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.
4:25 p.m.
General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Department of Transport
I will only say that the purpose and scope of the legislation is to regulate the vehicles and the equipment and that the legislation does that by regulating companies, not dealers.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
This is one that I was looking for feedback on. From the liability point of view, does the draft right now...?
When I met with manufacturers, one concern they had was that if they did everything required of them and a dealer sold it anyway—let's say they have sent the dealer correspondence, but the dealer ignores it and doesn't get back to the manufacturer, who has told the dealer there's a defect—they had a sincere fear that they were going to be held responsible.
Are you telling me right now that if they're diligent and do everything they're supposed to do, there's no risk of that happening under the legislation as it has been drafted?
4:25 p.m.
General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Department of Transport
That's correct. Their obligation is to “ensure”. The obligation is not to achieve the result at all costs; it is to ensure that this result is achieved. If they can demonstrate that they've taken a reasonable step within their own discretion and authorities to achieve the result, then from a regulatory compliance standpoint they're okay.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I've noticed that in the last couple of votes there have been some comments made. For this one I would ask that there be a recorded vote, just to satisfy all members so that they know how each member votes. It seems important.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's no problem, Mr. Lobb.
If there is no further comment, I shall put the question on amendment CPC-2.
I see that in Mr. Aubin's absence, we have a tie vote of four yeas and four nays. I have to break the tie, and I don't support the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is amendment NDP-6.
Go ahead, Mr. Aubin.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Madam Chair, my apologies for my absence. I hope the reason I'm feeling ill isn't that I continue to move the same amendment, but to no avail.
NDP amendment 6 seeks to add the following language to the bill:
(4) Within two days after a final decision is made, the Minister shall publish it on the Internet site of the Department of Transport and make it available by any other….
I think we've discussed the matter enough for everyone to understand the purpose of the amendment. I will let the common sense of the committee prevail.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin.
(Amendment negatived)
Next is amendment NDP-7.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, NDP amendment 7 seeks to add the following language to the bill:
(2) Within two days after an order is varied or revoked, the Minister shall publish the varied order or a notice of revocation of the order on the Internet site of the Department of Transport and make the order or notice available by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate.
As I said, the time limit could be three, four, or five days, indeed, a week. I should also point out that, here again, we would like to replace the “or” with an “and”.
To my mind, the amendment is entirely appropriate.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Is there any comment?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 10 agreed to)
Shall clause 11 carry?
I haven't seen anybody do anything. If you want to raise your hands, it would be helpful. I'm trying to keep Mr. Chong's comments in mind about moving things along.
(Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to sequentially)
(On clause 14)
On clause 14, we have amendment NDP-8.
Go ahead, Mr. Aubin.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I'm not sure whether I already mentioned this, but it seems to me that this simple amendment would make things even clearer for everyone, not to mention more understandable and specific. It would amend the clause in question by replacing the “or” with an “and” and prescribing a time limit. That's the gist of NDP amendment 8.
I'll stop there.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Not to repeat ourselves, but I think we've established what my thoughts are on the “two days” aspect.
On the question of “and” or “or”, I am happy with the current draft. If this is something that you think adds value and you would like to adopt the language that was there previously but shift “and” and “or”, I would support that. I'll leave it to you to decide if that is something you want. I could go one way or the other.
I'll leave it at that.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I think I've made my preference abundantly clear, and the committee has rejected all the other amendments. For the sake of consistency, we would have to start all over to insert “and” throughout. That would take too long, and we'd run out of time. Regardless, what I really want is a prescribed time limit.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now move to NDP-9.
Mr. Aubin, go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
I am going to change tacks. This will probably lead to the same results, but I'll do it anyway.
We are talking here about consent agreements the minister may sign. The bill contains a provision that allows consents to be amended along the way for all sorts of reasons. However, there is no mechanism mentioned anywhere as to how the consent agreement can be rescinded or nullified. That is the gist of amendment NDP-9, which reads as follows:
(7) The Federal Court may rescind a consent agreement that it has registered, on application by the minister or by any party to the consent agreement, if it finds that the circumstances that led to the making of the agreement have changed and, in the circumstances that exist at the time the application is made, the agreement would not have been made or would have been ineffective in achieving its intended purpose.
This introduces consistency. For comparison purposes, I humbly submit that the competition commissioner has this right to rescind, among other things. Our amendment is strongly inspired by a similar mechanism in the Competition Act, which would make sense in the bill we are studying.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I will probably mostly defer to my friend Mr. Fraser on this one.
I thought the essence of a consent agreement was that both sides agree to accept it, and then it would be required that both sides had to agree to rescind it. You are looking at perhaps giving a third party—i.e., the minister—or one of the two parties involved in the consent agreement the option to rescind it. Again, I'm not sure that this actually works.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
My concern with this one is one of practical consequences. Perhaps I'm a bit jaded from having been a litigator before. Consent agreements were great to give certainty. If there was an opportunity for someone to challenge one when it became in their economic interest to do so based on shifting facts, my experience would suggest that they would take that opportunity. I see this opening up of consent orders potentially causing a flood of litigation over whether circumstances have changed. I don't think that would be productive.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Yes.
In the best possible world, when everything is going well, there is no need to rescind a consent and the minister is not the one who would do so. He or she would submit a request to the Federal Court and it would rescind the consent.
The question is very simple. A consent agreement is given. What do we do if either of the parties—not the minister, hopefully—does not comply with the consent requirements? If there is no way of rescinding the consent, and moving to another step which existed previously i.e., a trial, there would be no other avenues.