Transport Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

As well, you made the comment that “Canada can be, and frankly should be, innovative in its regulating, as well as capitalizing on the regulatory co-operation provisions with respect to regulations and standards in both the United States and the EU.” Can you elaborate on that?

[David Adams]

I think Canada has a regulatory tradition of basically aligning safety standards with those of the United States.

The other reality is that, earlier this month, as you're aware, the CETA was provisionally implemented. There's a regulatory co-operation annex under the CETA. Standards are a big issue under the CETA as well, with the view to looking at recognizing more of the other global standards. I think that's the focus through which I would offer my comments.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hardie

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

Thank you.

Yesterday, we heard some testimony from our member for Nunavut, where of course the conditions are quite a bit different. A vehicle being recalled up there has to literally be barged back down to a dealer down here although there are licensed mechanics available in most communities up there, or at least the major ones. Is there any thought among the manufacturers on making some provisions that licensed mechanics, other than at a dealership, might be empowered to perform this kind of work?

[David Adams]

Maybe I could start. It was interesting to hear Mr. Tootoo's comments. It was a “I never thought about that” kind of a remark, but it's a good point that he raises. I think one of the things with all manufacturers is they want to make sure that recall work is done properly and done through their partners at the dealerships. Dealers are generally very well-compensated for the recall work that's being done. However, it is a unique circumstance and I don't have an answer for you right now, but it's certainly one that I would be prepared to take back and find out what my members do in those circumstances.

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

Go ahead, Mr. Nantais.

[Mark Nantais]

Since it's one of my members, I think in this particular case it is unusual for sure. Whether it's the subject company or other companies, in remote areas of the country like that, sometimes they'll approach it in different ways.

Sometimes they'll send an actual certified mechanic up there, but it's important through.... We generally do them through dealers, because we have certified technicians. Sometimes these are safety related. Delegating that work off to sort of an after-market mechanic or something like that.... Sometimes it means either compliance or not with the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and they will not allow it to go to after-market service repair. They will either send somebody up to that location or, as you mentioned, freight the vehicle down to where there is a dealership. I think in this particular case, Chrysler dealt with that.

That's really the issue here. You need to have the right person to do the work, particularly in this situation where you have a safety recall, and have it certified that it meets all the requirements of the law, and obviously compliance with satisfying the recall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

In its brief, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, the CVMA, describes its concerns with the minister’s power to order tests, analyses or studies in order to obtain information that he considers necessary about defects or non-conformity. The minister has indicated that those powers are similar to those granted by the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

Could you tell me exactly what concerns you in that provision, knowing that it works very well in the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, an act with similar objectives?

[Mark Nantais]

Maybe I can start. The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act is very different. In other words, there is no sophisticated recall process under that act like there is under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. There is a provision, however, because that's lacking, that the minister could obviously ask for information.

In this particular case, we are not saying the minister shouldn't have that power. What we are saying is that the minister should be reasonable about asking for that information, that it must be pertinent to the alleged defect or non-compliance, rather than trying to circumvent or download, if you will, the compliance audit function that Transport Canada does. That is a safety guard, if you will. That is a function that is very important to Transport Canada, to go out and make sure the vehicles that are being sold do in fact meet the requirements that the manufacturer is certified to.

We are just worried about the misuse of that, that it's vague, and we are asking for a little more clarity and precision around that language.

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

Before the other guests comment, I would like a clarification. You are saying that the request must be “reasonable”. What do you mean by that? It is very ambiguous.

[Mark Nantais]

Again, as we said, the reasonableness of that is...and as I said, I think there is some direction here in legal context. It's about the focus of what we are asking for, what the minister is asking for, be it related to the recall or the investigation that's under way. Again, this would be for those companies. This is not the general industry, if you will, but those companies that have chosen not to voluntarily provide that information. My understanding is that circumstance rarely applies to automakers, but rather those other companies that provide products that are subject to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, not vehicles.

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

Would anybody else like to add something?

[David Adams]

I think Mr. Nantais has effectively covered it off.

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

Does the flexibility that Bill S-2 gives to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act allow manufacturers to be able to innovate and make more advances in Canada in terms of vehicle safety technology?

[Mark Nantais]

Again, I think Bill S-2 has provisions that open avenues for us to bring more innovative technologies to Canada. We have to be careful. Let's be clear; simply because there's technology in other jurisdictions does not mean that it is the same as or equivalent to or better than ours; it could be less. One of the questions earlier today implied that some vehicles from other jurisdictions are better, when if you take the European certification process, it's less stringent than ours. Side impact was one of the examples given. Clearly, the side impact regulations that we ultimately harmonized with the United States are more stringent than European standards. We have to be very careful about those things.

Similarly with lighting, the key thing there is, in the United States is there going to be guidance coming out on that shortly? In fairness to Transport Canada, they raised some issues about glare with those lights.

We have to be mindful of that. I think every company wants to bring in innovative technologies, particularly when they can ultimately enhance safety, but you have to prove they enhance safety.

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

Would anyone else like to add something?

[David Adams]

I don't think it should stay on the record that in every case European safety standards are inadequate in comparison to federal motor vehicle safety standards. That's not the case in the specific instance Mr. Nantais referred to. It may well be the case, but not generally across the board. But it does speak to an issue that's related to this file: that often we see trade components getting wrapped up in the discussion around safety as well. I know that's been a concern of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mrs. Block, do you have any questions?

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

I want to thank you for joining us today. I have appreciated the testimony we've heard so far.

I know, Mr. Nantais and Mr. Adams, you have already flagged for us the issues and concerns that you have with respect to proposed subsection 8.1(1), but I'd like to hear your views on proposed subsection 16.11(1), which increases the power of Transport Canada inspectors to visit facilities and compel documents and testimony from employees. This would be done to demonstrate compliance, it would not be triggered due to any complaints that may be received with regard to a specific manufacturer or any of their products.

I asked the minister what might trigger a visit like this to a manufacturer, and I'm not sure that I got a satisfactory answer. I want to hear from you if you have any concerns with regard to that measure in this bill.

[Mark Nantais]

Again, our view is if the minister incurs a situation where they don't feel they're getting the right information or the information they're requesting as part of the investigation, then I don't think we have any issue with that. In other words, we triaged this whole bill as to the most pertinent issues for us. That was not one of them. The ones we came up with are the three I've raised here.

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

Okay. Do you know if these measures are consistent with what might be in place in the United States?

[Mark Nantais]

I may stand corrected because I'm not that familiar with all the details in the United States, but I believe they'd have that power.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Hatch and Mr. Adams, I know my colleague asked you to identify for us if you had flagged any other issues during the question time we had. Do you have any other amendments you would recommend be made to this bill, other than the ones Mr. Nantais has put into his briefing to us?

[David Adams]

From my perspective, I think the amendments that Mr. Nantais has identified would be amendments that we would share. I think the challenge becomes, again, dealing with this bill and its predecessor and moving it forward. As I said at the outset, our members by and large support Bill S-2, and it's important to move it forward, but also I think it's important to recognize that there are some—not many, but some—issues that I think are particularly problematic for all manufacturers.