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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Aubin.
Would the department like to comment on NDP-1 and NDP-2?
3:40 p.m.
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
To start with the first issue, with the exemption from the standards, the purpose of this particular clause is to allow us to have the flexibility to allow new technologies to come in. We have a proposed subsection, captioned “Conditions for granting exemption”, that would fall after these proposed amendments. It says it
must only be granted...if the exemption would not substantially diminish the overall safety performance
of the vehicle. There is, then, that safety test.
One concern I have with the way the wording is here is that it may not be decision that should be based on an existing standard. We're dealing with the unknown unknowns as we move forward.
I'll put forward one example that we could potentially come across as we move forward. We may have a vehicle brought forward for which there was no steering wheel, but the collision avoidance systems within the vehicle were so significant that you would not need a steering wheel. In the way this amendment is written, however, since that configuration would not meet the steering wheel safety standard, we wouldn't be able to allow it in.
The ideal is that we want to look at the deal holistically and not just say that you must meet every standard. There could be some standards that provide a greater level of safety than other standards. If I had a standard whereby something better might be in the airbags but the labelling wasn't as strong, the way this is worded, I'd have to do it standard by standard. What we were trying to accomplish when we wrote the original wording was to look at it holistically: we would assess every standard, but there would be an opportunity to weigh something against it if the overall safety for the vehicle was not affected.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much for that explanation. I'll try to unpack a couple of different topics that come up.
Thank you, Monsieur Aubin, for laying out the two amendments. I accept the explanation you just delivered, and for that reason, I think amendment NDP-1 defeats part of the purpose of the provision.
On amendment NDP-2, however, and with an eye to Mr. Lobb's point about being efficient with our time, I have an issue with the “two days” component. I think that for a number of the various amendments you propose throughout, there are circumstances in which two days would in many cases be practical but in many other cases might not be. I'm curious as to whether we could get comment on the “two days” standard.
You laid out the difference between “or” and “and” in the legislation right now. One thing I'm interested in is whether there are circumstances in which it would not make sense to post on the Department of Transport website the kinds of orders that Monsieur Aubin has contemplated in this legislation, or is that something that will happen all the time anyway, in which case it might make sense?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
There are two issues I would like to raise on that aspect. One is that the amendment specifically notes the Transport Canada website. For example, when we post our defects and recalls right now, we also go through the “Health Risks and Safety” tabs on the government website, so that all recalls go through one site. Restricting it specifically to the Transport Canada website might cause some issues as we move forward.
The other thing we're looking at is that we've recently had to look at how to update the legislation to make it more modern, to take out the fact that we no longer want to have to post something in the newspaper or have mail-outs. That method of delivering the information has become archaic, and as we're moving forward, the method may become more archaic.
Right now, yes, the intent would be to post it on the website. Would that still be the intent in a few years, or have social media taken over to the point that websites are becoming less usable?
Right now, we always post our information. We had more than 630 recalls last year. We normally post those. We give ourselves 72 hours to do the translation and make sure it's web-friendly, but we generally have it posted within 36 hours. We have, then, a history of posting.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
As a follow-up, you mentioned that there might be some circumstances in which you would post on another website. Is there any circumstance in which it is not posted today on some Government of Canada website?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
No.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Concerning the example you gave of perhaps a shift from a website to social media, as a communication person I would have a problem with that specifically, simply because you have a routine such that people know where to look and can reliably go to a website and find the information there, and not go to Transport Canada one day, Health Canada the next. Sure, put it on Health Canada, but be consistent. Always putting it on the Transport Canada site is something that I think makes sense.
I can certainly support Mr. Aubin's “and” versus the “or” on that basis.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I have two things to say.
As for the first amendment, I quite appreciate the example that was given because it is precisely in line with what we want. What I heard was that it would be acceptable if it did not significantly reduce the safety standards. Therefore, a new technology could be accepted if it did not significantly reduce the safety standards, but it is already reducing them.
We believe that the basic standard is the one that currently exists. If the new technology being proposed satisfies that basic standard or exceeds our expectations, we would be fine with that. We aren't against apple pie, after all.
Regarding the second amendment, I think the “and” solves all the problems. It would make it mandatory to post the information on Transport Canada's website and on any other platform the minister deems appropriate.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
To clarify, Madame Chair, I thought we had agreed that we were going to go in order. We're talking about the third motion now, which I don't believe is actually in front of us, rather than the second motion.
That being said, since we're on the topic of the third motion—
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We're really not talking about the third motion. We're trying to keep our comments to the first and the second. We're trying to keep them there. We could go to the third, but I think it's not fair to Mr. Aubin. He's moved one and two.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I wanted to build on what Mr. Fraser and Mr. Hardie had said about the third motion.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
If you just hold it for a minute, we will be there.
Is there any further comment?
Did you want to comment on one or two?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I will just say that before Mr. Aubin moves the third motion, which is referenced by 9144802, I have a suggestion that may help him move that motion in a way that would get the support of all committee members.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
With respect to 9151588, I think the issue here is that to compare standards, you have to know the performance of the things that you are comparing. It's difficult to know that until you actually put the new thing into practice of some sort and test it out. Would we put a car without a steering wheel on a public road? No, probably not.
I think that in order to make a proper standards comparison, you have to have standards established. However, the nature of these things that are being introduced is such that there are no standards yet, which makes that proposition somewhat untenable.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I can understand that a new technology doesn't have established standards, but it still has to meet existing performance standards. If a new car is equipped with a new braking system, the standards governing braking distance in relation to vehicle speed remain the same. The new vehicle will be expected to stop within or under the prescribed distance, but not above it. That's the purpose of the amendment.
I realize that all new technologies can't come with established standards, as we would like, but they, at least, have to satisfy the existing standards.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All those in favour of NDP-1, please raise your hands.
All those opposed, please indicate.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Does anyone want to speak further to NDP-2?