Evidence of meeting #51 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, this is the one I referred to in my previous conversation when I thought we were talking about amendment G-5 but it was clause 5. This in particular would replace lines 10 to 15 on page 5 and would include “any” vehicle and would also be in relation to imported vehicles. It also talks about a potential safety-related defect, not necessarily just a related defect.
It goes on in particular in part (b) to replace lines 17 to 43 on page 5, and it talks about a process, including the process of a preliminary determination that any party with a legitimate interest may present to the minister and the company in relation to the issues.
It goes on in proposed subsection 10.2(3) in respect of what happens after the notice is received.
Finally, Mr. Chair, proposed subsection 10.2(4) says the following:
(4) The company shall report to the Minister its conclusions and the findings of any research, testing, studies and evaluations that it has....
And proposed subsection 10.2(5) says the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting what is specified in proposed subsection 10.2(5).
Proposed subsection 10.2(6) says:
(6) For greater certainty, if the company concludes that the vehicle or equipment contains a safety-related defect, it shall comply with the requirements set out in section 10.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
We have no problem with the first part of it, part (a), which replaces lines 10 to 15 on page 5, as that strengthens it, but we would propose alternative wording for the second part of it.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I will advise the committee that we are getting a friendly subamendment to Mr. Jean's amendment. John is a friendly guy, but I'll just ask Mr. McCallum to read it slowly for translation purposes and then maybe even again if need be.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay.
Whereas the government says it would replace lines 17 to 43, the Liberal amendment would replace lines 26 to 43. We would keep the original proposed subsection (2), then after line 26 we would have the following.... I have a printed version in English only—a few. I can't distribute it.
Instead of the government's proposed subsection (4), we would have proposed subsection (3) read as follows.... I'm on line 26, which would read as follows:
(3) The company shall report to the Minister within a time period specified by the Minister after receiving the notice of a preliminary determination of a safety related defect the findings of any research, testing, studies and evaluations that it has conducted; the company’s determination as to whether a safety-related defect exists; and what action the company is taking to correct the safety-related defect, and shall publish a summary of those conclusions and findings in the Canada Gazette.
Following that, which would be new subsection (3), we would have a subsection (4), as follows:
(4) Should the Minister find any of the findings or planned action reported by the company under subsection (3) to be unsatisfactory then the Minister may order the company to take any measures the Minister sees fit in the interest of public safety.
We would erase subsections (2), (3), and (4) of the government amendment, and we would have proposed subsection (3), which I just read out, and new subsection (4), which I just read out. We would retain the government's proposed new subsections (5) and (6).
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm certain that members are going to want that repeated again for clarification. There are a lot of suggested changes, and I don't want members to be voting without feeling they have all the necessary information.
Monsieur Paillé.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, I wasn't my intention to speak up too often, but I would simply like to say one thing to Mr. McCallum. As a dutiful parliamentarian, especially one who aspires to returning to government, he should have made a point of having both the French and English versions for us.
You are proposing to make radical changes to the amendment. It is already hard enough for colleagues to follow along with you as they do not have the text. What's more, it is only in English. I have no idea of the arrangements you made with my colleague that I'm replacing. More than likely, we agree with your proposed changes. However, you should have made it your duty to present your amendments in both languages. You should not have taken it upon yourself to table them in English only. You've been around for quite a while, Mr. McCallum. Your experience and your longevity should dictate your actions. Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'll recognize everybody, but I will advise Monsieur Paillé that it is a member's right to present any amendment in either language, for the process.
Mr. McCallum.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Even though it is my right to proceed in this manner, Mr. Paillé has raised a valid point and I will remember his comments in future. The thing is, these amendments were drafted only two hours ago, after some lengthy discussions. Next time, however, I will do my best to present the amendments in both languages.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My French is not as good as Mr. McCallum's, in fact it's probably worse than most people's in the country, but I will tell you we have a longstanding tradition, in the five years I've been on this committee, that we never accept anything unless it's in both official languages. That's per a promise made to Monsieur Laframboise some time ago, and we have not done so since.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I do believe that when you are amending on the fly it is a bit of a challenge to get the translation in either language in a timely fashion. We read it slowly so our interpreters can get it clear. That's why I've asked Mr. McCallum to present it again, as soon as we get the pencil work completed here with Mr. Volpe.
Mr. McCallum is proposing a subamendment to government amendment G-5.
Mr. McCallum.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
If you start with the bill itself, on page 5, we retain the existing proposed subsection 10.2(2) of the bill and then proceed to new proposed subsections 10.2(3), (4), (5), and (6), which I will read.
(3) The company shall report to the Minister within a time period specified by the Minister after receiving the notice of a preliminary determination of a safety related defect the findings of any research, testing, studies and evaluations that it has conducted; the company’s determination as to whether a safety-related defect exists; and what action the company is taking to correct the safety-related defect, and shall publish a summary of those conclusions and findings in the Canada Gazette. (4) Should the Minister find any of the findings or planned action reported by the company under subsection (3) to be unsatisfactory then the Minister may order the company to take any measures the Minister sees fit in the interest of public safety.
Proposed subsections 10.2(5) and 10.2(6) are the same as in the government amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Just for clarity, (a) of G-5 is fine; (b) is fine up to and including (2).
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
No. We're erasing the government's (2) and (3) and replacing them with the two that already exist in the bill. I don't think that makes a big difference to anything.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
So in G-5 we're erasing new proposed subsections 10.2(2), (3), and (4) and presenting our own new proposed subsections 10.2(3) and (4). Then we're retaining government new proposed subsections 10.2(5) and (6).
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I don't know if this is useful, but some of us have been talking about this. I can give a two-minute summary of.... No? Okay.
(Subamendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Amendment as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Everybody has had an opportunity to review this amendment. It's quite lengthy. It deals with the reporting and review of information, the limitation, and a periodic review of regulations.
I understand it brings some consistency to the regulation process for this piece of legislation. In particular, it removes the time requirement for making the regulation, as per the cabinet directive on streamlining regulations that is in force now. I understand that from 18 to 24 months is reasonable to allow the completion of the regulatory process. In addition, under the enabling legislation the Governor in Council is not forced to make regulations but is invited to do so. That's why this particular amendment is worded as such.
It removes “that manufactures vehicles and equipment” so that “company” will be as defined elsewhere in the legislation. It's for consistency throughout, so that “company” is more broadly defined elsewhere in the MVSA.
It also replaces the word “malfunction” with a better definition, which is “an alleged safety-related defect”, which is more consistent with the legislation put forward by Mr. Volpe as well.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The amendment is in order, so I'll open up the floor for discussion.
Mr. Volpe.