Transport Committee on May 13th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I call our meeting to order.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses here today from the department.

I believe, Mr. Roussel, you're going to open up, then we'll go to Mr. Brazeau or Ms. Pham.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Watson?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, Chair.

It was my understanding that a number of other witnesses would be called, other than departmental officials. Can you comment as to what happened with respect to that? I presume there were a number of people who were invited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, I believe it was four witnesses—I can get you the names if you want—that were invited, but none of them could or would appear today.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Were they offered the option of a video conference as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, I believe so.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay, fair enough.

I can get the names later. That's fine. My apologies to officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

Mr. Roussel, for 10 minutes, please.

[Donald Roussel, Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members.

I'm pleased to appear before you today to speak about the three Transport Canada statutes that are proposed for amendment under the Budget Implementation Act.

With me today is Kash Ram, director general of motor vehicle safety; Mrs. Kim Benjamin, director of road safety programs, which is in support; and Mr. Michel Leclerc, the director of regulatory affairs coordination.

These proposed amendments flow from Regulatory Cooperation Council action plan commitments that were made in December 2011. Eleven of the Regulatory Cooperation Council's initial 29 initiatives under the Joint Action Plan fell under the transportation team.

To complete implementation of the Motor Vehicle Safety, Transportation of Dangerous Goods and Railway Safety action plans requires that we make these legislative amendments.

As members of this committee know, the Regulatory Cooperation Council's long-term objective is to develop systemic mechanisms that eliminate regulatory obstacles between Canada and the United States

Regulatory inconsistencies can cost money on both sides of the border because the need to comply with two set of regulations is simply not effective when economies are as integrated as Canada's and the United States'. The standards are often identical but expressed as divergent regulatory requirements and manufacturing and distribution costs are passed on to consumers.

Synchronizing the policy development and enactment phases of our respective regulatory processes will lead to mutually supportive and beneficial regulatory frameworks and promote economic growth, job creation and benefits to consumers and businesses.

Canadian and U.S. stakeholders consulted in the fall of 2013 expressed overwhelming positive support for the Regulatory Cooperation Council's initiative. They were particularly supportive of efforts to institutionalize cooperation and remove impediments to speedy alignment when widespread consensus existed.

Accordingly, these legislative amendments are being proposed to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act, along with the associated regulations and standards, is the pillar that supports the Motor Vehicle Safety Program in Canada. It regulates the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and of new tires and equipment used to restrain children and disabled persons inside the vehicle.

The proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act directly support two of the Regulatory Cooperation Council work plan items, as well as the overall objectives of the initiative. These proposed amendments are designed to remove barriers and align vehicle safety regimes, where appropriate, between Canada and the U.S. They are intended to reduce red tape and increase efficiency, while enhancing the safety of Canadians.

These amendments fall into four categories: rule-making; importation; safety, which deals with compliance and enforcement; and information gathering

With respect to rule-making, modified regulation-making provisions will facilitate more efficient ongoing alignment with the U.S. and other international safety standards in those instances where the Government of Canada determines it is appropriate. These proposed changes will allow the Canada motor vehicle safety regime to keep pace with emerging technology in a more efficient manner.

Changes to the importation provisions will allow the importation of vehicles and equipment where it is deemed that the U.S. safety standard achieves the safety outcome required in Canada. They will also remove other importation irritants while continuing to protect the safety of the public.

Changes to the compliance and enforcement provisions will more closely align the Canadian and U.S. regimes, while continuing to protect and serve Canadians.

By improving the ability of Transport Canada to obtain and distribute information related to vehicle safety, it will help keep Canadians informed of issues related to vehicle safety and will enable the government to make better informed policy and regulatory decisions.

These proposed changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act will ensure the safety of vehicles sold to Canadians in a manner that recognizes the integrated nature of the North American auto market.They will reduce industry compliance burdens where appropriate, and respect public expectations of similar safety oversight regimes.

Let us now move on to the two other acts, which are

the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

The amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, are identical and modernize legislative provisions that date back to the earlier 1980s, prior to the Canadian government's adoption of the first-ever federal regulatory policy in 1986.

Members will know that the current versions of the 1986 policy, the cabinet directive on regulatory management, still requires that notice be given of proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette, part I, before they are finally enacted, even in a case where the enabling legislation is silent on the matter. In light of this, it makes sense to apply the same cabinet directive standards as those applied to most other federal regulations with respect to prepublication.

Thank you very much. We would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Roussel.

Ms. Pham, for 10 minutes, please.

[Thao Pham, Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Montreal Bridges, Department of Transport]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and committee members.

My name is Thao Pham. I'm the assistant deputy minister for the federal Montreal bridges with Infrastructure Canada. Joining me this morning are Marc Brazeau, director general of the new bridge for the St. Lawrence with Infrastructure Canada, and Nicholas Wilkshire, who is the senior counsel with Justice Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity to give you an overview of the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act. As you probably know, based on an engineering expert report that was produced in 2010, the existing Champlain Bridge in Montreal was found to be at the end of its useful life. Following the recommendations of a pre-feasibility study, the Government of Canada announced on October 5, 2011, that it will replace the existing bridge. In December 2013 the Government of Canada announced that the construction of the new bridge for the St. Lawrence will be accelerated and the new bridge will be in service in 2018.

The Government of Canada also announced that the bridge will be built through a public-private partnership. A business case showed that a public-private partnership approach will deliver better value for money for taxpayers and will guarantee that the project is delivered on time and on budget.

In the context of the accelerated timeline for the new bridge, this act will ensure that the authorities required for the implementation of all aspects of the bridge are in place. The new bridge for the St. Lawrence act will provide as much legal certainty as possible in order to avoid delays due to different legal interpretations, or the potential charge of premiums by bidders to account for areas of uncertainty.

In short, the main objective of the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act is to provide the certainty and approvals required so that the project can be completed without delays.

The key legislative provisions of this proposed act include the following.

First, the act will designate the minister to be appointed by the Governor in Council to be the minister responsible for the administration of this act. The act will also declare the new bridge for the St. Lawrence River project to be for the general advantage of Canada, thereby making it a federal structure. Given the fact that the new bridge for the St. Lawrence will be an intraprovincial bridge, this project could be considered as provincial work. This clause therefore ensures that the Government of Canada has the jurisdiction and control over the bridge, as opposed to the province, which could otherwise have jurisdiction over a provincial work.

The act will also authorize the minister responsible to enter into any agreement relating to the bridge or related work with any person or with the Government of Quebec or any political subdivision of that government, for example, the municipalities within the Quebec province. Examples of these agreements include relocation of public utilities, exchange of information, and all of the collaboration necessary for the preparation work.

The act will provide the minister responsible with the authority to fix tolls and collect tolls on the new bridge through regulations. The act will provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with the authority to enter into an agreement with a third party, in this case a private partner, as the operator for the design, construction, and operation of the bridge.

It is the intention to get all of the approvals for this project. However, given that we don't yet know all of the possible permits that might be required, there is a clause in this act that provides the Governor in Council authority to exempt the project from some federal permits if it is deemed in the public interest to do so. In that case, the exemption would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. So it would be an ad hoc exemption.

Finally, the act exempts the project from the application of the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act. The intention of these exemptions is again to avoid legal uncertainties and duplication with respect to which legislation might apply to the new bridge.

Although the Bridges Act will not apply to this project, the public-private partnership agreement will contain very specific and stringent clauses and high performance standards with respect to the commissioning and inspection of the new bridge. With respect to the User Fees Act, given the unique feature of this project, it was determined that the fixing of tolls would be done through ministerial regulations.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. We would be more than happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pham.

I just wanted to remind the witnesses that section 309 of our procedural guide states:

The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their Ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be.

With that, Mr. Sullivan, you have seven minutes.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses.

The purpose of the motor vehicle safety regulation changes, as you say, is to synchronize our policy with that of the U.S. We've noted that the GM recall that is continuing to be investigated in the U.S. is not being investigated here, nor is it being discussed at this committee. Can you explain why our regulations do not, when in fact there could be criminal undertakings against GM executives if in fact it is found that GM is at fault for not advising Transport Canada of these defects earlier than they did?

[Donald Roussel]

Mr. Kash will answer.

[Kash Ram, Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport]

Mr. Chair, Minister Raitt did appear before the committee of the whole last Wednesday and answered very similar questions about the department's approach with regard to General Motors of Canada. In general terms, I can say that with regard to General Motors of Canada, Transport Canada was made aware of a defect and received notice of such defect from General Motors of Canada Limited at the same time that General Motors Company, which is the parent of the Canadian entity, received their notice of defect, and that in fact the actions are occurring in pace with U.S. actions.

Thank you.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

What actions are happening in Canada that are investigatory?

[Kash Ram]

Well, the recall is occurring for General Motors on not just two sides of the border but for General Motors across the globe. There are many General Motors subsidiaries that are also involved in numerous recalls, as the public is aware. These recalls involve the notification of owners of GM vehicles that they'll need to bring their vehicles into dealerships for repair. The manufacturing of these replacement parts is occurring now. Notifications have gone out, and people are bringing their vehicles in to the dealerships to get these vehicles repaired.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm speaking in terms of the knowledge GM had of the defect. The U.S. is conducting five separate investigations, and there are allegations that in the course of those investigations and testimony, GM knew about these defects in 2001 and did nothing about it until this year. Under our Canadian law, GM is subject to prosecution for not advising Canadians of safety defects.

What are we doing in Canada to proceed with that investigation?

[Kash Ram]

Minister Raitt did testify last Wednesday night on this subject and indicated that our powers extend to General Motors of Canada Limited and that we have looked into the actions of that corporate entity in Canada and that, in fact, the recall occurred in both nations at the same time. The reality with any multinational corporation is that the headquarters determine when a recall occurs and then advises—directs—its wholly owned subsidiaries worldwide. There are many GMs worldwide who were informed by the corporate entity General Motors Company in Detroit as to when the defect existed, as to when the recall was declared, and as to how the remedy to that recall would be undertaken. That is a corporate decision.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

I know that decision was taken. My question did not have to do with the decision as to the recall. My question has to do with whether Canada, as an independent sovereign nation, can hold GM to account in our—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

On a point of order, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I've been listening to a few of the questions. We are here on the budget implementation act. I think there's an area where it's germane with respect to how potential changes may relate to the ability to trigger a recall or other provisions like that, but we're now trying an entirely separate issue at the committee table than what the orders of the day are.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chair, on that point, we are in fact hearing from these witnesses that these regulation changes are to harmonize our activities with those of the U.S. If the U.S., as a result of their regulations, is able to hold GM to account for its actions in criminal ways in front of their Senate, in front of their house of Congress, in front of subcommittees, and we are not, then I want to find out why that is not being done in our regulations. So far, we don't have a straight answer as to why we are not holding GM to account, except that their head office is in Detroit.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's a separate question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just on that, Mr. Sullivan, you had your opportunity last Wednesday night, or whatever night it was, when the minister was there. Anyway, continue on the subject of the day.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

On the definition of a national safety mark, how does that change actually affect our regulations vis-à-vis the U.S. regulations and the ability of manufacturers to avoid scrutiny by not having a national safety mark?