Evidence of meeting #75 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I'm sorry, Madam Chair; there are no friendly amendments. We're going to work on procedure here—
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I understood that we went into recess to get a subamendment from members opposite—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We're still on Mr. Aubin's NDP-2 amendment and we are going to vote on it. Is there anything more to be done on NDP-2? No.
Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I want to go back to my original point at the beginning of the meeting, when I pointed out the farcical nature of what we're doing here.
Mr. Aubin has presented a common sense proposal to the Liberals. I asked them at the beginning if there was anything in here, with all these amendments, that they were interested in. I asked Mr. Fraser because he did a lot of the talking the last time we went through the bill; he was puzzled as to why I was asking him, but that was why, and here we are now, 40 minutes into our meeting.
It is common sense. There is nothing that's screwing up the essence of the bill. This is a common sense amendment to a bill, and here we are. You say we should work through the process, yet when we present something that makes sense, the Liberals, for some reason, say they can't do it. The department sat here and told us that almost every single one gets done within 36 hours. We're saying two days. We're saying, if you don't like two days, make it three days, or four days, or seven days, but you're putting in “feasible”.
I'm just pointing out that the way this works is not very good. They should have just told us at the start that they would be voting against all the amendments. We'd already have this thing passed.
There you go. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Lobb. Both you and I have been around here quite a while and are well aware of how things function. Some things pass and some things don't.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)
(On clause 8)
On clause 8, we have amendment NDP-3, moved by Mr. Aubin.
Would you like to speak to that?
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Of course.
If I really wanted to act in bad faith, I would start explaining the amendment by taking five to 10 minutes, easily, to show why replacing “or” with “and” is warranted. I would also reiterate everything I said about making the minister, or the department, publish decisions in a reasonable and prescribed time frame.
Consider the situation of a Canadian who is concerned about automobile safety and thus following a particular issue because, as the owner of a certain model of vehicle, he is directly affected. That Canadian is being told that the minister's decisions will be published on the Internet site as soon as feasible. That's ridiculous, especially since no one can come up with any examples where publication wasn't possible within a certain time frame.
A number of amendments to the bill were made for the sake of consistency. I imagine, then, that, despite the lack of logic, the Liberals are going to vote against all of these amendments for the sake of consistency.
A very simple idea is being missed here: ensuring that all Canadians can easily find the information they need on the Internet site and any other site the department wishes to use within a prescribed time frame.
I don't know what more I can say about NDP amendment 3, which is being proposed for the exact same reasons as our previous amendment, but which deals with another part of the bill. We are seeking the same change four or five times for the sake of consistency and, I would even say, transparency.
If the officials were able to give me one example, it might help me better understand the members' concern. I can't find a single example where the minister would be justified in not publishing the order once the decision-making process was complete.
I can appreciate the desire to keep the discussions confidential while the process is ongoing. Once it's over, however, it's over. People have a right to the information. If everything the government says about transparency is true, why is it such a problem to publish the decision within two, three, four, or five days? I'm baffled.
Liberal
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
This particular clause refers back to the process within the legislation that defines the whole order process when there is a preliminary determination that gets posted.
There is information that comes in from the manufacturer as well as from the public. It gets reviewed. A final determination is made, and that is posted. I believe the issue that is being brought up is the time frame associated with that. One thing I would note is that depending on the type of information being posted, there could be different quantities of information and that when we're looking at what we would put up, something for an order power may have more or less information than there might be for the exemption power that we previously discussed.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure. I suggested this earlier. I appreciate your questions, Mr. Lobb. I don't think prescribing a two-day period or a general period is the right way to go. I respect that you disagree with me on that. I don't believe this is farcical.
There is one change to making the publication on a website mandatory that would have come out of this process. I don't want to suggest that this is some bad-faith exercise that we're making you go through. There are other amendments on which I would like to hear testimony from the department officials. I just wanted to add that, as part of the conversation.
However, your point about the two-day thing is something that I'm not interested in.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 9)
Mr. Aubin, on clause 9, you have an amendment here, NDP-4. Would you like to speak to it?
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Madam Chair, this is another amendment that seeks to replace an “or” with an “and” as well as establish a time limit for publication.
I would like to add one thing. In situations like these, which involve automobile safety, can we not all agree that consumer awareness of the facts also puts tremendous pressure on automakers to expedite the process of repairing issues?
By refusing to publish the information within two, three, four, or five days, we are creating conditions where consumers might not find out about the information for six months or, who knows, perhaps even two years.
Let's take the example of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We have just a few months to write and submit our report, not two years. Things like that do happen, however, even with prescribed deadlines. Imagine what would happen if the legislation did not stipulate a deadline. What a mess it would be.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.
Would the department like to comment on Mr. Aubin's amendment?
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
All I would note is that regarding the information that we have now, we do post it as quickly as we can post it. We have not received complaints on this yet.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-5, Mr. Aubin, would you like to comment?
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you're at least taking note of the consistency in my amendments.
I'd like to thank the official who just told us that all the information was posted and that no complaints had been received.
If there haven't been any complaints, then, it seems to me that there's nothing to worry about. Consequently, we could include a requirement in the bill to ensure the information is published in a timely manner, in other words, within two, three, four, or five days. I'll leave that up to my fellow members. I would even be fine with a deadline of seven days, if need be. That would cover situations that never arise and weeks with more than one holiday. I am fine with providing for any eventuality, but I think we are making a mistake by rejecting amendments that would simply change an “or” to an “and”. The purpose of the amendment is twofold: to make sure the information can be communicated by any means, but to guarantee it is available in at least one place, the Internet site; and to establish a time limit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Does the department have anything additional to add?
(Amendment negatived)
On amendment LIB-1, we have Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you.
Really, LIB-1 and LIB-2 go together. I hinted that there was going to be language to this effect. The minister did in his testimony, as well.
I had a concern when I saw the Senate amendment prescribing the remedy for dealers who were left with stock on their lot. I understand that the language proposed has been discussed with dealer associations and that they are comfortable. The essence of it is really to clarify what remedies are available to anyone who owns a vehicle that's subject to a recall. Specifically, in proposed section 10.52—recognizing that we're dealing with LIB-1 now, and not LIB-2—it does clarify for greater certainty that dealers have access to those remedies as well. That's the essence of it, and it largely reflects what I understand the dealer associations are comfortable with.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Would the department like to comment on that before I go to the speakers list?
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
Just to clarify the conversations we had on this issue, when the original wording was read, our understanding was that the protections did not apply to the dealers but only to the consumers. We felt it was important to clarify the original intent, which was that the dealers had the same types of protections that would be afforded consumers.