Transport Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

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

Notwithstanding my colleague's pre-emptive declaration regarding his intention with regard to the Senate amendment that was made to this bill, I want to hear from any of you what your concerns around this amendment would be, and if they are strictly in regard to the placement of it in this particular bill, which is obviously dealing with vehicle safety, or if you would just not want to see a measure like this put into any legislation that might regulate your industry.

[Michael Hatch]

I can start. We have no concerns with the Senate amendment, because it was the amendment that we pursued actively in the Senate, which of course, as you know, was followed by a series of discussions with the department and the minister and his team, which we hoped would result in the amendment that Mr. Fraser referred to earlier this evening. Again, we look forward to the specific language in that amendment.

We feel confidence from the department, the government, and the minister that it will accomplish most of what we sought to achieve in the Senate amendment, but not everything. We're okay with that. We understand that compromise is an important part of the legislative process, so again, we look forward to the specific language in that amendment and to the debate to follow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Very briefly, Mr. Nantais.

[Mark Nantais]

We have some concerns, simply because this is not a widespread issue. On top of that, vehicle manufacturers—my member companies—already engage in providing support in those circumstances and continue to work those out under the dealer agreements that exist between the vehicle manufacturer and their dealers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Monsieur Aubin, you have up to three minutes.

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

I have only one question and I confess that I do not know whom to ask. However, I will ask Mr. Adams, because he represents European manufacturers.

When people talk about harmonization with the American system, I always understood that we are constantly talking about catching up. For a number of weeks, I have been wondering why we are not ahead in some areas.

Take headlights, for example, where European technology seems to be more advanced. If Transport Canada accepted that new technology on our territory, does that mean that, if I buy such a vehicle, I would not be able to drive it in the United States unless there was an agreement with United States?

[David Adams]

Where to start?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Adams]

With respect to your comment about the technology, my understanding is that in a lot of those cases with respect to lighting, the technology is already existent on the vehicles that are in Canada, but has just been programmed off. There are other elements of that technology that meet the Canadian standards, but other elements that could be switched on aren't, because of where we're at with our dialogue on the lighting issue.

Technically, I think you are correct. If Canada did decide to go down that road with this and a consumer took a vehicle with that advanced lighting to the U.S., theoretically they probably could be stopped at the border and told that the vehicle was not compliant. Would that happen? I'm not sure that you would find anybody who would be able to determine whether it is compliant or not. In any event, the technology is such that it could be switched off again, so it's not in any way a hindrance to trade back and forth across the border.

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

Here is my question more generically.

Are there examples of situations where Transport Canada was ahead of American legislation and the Americans had to harmonize their decisions to Canada's?

[Mark Nantais]

I think we have to be very careful here in getting ahead of the U.S. Canada is not a large enough market to drive vehicle design. Also, there's this perception that we're behind other jurisdictions in terms of safety. When we talk about regulatory co-operation, harmonization, and alignment of our standards with those of the United States, we need to be clear that we are harmonizing and aligning with the higher common denominator, one of the highest common denominators in vehicle safety in the world, if not the highest.

We're much better off in aligning our standards on a North American basis. In Canada, we produce vehicles primarily for the United States market. There are other technologies that will evolve in other markets. Our view is, certainly, make them available in North America, but review them in the context of North America. If it's deemed to be the same level of safety or better, then we should adopt those as a harmonized standard in North America.

That's the way we do it, but if Canada alone.... We're not necessarily behind because we're already harmonizing with the United States, which is that higher common denominator. Also, we have to be very careful. If we put unique standards on Canada—we've been through this phase—ultimately we will minimize or constrain product choice. It's not a large enough market to drive that vehicle design, so ultimately a consumer may not get these types of vehicles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much to all of you.

If there are any other comments, maybe you can get those questions and answers off-line.

It's 5:30 and the committee is completed.

Thank you so much again for your contribution.

The meeting is adjourned.