Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak briefly to Bill S-3, the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
As my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party noted during his remarks, Bill S-3, despite the speedy process with which it has been brought through the House, has some rather lofty goals. I will start by informing the viewing public what Bill S-3 hopes to accomplish.
The summary at the front of the bill states:
This enactment modernizes and streamlines the regulation of extra-provincial motor carrier (truck and bus) undertakings in Canada, building on the reforms introduced in the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 . The objective is a consistent national regime for motor carriers focused on carrier safety regulation.
The key components of the enactment include:
(a) a national regulatory framework for provincial administration of a safety performance-based regime for extra-provincial motor carriers, based on the national safety standards developed by the governments of Canada and the provinces in consultation with industry and embodied in the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers;
(b) provision for national policy direction supporting the implementation of that framework; and
(c) provision for international arrangements for mutual recognition of carrier safety performance assessment.
As my colleague and several speakers prior to me have indicated, some rather lofty goals are contained in Bill S-3. However, when we look at the history of how the government has dealt with the issue and with the bill, we find reason for concern. Given the way Bill S-3 is drafted, we must ask whether it would be able to accomplish the rather lofty expectations laid down in it.
I would like to raise a concern regarding subclause 7(2) which states:
A safety fitness certificate need not be in any particular form.