Transport Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 20, 2017, we proceed with consideration of Bill S-2, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

We have from the department today, as witnesses, Kim Benjamin, Donald Roussel, Alain Langlois, and Marie-France Taschereau.

Welcome. Thank you so much. It's nice to see all of you again.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, consideration of clause 1 is postponed until the chair calls clause 2. We can start that discussion now.

Mr. Lobb, go ahead.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Chair, I wonder if the legislative clerk could tell us which, if any, of the amendments are out of order at this time. Are any of the amendments out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have to wait for that. As the amendments are introduced, the legislative clerk.... There is one that will be ruled out of order.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I wonder, as well, if you'd indulge me in asking one of the Liberals, Mr. Fraser, a question. If he has taken a look at all the amendments submitted by the opposition, I was wondering whether there are any amendments that the Liberals would be supporting or if they would be voting against them all.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I find it odd that the question is posed to me specifically. I don't know which amendments are going to be moved. I think the ordinary course is to go through motions when they are moved and debated, deal with them in that order, offer commentary and discussion on them at that time, and take feedback from the officials as well.

Madam Chair, I think proceeding under the ordinary course is probably the right way to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Chong, go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think what my colleague from Huron-Bruce is trying to do, in the interest of dealing with this legislation expeditiously, is make our use of time efficacious and avoid having to go through a whole bunch of amendments if the outcome is preordained.

I would suggest that we suspend for five minutes, if it is the will of the committee, and have quick, informal discussions about which amendments will be truly considered and which ones will have preordained outcomes, so that we don't have to go through amendments that we know are going to be defeated. We could possibly deal with this bill expeditiously before the votes take place in about an hour and a half.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think we can probably deal with it expeditiously by calling out each clause, which is the proper way to do it. Anyone who has moved an amendment has the right to speak to that amendment.

I think we are all aware that at 5:15 the bells will go off and that we'd like to get this completed today if possible, but we are dealing with legislation and we have to do it the way it is required of us to do it.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would agree. With respect—and in respect—not only to the members of the committee, but also to those who may be watching it on television, to go over each amendment.... As well, there may be dialogue that might be initiated based on each amendment. Whether it is supported or not supported, we can have that dialogue. Again, in respect and with respect to those who are watching on television, the due course that we always follow should be followed through with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Mrs. Block, would you like to speak to that, please?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think the amendment we have put forward was an amendment recommended by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.

I'll just quickly summarize their rationale. This amendment would put the onus on the minister to have a legitimate suspicion—i.e., evidence that a problem exists—before he or she can exercise the power to order tests. It would also restrict the minister's power to order tests if he or she suspects a defect or non-compliance. It would restrict the ordering of tests to that, rather than having to prove compliance without a reason for ordering the tests. Finally, it would instruct the minister to consult with the manufacturer, before using his or her powers, to determine if the tests already exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We ask the department to comment.

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

The reason we put forward this particular clause is that there may be times when we are not certain whether or not there is a defect or a non-compliance and need to study it to find out more. We are concerned about spending a lot of time, in these circumstances, debating whether there is enough evidence to conduct the search or to ask for the studies.

I'll give you one example in which this might have been of benefit for us. That was during the Takata issue a few years ago, when there was a defect in the U.S. but we weren't certain whether there might be an issue in Canada. At that point we asked manufacturers whether they would be willing to conduct studies and asked what information they had.

This would have been a tool. It took a while to get the information we were looking for, and I can't remember whether all the manufacturers complied. It would have been a way of determining much more quickly, however, whether there was an issue in Canada. That's why we've put it in: not to say that we know that there is a defect or that there is non-compliance, but that we believe there is an issue we need to address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Benjamin.

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

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

I looked on it as an application of the precautionary principle, which is a pretty big point in our fisheries committee as we look at things that might be happening. The idea is that when in doubt, look into it. If a doubt is raised, it's probably good sense to go in and require things to be checked out, rather than leave something unresolved and then end up having a dangerous situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Aubin is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to ask the member who put forward the amendment a question.

You know my penchant for precision. The amendment states “if the Minister has evidence”, but the French version refers to evidence in the plural, “éléments de preuve”. First, that means the minister must have more than one piece of evidence in order for the provision to apply. Second, what does “evidence” mean? It isn't defined anywhere in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

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

I'll follow up with one question to the departmental officials as well.

In the example you gave, in which it was obvious that there was a defect in the United States but we weren't sure that there was something happening in Canada, would that not have met the criteria of the amendment, which states that if the minister has a legitimate suspicion...? I would suggest that if something is happening in the States and we're not sure, but there is enough evidence that there could be something, if this bill were amended in the way the associations suggested, the minister would fall within what's in the act and be able to say there was evidence there and ask them to do tests rather than just order them.

I would like a bit of follow-up on that idea.

[Kim Benjamin]

I guess the issue comes down to how much evidence is required in order to be “evidence”. The specific issue with Takata was in hot, sustainedly humid climates that we don't have in Canada. Whether or not there was an issue in Canada, however, was something that at the time the public was very worried about, and we wanted to find out whether there was an issue. If there's a question as to how much evidence is enough to be able to ask for this work to be done or to order this work be done, then you start to spend a lot of time debating whether you have enough proof to ask for the work to be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have some questions. In the example you're talking about, was it your experience when you went to the companies that they responded, that they were forthright, that they were open to showing you what they had done?

[Kim Benjamin]

I don't have all of the results of what they did, but not all the companies had conducted studies at that point. It was very much an unlevel playing field as to what information was out there. At that time, all we could ask was for them to give us what they had. We didn't have an ability to ask that they please conduct a study in this type of climate or this type of situation to see whether that condition existed here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, Mr. Lobb. Is there any further discussion?

I shall put the question on amendment CPC-1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6)

We are on clause 6 and amendment NDP-1.

We have amendments NDP-1 and NDP-2. Mr. Aubin, you could speak to both of them together or individually. It's however you would like to do it.

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

I can speak to both of them, one after the other, but I assume we will be voting on them separately.

Is that correct? Very good.

The first amendment seeks to tighten up the conditions in which the minister may use the power to exempt a company from complying with the regulatory standards. The amendment would make the language more specific so that the provision would read as follows:

(b) new kinds of vehicles equipped with safety features that are equivalent to or superior to….

However, in the past, new types of safety features could have just as easily been tested without necessarily being proven. What we are saying, then, is that the safety features should at least meet the prescribed standards. If they exceed them, that's fine too.

Why should we bother with such an amendment? I would remind everyone that, in the Auditor General's most recent report on Transport Canada's oversight of passenger vehicle safety, he indicated that the department “did not develop motor vehicle safety standards to respond to emerging risks and issues in a timely manner”. More specifically, the Auditor General found that Transport Canada “did not have complete collision and injury data to inform decisions”. We want there to be as few loopholes as possible.

Now I'll turn to the second amendment, which is quite significant, because it is going to come up numerous times. I think the first vote on NDP amendment 2 will be pretty important. First, it introduces a deadline, and, second, it amends a two-letter word that changes everything. We are proposing that “or” be replaced by “and”.

As regards the time frame, we are proposing that “as soon as feasible”, a somewhat vague time limit, be replaced by “within two days after”. That would impose a specific deadline by which the information would have to be published. With our amendment, clause 6 of the bill would read as follows:

(3) Within two days after the exemption order is granted, the Minister shall publish it on the Internet site of the Department of Transport and make it available by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate.

Currently, clause 6 states that the exemption order “be published through the Internet or by any other means”.

With the word “or”, the clause does not necessarily mean that additional means will be used. It does not mean the Internet site in addition to other possible means. The Internet site could disappear completely, in favour of other means of communication. Therefore, we feel it's important that Transport Canada's website serve as the first resource for information. That is imperative if we want to make sure automobile owners, especially second owners—who are often harder to reach, as we heard from numerous witnesses—always know where to go for information and develop that reflex.

The deadline of two days is negotiable if the officials don't think it would be possible to respect. However, the priority is to ensure that all of the minister's decisions are published within a prescribed time frame on Transport Canada's website and other sites or by any other means that the minister considers appropriate. The minister should be free to publish the information on social media or in traditional media should an assessment of the specific circumstances point to such a need.

Nevertheless, all the information should, at least, be available on Transport Canada's website. Every time we propose this amendment, the reason is the same: so that consumers are always able to find the information they need. For instance, if they want to find out whether the used car they purchased is under a recall ordered by the minister, they can check Transport Canada's website, knowing that they will find the information there. The current language in clause 6 does not guarantee that.