Evidence of meeting #28 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
In terms of regulatory regimes, would you say your sector is more affected by federal regulation or provincial regulation?
Executive Director, Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
To be honest, it's pretty much equal. Both are important.
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act, of course, is critical to the actual manufacture of the vehicles.
Conservative
Executive Director, Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
It depends on the province, but I'd say that some of the provinces have been quite a bit of an issue.
Executive Director, Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
Ontario is probably one of the most interesting ones, as far as coming up with changes that are challenging to put in place.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
You indicated that about 20% of your membership is from Ontario.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
You mentioned that cashflow is a challenging proposition for a lot of your membership.
Would you say that most of the companies that aren't there anymore are from Ontario?
Conservative
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, again, Mr. Chair.
Following up on Mr. Adler's question and the issue of regulation, fuel economy standards are essentially a cross-Canada federal regulation, but a lot of the implementation is determined by provincial regulations. The federal government can make the regulations, but unless you can convince the province to let you add boat tails to 53-foot trailers, you can't—well, you can, but you have to shorten the trailer—carry the weight.
Is there a way for the federal government to influence the provincial regulatory sphere in fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations, for example?
Executive Director, Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
I think there is. At least Transport Canada or the federal government is at the table in most cases. I'm not sure—there are these jurisdictional issues—how far they can go, but I'm going to take a little bit of a spinoff here, in a way, to answer your question.
One of the key things we deal with...say for a new company coming in that wants to build trailers, for instance. It would need to apply for a national safety mark from Transport Canada and get registered with Transport Canada. Transport Canada expects to have at least a package indicating you kind of know what you're doing when it comes to the regulations. They want to see how you're going to lay your lights out. They're going to want to see how your brake system works, etc. There is a fairly good package, and we work with you to get the right information. If you need test information, we advise you. You go through quite an exercise to get that national safety mark.
When we get down to the provincial level and register that vehicle, there's no acknowledgement of that national safety mark whatsoever. Is it or isn't it a safe vehicle? Is there any acknowledgement that you've gone through that process? In a lot of cases there are vehicles out there that get registered at the provincial level that haven't been manufactured by a qualified, registered company, and there is still a lot of that happening.
One of our biggest pushes from a lobbying perspective is to try to get the provinces to somehow put into their registration—for commercial vehicles we are having some success with the yearly inspection and the requirement that the NSM and the labelling that federal government requires be noted. So there's a big disconnect there between the federal government and the provinces.
The provinces have given it great lip service at CCMTA. They actually have a standard that even notes the NSM on the form. But do they put it in their systems? No.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
How do we compare to the U.S. in that regard? Are we way behind them in terms of a federal standard being applied at the state level, or vice versa?
Executive Director, Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
To be honest, I think we're way ahead of the U.S., because in this particular case, when it comes to the federal rules especially, to be a registered company to manufacture vehicles in the U.S., you send a letter and say, “Hey, these are the vehicles I'm manufacturing”, and they say, “Okay. Fine. Cool.” The next time they might talk to you is when something goes wrong, and they come with a big stick.
With Transport Canada, as much as it's a little tougher going through that process, at least there is some level of confidence. It's still self-certification, and from there on you still have to make sure you comply and you keep the right documentation on file and are doing all the right things, but at least there is some indication that you know what you're doing up front.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I'll go back to Ms. Chow's suggestion on side guards, and perhaps side skirts. They're different, but maybe they should be combined. Nobody manufactures them in Canada, because we have this chicken-and-egg thing going on whereby there is no regulation suggesting they need to be on there. There is no safety regulation for the purposes of protecting pedestrians and so on through the use of side guards. However, industry is looking at the greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency regulations and saying, “We need skirts”—which aren't the same thing—“because we're going to have to get our drag down.”
Is there a role for the federal government to play in creating something that would be a unique Canadian product and therefore create jobs?
Executive Director, Canadian Transportation Equipment Association
I think there is potential. I think there are actually companies in Canada—I assume they still exist—that do manufacture skirts. They may not be the best designs, but they're there. Yes, I think there is a role to play.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Jamie Nicholls
That's all for the questions.
I'd like to thank you, Mr. Moore, for appearing before the committee.
If there is agreement among all parties, we will move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]