Transport Committee on Sept. 26th, 2017

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I can't give you examples given that we're not authorized to apply exemptions. Bill S-2 hasn't been passed yet. Once it has been passed, there will no doubt be examples. Our goal is for autonomous vehicles to be safer. For these vehicles to be authorized to drive on our roads, the technology must be validated. In some cases, this requires adjustments to the regulations. We're giving ourselves this power in the bill with the hope, of course, that these vehicles will be safer than the current vehicles.

We received the Auditor General's report. It went through the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which gave us recommendations. We can now determine our response to the committee. Of course, we'll soon be able to present our response to the House of Commons. We always take the recommendations of various committees, including your committee, very seriously. It goes without saying that we take all this to heart. It's not the same as Bill S-2. They're two parallel things. That said, if we can take measures to improve Transport Canada's performance, particularly when it comes to safety, we'll do so.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Clauses 12 to 14 of the bill strengthen Transport Canada's inspection powers, in particular the power to verify vehicle compliance and collect documents regarding collisions. It seems that we're adding human resources. However, in recent years, we've decreased the ability to provide evidence, in particular by reducing collision tests by 59%.

How can we reconcile the fact that more resources are allocated, but the department doesn't have the financial means necessary to conduct tests?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

We've adopted a risk management philosophy. I think it's a smart approach. In the past, we've conducted inspections each year or a number of times a year without really questioning the logic of the method, simply because we had always worked that way. This required a great deal of time and resources, which weren't necessarily used properly. The risk management approach is mainly what we're using to decide, in terms of inspections, where we'll invest our resources. I think that's a better approach.

In this bill, we give additional inspection powers to our employees when, as part of a safety investigation, the possibility of a defect exists. This interaction with the manufacturers is necessary. It's important to keep the door open to enable the two parties to share information. In some cases, if it's privileged commercial information, we need the power to ask the manufacturers to provide the results of tests, and we'll specify those tests.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here today.

Bill S-2 is similar to the previous Bill C-62, which died on the Order Paper in 2015; it was never adopted.

Can you explain the main differences between Bill S-2 and the former Bill C-62, and tell us what improvements are in the bill that we are studying today?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Yes, certainly.

It is difficult to measure exactly, but I would say that about 75% of Bill S-2 reproduces what was in the Conservative government's bill. There was an election in 2015 and this bill died on the Order Paper.

The main new elements are the power to negotiate consensus agreements with manufacturers and to reach administrative agreements. We will have the power to impose penalties on manufacturers without having to go so far as to launch lawsuits, which take a long time and are very expensive. It also gives us more flexibility as to what we can do if we are not satisfied with what the manufacturing sector has done to fix a defect.

In addition, we will extend the period of an interim order and broaden its scope. We will also expand the scope of an exemption order and allow for ministerial approval, which goes hand in hand with the flexibility needed to develop new technologies. We want regulations to be flexible in order to foster innovation, while being aware that adjustments need to be made, without minimizing the importance of safety.

There are a few other very minor amendments, but many of the elements in Bill C-62 have been taken as they are.

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

Thank you.

In your opinion, what key elements of Bill S-2 enable us to say that car passenger safety will be improved?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

The key element is the power that the Minister of Transport can use to order a manufacturer to correct an observed defect at their own expense. We will not only point out a defect, we will have to follow up to ensure it is repaired. This applies both to new cars at the dealership and to cars already on the road. I think that's good news.

That said, it will not always be necessary to use this power since, in the majority of cases, manufacturers recognize the observed defects and make the necessary repairs.

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

To your knowledge, has a car manufacturer ever failed to issue a voluntary recall or delayed doing so?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

In my speech, I mentioned that there were three cases where the manufacturer did not recognize a defect. I'm going to ask Kim Benjamin to expand on that.

You have raised another important point. We want to minimize the wait time for solving a problem. When a defect is observed, sometimes there is no immediate solution, such as when the manufacturer must produce parts in large quantities to correct a defect. This may take time, but we do not want things to drag on when a number of vehicles on the roads have the same defect.

Ms. Benjamin, could you talk about examples where we've had to step in?

[Kim Benjamin, Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport]

We have had three examples where we've had manufacturers who were not in agreement with us since we received the power to order a notice of defect. For each of these cases we started the process with the preliminary determination, which is the public announcement. The information is given to the public at the same time as the manufacturer. In each of these instances the manufacturer decided to issue the notice of defects—or in one case it was a consumer campaign to essentially conduct the repair—in advance of having to make the final order for a notice of defect. We've posted each of them on our website. As I said, because of the pressure that has come from the public being aware, the public giving us information, we haven't had to proceed to the final notice of defect; they've done it on their own.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Madam Chair, I'll be splitting my time with the honourable member Hunter Tootoo.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister.

I want to talk about the administrative monetary penalties. I understand that under certain circumstances, imprisonment could also be involved if somebody doesn't comply. Can you describe how that could all come about? Is that the case?

[Kim Benjamin]

An administrative monetary penalty is not the criminal penalty. The whole idea is that it is administrative. It doesn't have the same burden of proof to be able to demonstrate the non-compliance. It is meant to be a way of bringing someone into compliance. It is not as much a punitive measure as a criminal prosecution would be.

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

Under what circumstances would a criminal prosecution take place?

[Kim Benjamin]

Where we felt that the issue was far too egregious to be dealt with on an administrative basis.

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

I see.

In a meeting with the manufacturers association representatives, they were somewhat concerned they could be facing criminal charges when in fact the action was by a dealer. They wholesale the vehicle to the dealer, and then it's up to the dealer to withhold that from the public, certainly not the manufacturer. Can you speak to that concern?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Certainly it would not be our intention to penalize the wrong party in a situation like that, so we'd have to look at the details. Criminal pursuit is a very serious matter, and would only occur under certain specific instances where there was clear proof that something was deliberately done. The burden of proof in a situation like that is quite high, but it's also a situation that I think would be rather exceptional. Administrative penalties are quite common in Transport Canada in other areas when there are violations, for example, railways and ships. It is a tool we have, but we didn't have it in this case, and we think this is part of a graduated response capability.

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

That's great. Thank you.

I'll turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Tootoo.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Welcome, Minister Garneau.

I only have one question on this, and it's an issue that's been brought up a couple of times this summer in Iqaluit.

As you know, Nunavut is quite different from the rest of the country. We don't have dealerships. I know of one case where a recall was ordered for a vehicle and another case where there was a warranty the dealer was fixing automatically on his own. Because there's no dealer there, and they're saying an authorized dealer of the vehicle has to do the work, they're being told they have to put their vehicle on a ship, ship it out, get the work done down here, and then wait until next year to get it back.

I'm wondering if anything in here could help address that concern, where we're forced to utilize dealers. We have garages in the communities up there, but they're not authorized dealers. They have licensed mechanics. We need to address that so that work can get done. There are people who can't be without a vehicle and people have to pay for the shipping of their vehicle down south to get it fixed and get it back so they are still using those vehicles with those defects. There's no opportunity to change that. I'm wondering if there's something in the bill to help address that issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you.

You're reminding me that things are very different in the north, and there are challenges that we don't even dream of down here because of different circumstances and not all of that infrastructure being in place.

Bill S-2 is essentially focused on saying if there's a defect in a vehicle that somebody is driving in Iqaluit or somewhere else, that ultimately if the manufacturer doesn't fix it and we feel it is a safety hazard, we can force them to fix it at the manufacturer's cost.

But you're bringing in an element here that is different from the normal situation and that is shipping it from Iqaluit or some other location to a southern location. There are other alternatives as well. They can ship a new car up that's without the defect and do a switch, and that kind of thing, but I would have to get back to you on the particular circumstances that exist up there where there aren't the kinds of things that we take for granted down here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. The time is up.

Ms. Block.

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

I too want to thank you for joining us today, Minister.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you.