Transport Committee on May 13th, 2014

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Okay, having said that—and you're saying there's a differentiation between private interests and public interests—now give me some examples of where it may fall in the public interest category. How might you make that decision in any given case? I appreciate there may be some balancing involved, but maybe you could answer that.

[Kash Ram]

Where it pertains to what we adjudicate—the law, the regulations, and the standards—and where it could benefit the public by raising awareness of the safety requirements and safety standards, or where it could inform us in the alignment, amendment, or consideration of new safety standards, I think that's a case where we would be pleased to testify. On the other hand, quite often what we'll see is one party suing the other party and it's clearly a case of driver error, of poor driving, and there's really nothing to be gained. There's nothing pertaining to the vehicle, which is what we regulate, so there's very little reason for us to become involved. Still, one litigant might claim that the fault lies with the vehicle, where we know quite clearly that there are certain other issues involved, such as impairment of the driver.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's pretty narrow in that case, because you could find a public interest quite easily, I would think, in a lot of respects.

If the private litigants elected to investigate an official, it would seem that there are some simple rules and laws that apply in terms of the subpoena, which says you must come. How does this legislation affect that?

[Kash Ram]

It would not. If a judge did require that the public servant appear under subpoena, then we would comply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

It was explained earlier to this committee through various interventions that there's a significant and lengthy process that's followed when it comes to changing regulations. There is important risk analysis that's done, cost analyst, consultations with stakeholders, even before you draft a suggested regulatory change. The formal regulatory process itself is a lengthy process. For the public's knowledge here, from this analysis and consultation phase through to a final regulation coming into force, how long is a process like that typically?

[Donald Roussel]

Mr. Chairman, it can go from a few months to numerous years. We have concrete examples of some of the projects we're trying to do that we've been in for actually decades.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

For questions like you mentioned earlier, when the scrutiny of regulations committee would come forward and suggest that there are inconsistencies in the drafting of text between English and French, something like that, if we're looking for where you could cut out, if you will, or accelerate the process forward for minor types of changes like that—obviously, we wouldn't want to cut corners on potential analysis of what the impact could be or whether or not there would have to be consultations—the prepublication period could then be a sensible place, a minor change like that, where we could gain some acceleration to that. That's a fair assessment.

Now on the decision, or how this comes to cabinet—Treasury Board makes a decision with respect to this at some point—you mentioned that there's a departmental triage. There is, based on risk analysis, a determination of what is low risk versus high risk. Where does that go, then? Does that go to PCO or directly to the Treasury Board Secretariat from a department?

[Donald Roussel]

Mr. Chairman, it may vary depending on the actual changes, but usually it will go to Treasury Board, who impose on us the triage. This committee, of course, is also looking at SMS and many of the other elements regarding, for example, the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations. Many of those recommendations are for specific sectors of the industry for which we are working on regulations. Within those regulations, we already, for example, have a significant consensus on some of those elements and we're ready to roll out. However, it's part of a whole package and it's dealing significantly with the advancement of some of the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Before Treasury Board, that is, the elected officials, have a chance to make a determination, independent civil servants in the department, potentially at PCO and at the Treasury Board Secretariat, have had the opportunity to look at a recommendation and make a recommendation to the elected officials based on the cabinet directive about whether prepublication should or should not be done. Is that correct?

[Donald Roussel]

Yes, it is correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Then there have been several levels of scrutiny by non-partisan, independent civil servants before the elected officials get an opportunity, and could say at their discretion that the recommendation to bypass prepublication is not in the public interest. They could very well overrule the recommendation even after all that scrutiny.

[Donald Roussel]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have just a little under a minute.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Chair, while I have the floor I'd like to move:

That, following its consideration of the subject matter of clauses 212 to 233 and 375 of Bill C-31, the Committee send a letter, in both official languages, to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance informing him that the Committee has no amendments to propose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Do we have discussion on the motion?

Ms. Morin?

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

She had another question to ask. That's the problem. If we could defer debate on the motion until there's been another round—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, my intent, Mr. Watson, was to give Ms. Morin one question and somebody over here one question.

Is it okay with you, Mr. Watson, if we deal with this after that?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I appreciate the consideration. I thought while I had the floor I moved a motion that's in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It's okay, but can we have those questions first, or do you want us to...?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Fair enough, Mr. Chair, as long as I can move the motion at the end of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Absolutely. Consider it on the floor. You'll get the first comment on it.

Ms. Morin, ask a quick question.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I would like to thank my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is also about the bridge. I hope I misunderstood your answer to my colleague earlier. Can you please confirm that you are undertaking a study in order to understand what the impact on traffic in the West Island will be if there is going to be a toll on one bridge only?

The Honoré-Mercier Bridge is a problem with respect to traffic. Every day at the Saint-Pierre interchange, there are hours of traffic. It takes 20 minutes to get to downtown from the West Island, but when there is traffic, it takes an hour and a half. Having a toll on only one bridge will create a terrible situation for West Island residents.

Can you tell me if you have a plan dealing with that situation, and, if so, what is it? Could you please give me concrete and specific information on that?

[Thao Pham]

Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, we have undertaken studies to support the business case that we tabled for the purposes of building a new bridge.

We continue to collect information in order to make projections. Furthermore, we are working with our partners, like the province, but also with other stakeholders, in order to get a better projection of overall traffic mobility in the Greater Montreal region.