Mr. Chair, the member raised a number of key issues.
First, I apologize. There was a miscommunication between the department and the committee. We thought the officials we had sent to the last meeting were aligned with the expectations of the committee. It turns out that we were woefully wrong. I apologize for that.
I'm happy to be here today. I am also happy to return at the committee's convenience to follow up on the matters in this report, or on any other matter that the committee sees fit, to bring some sunshine into the operations of our department.
You raised a number of really important questions related to safety performance. I will come back to the point that I, as the head of the department, continue to emphasize when engaging with our safety officials, that although there are many considerations, safety is the top consideration. We come to our safety regulations, our safety inspections, and our compliance and enforcement on the basis that safety is the key priority.
With regard to the issue of child restraint systems and car seats, those test results you're referring to contribute to Transport Canada's view that a child greater than 65 pounds or 30 kilograms is safer in a booster seat with a three-point seat belt than in a child restraint system. That's an area of permanent divergence between Canada and the United States in their regulations of child restraint systems. The reason for that divergence is the basis of safety assessment on the part of Transport Canada. We think that the Canadian regulations generate safer outcomes than the U.S. regulations. Therefore, we are purposely not aligning with the U.S., despite the cost of doing so, because we think that the Canadian regulations for child restraint systems are safer.
I think it's fair to point out that the immobilizer example I used is something that Canada did years ago. The U.S. is just doing it now. I would concede that there are multiple examples on the other side. The U.S. has put in place regulations for electronic stability control in heavy-duty vehicles. There's a really solid body of evidence showing that electronic stability control is effective in reducing accidents, deaths, and injuries. We are looking at following the U.S. in that matter.
We've looked at their studies and data, and when we put them in Canada Gazette, part I, we probably didn't put all of the studies in as clearly as we should have, because we've just put that in place. Once we do the revised regulation for Canada Gazette part II, we can commit that to actually having in the revised regulatory impact assessment statement the data and the studies to support moving with electronic stability control in heavy-duty vehicles in Canada. I do concede that's one where we are coming in a bit after the U.S. In fact, we are using some American data and studies as part of our data set because it's more efficient than just replicating it for the sake of replicating it in Canada.