Transport Committee on Sept. 26th, 2017

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

In your fall 2016 report, in the chapter on passenger vehicle safety, one of the things you point out is that Canada is slow to adopt new vehicle safety regulations.

What explains Transport Canada's slowness?

[Michael Ferguson]

Madam Chair, again, I think part of what we particularly pointed out was the fact that the department seemed to wait to see what the U.S. was going to do. That was a significant part of the delay. There was also the way that they were approaching the consultations and how they were working with the industry in terms of the consultations. We felt that their research program was taking a long time. I think there were a number of factors, but I think it was all perhaps focused on the fact that they first started with waiting to see what the U.S. was going to do.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You also said that Transport Canada does not have sufficient data on collisions and injuries, partly because of its inability to compel provinces and territories to provide complete and timely data.

What could the government do to correct this?

[Michael Ferguson]

There would have to be a discussion about the problem with the provinces in order to come to an agreement with them to obtain that data.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Bill S-2 strengthens the powers of Transport Canada inspectors, including giving them the ability to collect information on collisions.

In your opinion, will that provision serve to correct, at least in part, the problem with collisions that you were critical of?

[Richard Domingue]

In the audit, we did not specifically examine the work of Transport Canada investigators on collisions. We touch on the subject a little when we talk about the six regional offices that have the mandate to go to the location of an accident, to collect data, and to talk to the coroner's office, to police forces and to doctors. In our report, we say, in fact, that the reduction of funding to those regional offices, which are not actually regional offices but research centres, usually in universities, like the École Polytechnique in Montreal, or the University of Waterloo, could jeopardize the quality of the data being collected in the field.

That said, we did not focus on the work that Transport Canada investigators do.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In your opinion, will Bill S-2, which will require companies to provide more information on vehicle safety, help to improve vehicle safety?

[Michael Ferguson]

In an audit, our role is to examine activities in the past. Our mandate is not to say whether changes will result from certain aspects of a bill.

In this audit, we made recommendations on the department's power to obtain more information from manufacturers.

We will have to conduct an audit later in order to determine whether those changes have had any effect.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I now yield the floor to my colleague Ken Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you very much.

You do have the response from Transport Canada to some of your recommendations, particularly around the delay in developing new regulations. In the course of doing your audit you observed that it appeared as though they were trying to make sure they were synchronized with NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States. Is that what they told you, or was this an observation of yours?

[Richard Domingue]

As we did the audit, it became clearer and clearer that the role of the RCC was prevalent, that the need to synchronize the regulatory framework was the primary objective, that the trade issue was the primary objective. Some bureaucrats at Transport Canada sort of questioned that, because they said they were there for safety, not for promoting trade, so it became apparent to us that this issue of the need to harmonize with the U.S. was the primary objective.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Did you detect any potential complications if, in fact, we in Canada got out too far ahead of the United States with some of the regulations, especially given the fact that a vehicle manufactured in North America crosses the border any number of times before the final product rolls out? Obviously, the whole issue of harmonization pretty much has to be top of mind.

[Richard Domingue]

Rightly so, because we are trading partners. You don't want to have a car produced in Oshawa that is made for the U.S. and another car made for Canada.

This being said, the only exception to the regulatory framework vis-à-vis the U.S. is the daytime running lights. This is the only exception you will find right now.

We noted the issue of the anchorage system for car seats. Transport Canada decided not to act on this one, for trade reasons. We are not questioning whether this is the right or wrong answer. We are simply saying there is a potential gap here between what is required for Canadians vis-à-vis what is required regarding trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You are on to your own six minutes, by the way. You are a minute into it, which means you still have five minutes.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Good heavens, I need an audit now.

You looked at this group between the United States and Canada that talks about regulations, etc. Did you get the sense that the American equivalent of Transport Canada is also felt to be behind, not keeping up with new technology such as the one you cited from Europe on headlights?

[Richard Domingue]

I would say no, because even though it's a co-operative approach we have with the U.S. and discussions do take place between both parties, from that perspective we think the Americans are not complaining about the RCC.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

But would the American manufacturers be complaining about NHTSA for simply being too slow with new regulations? Again, it speaks to the whole issue of trying to be harmonized.

[Richard Domingue]

We did not audit the Americans, so we don't know exactly what happened there, but we know there is a lot of pressure not to allow some technology into the U.S., for competitive reasons.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I see. Again, that goes back to the comment you made about trade, perhaps, being one of the motivators for a delay on Transport Canada's behalf.

[Richard Domingue]

One could see it that way, yes.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Did you look into any connection between consumer protection, if you like, and safety? You see occasionally where a manufacturer gets in trouble for having a transmission that doesn't work very well, requiring a lot of trips back to the dealership and being very difficult to repair. I wonder if you looked at situations where the line between a consumer issue and a safety issue can be very narrow. Did that factor at all into your audit in terms of Transport Canada's relationship with the other agencies that do oversee the auto manufacturing industry?

[Michael Ferguson]

Madam Chair, one of the things we identified in the audit that Transport Canada was in fact doing quite well was overseeing defects and recalls. That whole area of consumer protection and when a vehicle isn't living up to standards, I think they were managing well.

Again, we identified that the department didn't have access to some information from the manufacturers, so there are some things they should be able to get more information about, but they were doing a good job on the recall and defects side of things.

Going back in terms of the issue of the U.S. and the regulations, obviously there is an interest in trying to keep those regulations as close as possible, but I think all of that just needs to be well defined and designed within the regulatory framework in Canada. You know, how much of an influence is there going to be in the U.S?

Again, the types of issues we raised, the fact that they were waiting for the U.S., I think are symptoms that resulted in the bigger problem, which was that it was taking Canada 10 years to put a regulation in place. When you have a system that takes10 years to put a regulation in place, that's the indicator that the department needs to be working on. They need to figure out, “Well, if we want to be able to react more quickly, how do we do that in terms of also being able to stay in line with the U.S?”

The issue isn't so much whether they should or shouldn't be trying to stay aligned with the U.S. The issue is more how that is taken into account in the whole regulatory system. Is that the primary goal? If so, let's state it, and let's figure out then how Canadian regulations are set afterwards.

I think it's more about having clarity around that issue then saying they should or shouldn't be doing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I join my colleagues in welcoming you here today. I had the opportunity to sit in on the public accounts committee when you were in attendance and spoke to the recommendations that were made in this audit.

I want to take a step back and look at the process around not only your audit but the creation of this bill, and perhaps try to understand what role the work you do may play on the legislative process that we, as parliamentarians, find ourselves in.

It's been noted that this bill originated in the previous Parliament as Bill C-62, and was introduced in June 2015. Bill S-2 was actually introduced in the Senate in May 2016. It was then referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in October 2016.

Perhaps this is where you could correct me if I'm wrong. You had actually initiated this audit in the fall of 2015. Is that when this audit was initiated?

[Richard Domingue]

Yes.