This is a requirement under the red tape reduction action plan. We are trying to move to the standard, imposed by the cabinet directive on regulatory management, that requires prepublication. That standard is more comprehensive than what's in the statutes right now. It requires an active conversation with stakeholders and interested parties throughout the life of a regulation, not only when we're developing regulations, but also when we're enforcing them.

These committees that exist with stakeholders are the opportunity for a continuous dialogue on regulations and what's coming. Normally, prepublication is something that happens after the consultations have been completed. Most people who are concerned already know about it. It's really a last shot at letting people know.

Even if a regulation weren't prepublished in the Canada Gazette part I, people could consult our website and know what's going on. They could, because this is related to the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council, look at the action plan that Canada and the U.S. are putting together. There are a lot of opportunities for transparency other than those provided by the Canada Gazette part I.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Once again, I understand what you're saying. I don't doubt the will to make them public. But one of the advantages, and one of the reasons that we have a Canada Gazette, is to be able to put everything that happens in over 25 departments into one single place. We're not going to be more transparent by having information on 25 different websites.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand the need to reduce red tape, but there's still a need for that information to be accessed easily, and the Canada Gazette is one way to centralize this. This is why I don't think it increases transparency.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we have a difference of opinion that we could talk about all night.

Do you want to respond further?

[Michel Leclerc]

It's true that it provides a central mechanism for prepublishing everything. However, if you look at what happens in practice in the regulatory process, you find that the motor vehicle crowd are interested in what's happening in motor vehicle regulations and they're not interested in what's happening in forestry. The forestry people, for example, are interested in what Natural Resources is doing, so they would go to that website.

The advantage of asking people to look at the website of the department, and at the proposed regulations, is that they see those proposed regulations in the context of the rest of the department's policies and in the context of the rest of the department's legislation. It's a better parking spot for the proposed regulatory initiatives. People know about these websites now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Merci.

A yes or no question.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

It's actually a question that asks for a yes or no answer.

As you say, would it have been possible to make this work by pre-publishing on various websites and also keeping the information in the Canada Gazette.

[Michel Leclerc]

When draft regulations are pre-published in the Canada Gazette, the entire regulations have to pre-published. Realistically, about 70% or perhaps 50% of regulations have a very minor impact and hold very little interest for the people affected by them. This may include amendment regulations that correct an issue caused by a discrepancy between English and French versions. That is not a major amendment and does not require extensive consultation. People accept the fact that the Official Languages Acts requires regulations to be identical in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That was a very substantive yes or no answer.

Can I group clauses together, Monsieur Caron?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

No, we want to consider them separately.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Each one or...?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Yes, and I call for a recorded vote.

I will have additional questions about other provisions, but we can start voting, if you like.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So a recorded vote on clause 223.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Clauses 223 and 224. I will have questions on clause 225.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want to group clauses 223 and 224?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If we have a recorded vote, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. We'll do a recorded vote on clauses 223, then.

(Clause 223 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Can I apply that result to clause 224?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clause 224 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 225)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Discussion?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Any one of our guests can correct me if I am reading clause 225 wrong, but it seems clear to me that this provision stipulates that inspectors, under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, cannot be compelled to testify without the minister's permission. I do not see why additional powers would be given to the minister for issues related to public safety and situations that could lead to court proceedings or a court ruling.

[Donald Roussel]

Mr. Chair, if the court feels that an inspector must appear before it, it will send them a subpoena, and the inspector will appear before the court. Given the number of road accidents and the number of claims in this area, you quickly see that our inspectors are becoming low-cost consultants. Numerous individuals from private companies are capable of providing professional advice in the case of civilian claims. So the goal of this provision is to establish some sort of control over the use of our experts. Naturally, in the public interest, the department or the minister will clearly provide the court with any required advice.