Transport Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[Kim Benjamin]

It could be up to a maximum. When we develop the regulations, we have a maximum in terms of what we would use in the regulation. However, in the regulation we may decide that for a violation it might be $10,000 or $200,000. Then we could say “per violation”, which means it could be multiplied by the number of vehicles or the number of days involved.

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

So you, through regulation, will implement this.

[Kim Benjamin]

That's correct.

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

When we're talking about “to promote compliance”, I know that if you're a multinational vehicle assembler, Canada is not the biggest market around, but it is a fair size. It could be a very significant penalty they'd potentially be facing if the violation were egregious enough.

[Kim Benjamin]

It could be quite significant, which is why we need to go through the regulatory process to develop what those maximums would be, through full consultation with stakeholders and the public.

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

Just out of curiosity, what does the U.S. have?

[Kim Benjamin]

The U.S. has an overall cap rather than the per regulation cap. I'd have to confirm that, but I believe their cap is $105 million at this point in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Are there any further comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

As I mentioned earlier, amendment NDP-12 is out of order, according to our clerk.

On amendment NDP-13, go ahead, Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is again a question of time limits. This time, we don't hesitate to include a limit in the act. We are talking about a two-year limit, although the amendment proposes a five-year limit. The amendment is based on examples where things extended over time.

Let's take the example of General Motors, which had to deal with a lot of problems. Ten years went by between the discovery of a potential problem and its final resolution.

If there is a statute of limitations that expires after two years, after which nothing more can be done, it seems that that time limit is somewhat short. And so we are proposing a five-year limit. If an amendment were to propose a seven-year limit, I would support that as well. However, we feel that a two-year limit is clearly too short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could we ask the staff to comment, please?

[Kim Benjamin]

We chose the two-year period because it was in alignment with the period we have for the criminal aspect of this issue as well. The intent is that it's two years after we discover the issue, not two years after an infraction takes place, so that we would be able to do it within that time period and it would not be dependent on when the infraction occurred.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

You just raised a point that I had some interest in. Two years is the typical limitation period for different causes of action, criminal or otherwise, in different provinces.

I've seen limitation legislation before that specifically said something to the effect of “at the time the claimant knew or ought to have known” rather than “after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose”.

I think that if you don't know until four years afterwards, I would hate to see the language we use prevent a claim from going forward. I think that's part of the harm Mr. Aubin was targeting.

This is probably for Mr. Langlois. Are we comfortable that the language will capture the discoverability principle?

[Alain Langlois]

This is consistent with the language we have in every AMP regime we have. Two years is the longest prescription period for AMPs that we have. Most of them are one and a half years, one year, or two years. Yes, that is how it has been interpreted.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

There's a case law to that effect saying—

[Alain Langlois]

I don't know for sure that we've been challenged on it, but this is how it has been interpreted.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Interpreted by whom?

[Alain Langlois]

By the department when it issues an AMP.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

[Alain Langlois]

In a normal circumstance, the department will readily become aware of an issue, but if the circumstances were such that the department discovered it—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That's the time the proceedings arise, in the opinion of the department.

[Alain Langlois]

Yes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(On clause 16)

On clause 16, we have NDP-14.

Go ahead, Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As my colleagues will have seen, the changes are clear, net and precise. These are considerable amounts. This corresponds exactly to the spirit of amendment NDP-11, the purpose of which is to deter the business from getting around the law. One witness told us that in order to be understood well, the law should include seven-figure amounts, and that is what it does.

As long as Transport Canada and the manufacturers get along well, this will not be invoked. However, should it become necessary, we will have a law with teeth and a deterrent measure. That was the objective of this amendment, and it continues to be, since it has not yet been rejected.