---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications

Issue No. 9 - Evidence, November 15, 2016

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, today the committee is examining Bill S-2, an Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. The proposed legislation aims to keep roads safe, protect Canadian consumers and would give the Minister of Transport power to order a company to issue a recall, to make companies repair a recalled vehicle at no cost to the consumer and to prevent new vehicles from being sold in Canada until they are repaired.

As the committee begins its examination of this bill, we are very pleased to have appearing before us the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport. He is accompanied by Mr. Donald Roussel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security; and Ms. Kim Benjamin, Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation. The minister will be with us for the first hour, but the department officials will stay afterwards to answer questions.

Minister Garneau, welcome. I invite you to make opening remarks, after which we will have time for questions from senators. The floor is yours, sir.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Honourable senators, I'm here today to give you an overview of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, commonly called the Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act. I consider safety to be of paramount importance, and this bill will help to significantly improve safety for Canadians.

With this bill, we are pursuing an improved motor vehicle safety regime as part of our commitment to the safety of the Canadian public. We believe that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its associated regulations and standards are one of the key reasons why progressively fewer people have been killed and injured on our roads despite the ever-increasing number of motor vehicles on the road.

Regardless, in 2014, automotive collisions in Canada resulted in 1,834 fatalities and 149,900 injuries. These tragedies are the reason that we pursue the continued improvement of motor vehicle safety for Canadians.

[English]

While there are a number of proposed amendments in the bill, I will highlight some of the most significant ones that address current key gaps in the legislative regime, particularly with regard to recalls.

But first I must note that the major vehicle manufacturers and importers in this country have a good history of addressing safety defects in Canadian vehicles. However, if a situation arose today with a vehicle, tire or child seat where it was clear from evidence that the product contained a defect that could put the safety of Canadians in jeopardy and the company did not agree and did not voluntarily repair it, then there would be little that could be done.

As such, it is proposed to amend the act, as it was previously presented as Bill C-62, to authorize the Minister of Transport to order a company to correct a defect or non-compliance in a vehicle or equipment if it is considered to be in the interests of public safety. In addition, there would be the power to order companies to pay the costs of correcting a defect or non-compliance in a vehicle or equipment.

These combined order powers are important for potential situations where consumers would be expected to pay for the correction of a defect or non-compliance in a vehicle or equipment. Such a situation would place an unreasonable financial burden on Canadians and potentially put other Canadians at risk should their fellow citizens be unable to undertake the necessary repairs.

[Translation]

To prevent new vehicles or equipment with safety defects or non-compliances from reaching Canadians, we could also order companies to ensure that such issues are corrected before the vehicles are sold to consumers and used on Canadian roads. These new order powers build on the power to require a company to issue a notice of defect or non-compliance, which was introduced in 2014 by the previous government. All these measures would help ensure that defects are corrected and recalls are issued in a manner that respects consumers and ensures that safety issues are solved.

[English]

As mentioned, companies already have a good record of being accountable for the products that they sell. These proposed new powers are for extraordinary situations where it is necessary for the government to intervene.

Other key legislative gaps to be addressed are the powers to enforce the requirements of the act and its regulations. Currently, there are only limited enforcement tools to pursue compliance from companies. If a violation is found, the only enforcement action at the moment is criminal prosecution. This can be time consuming and costly, and in some instances may not be appropriate for a given violation.

As such, the proposed changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act introduce an administrative monetary penalty to help elicit compliance from companies. These penalties are an efficient, effective and less-costly alternative to criminal prosecution. The previous government also recognized this as they proposed amendments of this nature in Bill C-62.

[Translation]

Administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, are similar to traffic tickets for drivers. For example, with the proposed amendments, when a company or individual breaks a rule or does not comply with the regulations, the department could impose a pre-established penalty, or "fine," to encourage compliance.

However, in some instances, AMPs aren't the best tool to improve safety for Canadians. Other actions may be more appropriate or have greater benefit for Canadians. As a result, we're also proposing the possibility of entering into consent agreements. These agreements would allow a negotiated settlement for a violation of the act and could be used to reduce a penalty in exchange for other safety concessions from the company. To ensure their enforceability, such agreements should be registered with a court. In addition, to ensure accountability and openness, these agreements would be published.

Together, the regime of AMPs and the consent agreements will dramatically increase the enforcement options available under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure the safety of Canadians.

[English]

It's important to note that the proposed changes to the act are not exclusive to the enforcement and compliance regime. Vehicle technologies are changing very quickly, with connected and automated vehicles on the horizon. As these and other technologies emerge, we must ensure their benefits can be realized while maintaining safety for Canadians. However, sometimes our regulations may not be able to keep up with these changes, and as such, it is proposed to adjust the interim orders and exemption provisions of the act to allow flexibility and not impede these innovations, while continuing to promote safety.

In conclusion, what is being proposed in this bill is a very substantial, powerful suite of needed changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, building upon the proposed changes introduced in 2015 through Bill C-62. In conjunction with other previous changes to the act in recent years, they represent a significant evolution of the act that would increase available enforcement tools and industry requirements, with the aim of reinforcing the safety of Canadians.

With that, I'll conclude, and I'm open to questions. Thank you.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, minister.

Senator Doyle: I had no intention of being first on the list, but welcome, minister. It's good to have you here.

Going through some of your transport notes, you say that the changes to the compliance and enforcement provisions will more closely align the Canadian and U.S. regimes while continuing to protect and serve Canadians, which is good. Before NAFTA, we had the Auto Pact, as you're aware, between U.S. and Canada. This bill would seem to foster greater harmony between U.S. and Canadian regulation of automotive safety, which is good as well. But the incoming American administration seems to have some problems with NAFTA. Do you anticipate any upcoming difficulties, say, in the highly integrated Canadian and American industries? Should we be concerned about that?

Mr. Garneau: Thank you, senator. I don't anticipate a problem on this particular issue, which is safety and regulation related. In the case of the act itself, the actual provisions that we are putting in place actually cause us to be harmonized with the United States. Most Canadians, surprisingly, are probably not aware of the fact that at the current time all the Canadian government can do is to order a manufacturer to issue a notice of defect. I think they think that we're like the United States, where they can go beyond ordering that notice of defect and actually force the recall and the repairs. With the amendments that are proposed in this act, we will actually, in the case of defects and recalls, be harmonizing with the United States.

I don't believe there will be any impacts with respect to NAFTA and any possible renegotiation of NAFTA. I believe this is something that is clearly on the side of safety, and my discussions with the current transportation secretary lead me to believe that this is not an issue that will be subject to any possible revision because it is related to safety.

Senator Doyle: You don't see any merit, say, in postponing legislation until we know specifically where we are in that particular area? Our legislation would be different, I would imagine. Or are we closely integrated to the point where we probably should have a second look at what's going to be happening with NAFTA?

Mr. Garneau: I would not wish to delay this because it's related to safety, and I am of the firm belief that this will not be impacted by any possible changes with respect to NAFTA. NAFTA is dealing more with trade, whilst this is specifically related to safety.

I'm glad to say that in the area of transportation safety and harmonization of regulations, Canada and the United States have been very closely aligned, regardless of administration. So I think that it's in our interests to proceed, because obviously many of the cars that are purchased in this country come from American manufacturers; some of them are produced in this country. I think this is a situation that requires us to act as quickly as possible to be harmonized.

Senator Unger: Thank you, minister, for being here. I'm wondering if you can give the committee a bit of context for this bill by giving us background on vehicle recalls. Can you tell us when recalls first began and who initiated the concept of a recall: government or industry? Prior to the bill being introduced in 2015, were there problems with the recall system? I know you cited a possible example, but were there problems or was it working well?

Mr. Garneau: I will leave it to my colleagues to perhaps go back in the history of when recalls were first initiated, but there's no question that the public took notice. In fact, the previous government, as you know, initiated the process of Bill C-62.

Incidents like the Takata airbags brought the issue of recall to the attention of a very large audience in this country, because many Canadians had Takata airbags and weren't quite sure why there seemed to be a response south of the border but things were going more slowly on this side of the border. I myself was the owner of a Takata airbag.

The GM ignition switch issue received a great deal of public attention in the media, and it went on for quite a while.

The point about it is that if Transport Canada feels there is a safety issue, we must have the capability to take action, because there will be instances where there's a disagreement.

Let me give you an example. Right now there is an issue with respect to certain models and years of the Ford F-150 truck. They have a vacuum pump, and that pump is involved in helping with braking. At the moment, there is disagreement between Ford and Transport Canada with respect to whether there is a defect in this particular case. We believe, based on our analysis, that this is causing this particular model, when the defect occurs, to require a longer braking distance for the trucks, based on evidence. At the moment, that's an indication or an example of where there is disagreement.

As I say, most of the time, manufacturers take action swiftly; they issue the recall and they proceed with it. The orders that would be possible for the Minister of Transport, if this passes, would be used in exceptional circumstances, such as the one I've just mentioned where there may be disagreement about whether a defect exists. In that case, we have an obligation to act for the safety of Canadians. Perhaps my colleagues might know more about the history of when recalls began to occur.

Donald Roussel, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: Yes. They were not quite robust enough in the actual legislation. This bill introduced the notion of notice. The recall is the last step in a series of processes. There are notices of defects and notices of non-compliance; and then after that, through dialogue with the company, if they do not react properly, then we need to have the power to order the recall. This bill does that. In the previous bill, these mechanisms were not strong enough.

Through the notice of non-compliance and all the mechanisms of the new administrative monetary penalties regime, or AMP, you add pressure to the manufacturers so that they are looking at this seriously and then taking action in terms of making their own decisions to order a recall, if needed. If they don't, and we disagree — through analysis, tests and additional powers under this act for ordering more tests or analysis — we can move to the recall. But the recall needs to be known as sort of the last step. We need to maintain that dialogue and the responsibility through the manufacturers.

Mr. Garneau: Senator, to expand on what Mr. Roussel has said, at the moment with these Ford F-150s, where we have a disagreement with the manufacturer, we have actually solicited input from individual owners. As Mr. Roussel said, this would be a last resort. Normally we would let the company, the manufacturer, know that we consider that there is a defect here. We give them the opportunity to present their case. We invite owners to also be part of the process. At the end of that, if we feel that, yes, nothing has changed and there is a defect, then we have the power to take action.

Senator Unger: Thank you, minister.

Senator Mercer: Thank you, minister, for being here. As luck would have it, when I opened my mail on Thursday, there was a recall notice from Chrysler Corporation for my Jeep Compass in relation to a problem with my airbag, so I'm quite interested in how we proceed.

This is a question I had long before I got the recall notice for my car: the question of liability. You are now taking on a responsibility; where there was moral authority before, there's now going to be legal authority for you to be involved in recalls. Are you then accepting the fact that you may also be accepting some liability? For example, say there were a case of an automobile that had a defect and there was some debate going on in the public domain about whether there was a defect — for example, you have the discussion going on with Ford about the F-150 currently. In the interim, something happens. Someone's son or daughter gets killed because of what some people may perceive as that defect. By now having the legal authority as opposed to the moral authority you have had up until now, are you also accepting some liability on behalf of Canadians?

Mr. Garneau: Well, that's a question I don't have the answer to. I'm not a lawyer at this particular point, but I will say that from our perspective, it is important for us to act on behalf of the Canadian public with respect to safety. What is being done here is a series of amendments that actually allow us more latitude in terms of addressing the safety of Canadians.

Mr. Roussel: The bill that you have in front of you is making information available. Of course, there can be a lot of noise out there, but by making the information available, a company designated by the minister can give notice to the minister with respect to a vehicle or equipment. So we have in the act now additional elements regarding the obligations to make the information available. We can go and get it, request that correction date be set and then provide the appropriate notice to the minister. So, of course, this is additional responsibility, but there is a framework for how the information is conveyed officially to the ministers in the new bill, and how we can go further in our power to require the information from the ministers and to be able to request additional information or tests. Kim, do you want to add anything?

Kim Benjamin, Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Transport Canada: We currently have the power to require manufacturers to provide that information through the notice of defect. That's currently within the legislation. What we're adding today through this proposal is to require the manufacturers to actually make the remedies, which is a power we didn't previously have.

Whatever liability is there is already there within our legislation, and I don't want to speak on behalf of the lawyers, but the changes we're making today are more to make the company pay for those repairs and make sure those repairs are enacted, which I think improves safety for Canadians and reduces liability all the way around. I say that not being a lawyer, though.

Senator Mercer: I learned a long time ago never try to speak on behalf of lawyers, because they have a hard time speaking on behalf of themselves.

Minister, you mentioned non-compliance in your presentation a couple times. Who judges that non-compliance? Who says that company X or company Y is in non-compliance or that the corrective action is not in compliance with the intention of the act?

Mr. Garneau: That would be Transport Canada. That's part of our responsibility.

Senator Mercer: That's you, minister?

Mr. Garneau: Well, ultimately, it is. We have inspectors, and if we feel that a particular part of a vehicle is not compliant with the regulations with respect to safety, then we have the option of saying that this vehicle is not compliant. That is in the same way that if we identify a defect with a vehicle before the manufacturer, we also have the power to say that there is a defect.

Senator Mercer: And will the practice continue to be, as it has been, that you would make that non-compliance disagreement public so that the public is aware that you have found company X in non-compliance? As we know, that has a dramatic effect on car sales.

Mr. Garneau: Yes, it is our obligation to make it public, and we do make it public, yes.

Senator Black: Minister, thank you very much for being here. I would like to explore, please, the thinking of you and your department around automated vehicles. You referred, toward the end of your comments, to some flexibility to protect innovation and balance that with safety. Can you please elaborate on that?

Mr. Garneau: Safety must always be the primary consideration, but as you know, there is a considerable amount of work being done by different manufacturers with respect to the development of automated and connected vehicles. In some cases, that's happening so quickly that we are — if I can put it this way — having to run very quickly to make sure that we keep up with all of the considerations related to safety and all of the regulations.

The process for us to change regulations can sometimes be time consuming. These interim orders and exemption provisions allow us more flexibility in making changes, sometimes on a temporary basis until we make them permanent. When we see that, for example, other countries have made a change to their regulations related to automated vehicles, instead of us having to go through the normal process of changing everything, we can do it more quickly. It allows us to be more agile, given the fact that we really are dealing with new technology that is going to be upon us more quickly than many people believe, and automated vehicles are going to begin to come on to the roads. We obviously want to make sure that safety is primary but we want to also make the changes quickly, so this gives us more flexibility to do so.

Senator Black: Thank you, minister. I think that's tremendous thinking, because it supports innovation.

Mr. Garneau: Indeed. I think that's part of the drive behind it. Sometimes we can impede innovation with a long, bureaucratic process.

Senator Black: Thank you, minister.

Senator Eggleton: Thank you, minister, for being here and presenting Bill S-2 to us. One of the supporters, I believe, of the bill is the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. They represent the retail industry and auto dealerships. They point out that there is a difference between this legislation and the U.S. legislation inasmuch as there is some protection for auto dealerships if a car is sitting on a lot and an order has been issued if it requires some repair, because over a period of time it could lose value. I suppose an example of that might be if it's near the end of a model year and it sits around waiting for all the aspects of the repair to be worked out and then the repair to be carried out. Apparently, in the American legislation the manufacturers have to compensate the dealerships in that case, but that's not in here. Can you explain that?

Mr. Garneau: Thank you, senator, for your question. You're quite right that one of the things that is addressed in the amendments that we're proposing is that if a defect exists, it's identified as a defect in a particular model and there are a number of these cars sitting in the lot at the dealership, we believe, for safety reasons, that those vehicles should not be sold until the defect is fixed.

If the manufacturer and the dealer are going to come to some agreement, that's up to them, but from our point of view, what is paramount is that that vehicle — and this is a measure we looked at very carefully — should not be sold to a Canadian with the knowledge that it has a defect. In other words, I do not want to buy a car where the salesperson tells me, "Oh, by the way, there is a recall on a particular defect on this car." That defect should be repaired before it's allowed to be sold, and that's the position we feel is important from a safety point of view.

Senator Eggleton: Well, you're absolutely right. Safety does come first, and it should be repaired. These defects are a result of the manufacturing process, not a result of the selling process by the auto dealership, so there is a question of fairness here. The American legislation, which you say you're following, does cover that and does allow for the manufacturer to reimburse the automobile dealership. Why wouldn't we do the same thing? You've said that you're trying to mirror what is done in the United States.

Mr. Garneau: Well, not everything. There are some things we do a bit differently. We feel that that's something to be dealt with between the manufacturer and the dealer.

Senator Eggleton: I see. Okay. Let me ask you about something else. Transport Canada, I understand, is saying that compliance with the act going the criminal prosecution route is time consuming and costly. Have there been many prosecutions? Can you give us the number of prosecutions that have been undertaken and how they have been resolved? Have there been lengthy court cases? I can't recall hearing too much about this, but perhaps you could tell us a little bit more why that is a bad route to take. What's the evidence?

Mr. Garneau: I will defer to my colleagues if they are aware of any examples of prosecutions. However, having said that, the point remains that it is a big process, and we feel that the introduction of administrative monetary penalties and consent agreements are ways of avoiding going all the way to criminal prosecution, and that may give us a better possibility of getting action done quickly and, in the case of consent agreements, getting the cooperation of the manufacturer in coming to an arrangement. However, I don't know whether historically there have been a lot of criminal prosecutions.

Ms. Benjamin: I believe there have been only one or two occasions within the history of the legislation where we've tried the criminal route. The true value of the AMP, for us, is more to address the type of infractions before they get to that level. You have the type of infraction where a company may fail to notify the public of the defect in a timely manner. Those are the types of infractions where right now we can politely ask or we can ask sternly, but we really don't have much choice in terms of other tools. Having the administrative monetary penalty allows us to elicit compliance for those lower- to medium-term items before they become bigger issues. In terms of criminal prosecutions themselves, we've rarely gone down that road.

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Garneau, I want to welcome you and your colleagues. We're happy to see you again.

My colleagues spoke a lot about the comparisons between the United States and Canada. You're no doubt familiar with television shows such as "J.E." on TVA and "Enquête" on Radio-Canada. We've seen dozens of cases of citizens who are saddled with lemons and who must defend themselves in court alone and at great expense. We all know about the lengthy delays in Quebec's criminal justice system.

In the United States, when a citizen is saddled with a vehicle that has been repaired three or four times and the problem can't be solved, a law requires the manufacturer or the dealer to replace the vehicle. This won't be the case for us with Bill S-2. As a result, citizens will still need to defend themselves and the government won't be able to help them with the process.

Shouldn't the bill be amended to help manage these difficult cases for citizens, who must fight in court to have their vehicle repaired as a result of a manufacturing or repair defect? Again, the United States defends its citizens better than Canada. What do you think?

Mr. Garneau: I sympathize with people who have purchased lemons. We all know someone who has had that experience. The amendments we're studying today are related to safety. It's the Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act. We certainly must take measures in that area. In some situations, the car is unreliable and is always broken down. However, those situations don't involve safety. The problem may be the design of the vehicle, but those cases aren't covered by the bill. We're focusing solely on the safety aspect here.

Senator Boisvenu: I want to remind you of the case of a lady in Montreal whose issue was related to safety because it involved braking. I don't think anything is safer. She had to prove in court that the issue was a manufacturing error and that it was beyond repair.

I understand the bill will above all take into account the more collective aspect of an issue rather than one particular aspect. However, I've rarely seen car companies issue recalls in Canada. Recalls always originate in the United States and are issued in Canada afterward. Will the bill correct this aspect? Like the secretary in the United States, will you have the power to recall vehicles?

Mr. Garneau: That's one of the proposals. However, we need to review one of the examples you provided regarding braking. If the issue is a design flaw in the brake system, the measures in place enable us to force the company to recall the vehicles and repair them. On the other hand, if a person goes to the garage and the vehicle is well designed, but the mechanic does a poor job of repairing or replacing the brakes, the issue is not a design flaw. Instead, the issue is a bad repair, which is not covered by the bill. The bill covers design issues.

Senator Boisvenu: What process should be followed by a citizen who wants to file a complaint or who wants you to intervene as minister? Will the process be long or short? Can you provide a basic explanation of the administrative or legal process?

Mr. Garneau: Often, the owner reports the issue to the manufacturer. From now on, we'll be requiring manufacturers to keep us informed. I'll give the floor to Mr. Roussel.

Mr. Roussel: To answer the first part of your question, section 8.1 of the bill gives the minister power to order tests and conduct analyses or studies.

Senator Boisvenu: After a citizen files a complaint?

Mr. Roussel: It may be a complaint filed by a citizen or information that we obtain in various ways, through our own tests or through our inspectors who detect a problem. We've applied pressure in certain recall cases in which the Americans had a different view. In some cases, we've acted as leaders. For the portion of complaints processed by the department, we have a very elaborate system. Ms. Benjamin will shed more light on it.

[English]

Ms. Benjamin: We've tried to make the process as simple as possible. In fact, in every car manual there is a 1-800 number for Transport Canada. People are able to submit their complaints to us. They can call us, they can come to our office, or they can do it over the Internet. We take all the information they have, compare it to other complaints, and open files and conduct investigations.

The determination of a defect could come from a complaint that we receive from the public, it could come from something we've done through our testing, or it can come through conversations that we have with the manufacturers. But, yes, we get many, many complaints from the public, and we look into those and open files for them.

Senator Runciman: Welcome, minister. I have a couple of questions.

Ms. Benjamin mentioned that criminal proceedings have rarely been taken against manufacturers and you haven't gone down that road. When is the last time the government actually took action and undertook criminal proceedings against an auto manufacturer?

Ms. Benjamin: I would have to confirm that. It has been a while. Normally we are able to work with the manufacturer to have the defect or the non-compliance addressed.

Senator Runciman: That was my understanding. I appreciate what you are saying here with respect to the legislation, but then I look at a situation with General Motors and the faulty ignitions, where the company knew for I think 10 years. The reported figure was 57 cents to fix the faulty ignition switch. They are now compensating 124 deaths. I wonder about victims in that sense and why governments apparently seem to be reluctant to take action when negligence of a company in such a significant way has caused such pain and suffering and loss of life.

Is there a reaction to going down the road of financial settlement with the government or some other initiative rather than actually taking action through the courts to deal effectively and send a very clear message to manufacturers that if this sort of thing happens again, it's simply not going to be a financial slap on the wrist; you're going to be facing perhaps jail time?

Mr. Garneau: First of all, let us get back to you on when there was a prosecution in Canada. I think you'd like to know that.

It remains an option, there's no question about it, but these other mechanisms of the administrative monetary penalty or the consent agreement are also new tools that we're introducing here to give us a little bit more flexibility when we feel that there's a better approach than going all the way to a criminal prosecution.

Certainly the case of the GM ignition switch is an exceptional case, but your point is well made.

Senator Runciman: Hopefully our government will, going forward, take the aspect of impact on victims and their families into consideration when they're making these decisions.

You don't have legal counsel here, minister, I guess? You've indicated that. Looking at what you're talking about here in terms of the technology exemptions and how you are addressing that in the legislation through interim orders and exemption provisions to allow flexibility, I'm wondering, rather than using the regulatory process, what are the legal implications to that? Do you have any idea? It seems to me that there might be some concern from the committee's perspective and from a parliamentary perspective, and it could be looked at as perhaps an end run around the regulatory process and what the implications are. I know Senator Mercer raised the issue of liability.

In terms of not using the regulatory process and using these interim orders, because we don't have to go through that bureaucratic headache, I'm wondering whether there are any legal implications there for the government something we should be considering as a committee.

Mr. Garneau: Safety will remain paramount in any decisions we make. But we also, as I've tried to point out, want to acknowledge the fact that there are some technology changes that are rapidly coming upon us. We won't be cutting any corners, senator, with respect to safety. The use of interim orders or exemptions will be on a temporary basis. It will be to acknowledge the fact that innovation is upon us as well, but not at the price of safety.

Senator Runciman: Is the use of interim orders widespread throughout government to, as you say, temporarily avoid the regulatory process?

Mr. Garneau: I'll pass that over to my colleague.

Mr. Roussel: Yes, under the portfolio we have a suite of different types of exemptions. They don't all have the same name. For example, under the Canada Shipping Act you have the Marine Technical Review Board. They all have the same safeguards, which you have in the exemptions from the standards inside the bill in front of you, at 9.1(a), new safety features that are equivalent or superior to those that conform to prescribed standards.

So this safeguard is present when we're giving equivalencies for exemptions, to make the analysis for the equivalencies. And if we're not able to make this obvious, then we have to have mitigating measures in the operation of a ship, plane, train, or in this particular case a motor vehicle and the interactions with it.

Inside the exemptions from the standards at this moment, it's for a three-year period, which gives us some leeway. The goal is to introduce those exemptions after they have been tested inside the regulatory regime. So it's a similar regime to what we have in other legislation under the portfolio.

Senator Runciman: I appreciate that, but it probably wouldn't have the same widespread public safety implications. You talked about being comparable to —

Mr. Garneau: I'm sorry, senator, it would have the same safety implications. I think that was made very clear.

Senator Runciman: "Widespread" was the word I used in terms of the auto sector versus the shipping sector, that sort of thing. That's the only point I was making.

You talked about similar legislation policy in the United States. In the technology exemption, are the language and tools being used comparable in the United States, that you're aware of? Are you aware of that?

Ms. Benjamin: In terms of the exemption power, actually the U.S. does have an exemption power that is not dissimilar. Through their new path of trying to deal with automated and connected vehicles, they are trying to determine how they can use this exemption power more frequently and on a more agile basis. They are in the process of changing to try and make it a little more usable on their side as well.

Just briefly going back to the exemption power and the interim orders, these are powers that we currently have within the legislation. The intent with this legislation is to modify them. We currently do have the interim order. The issue is that it's only for one year, not three. Because these are very technical regulations, to get the new regulation created in one year is difficult. Most recently in memory, it's been used for child seats, to copy regulations that are used on the U.S. side.

Senator Runciman: The only comment I have, looking at the wording, it would not substantially diminish the overall safety of the model, and I would suggest that's pretty subjective language, Mr. Chairman. That's the only concern I want to put on the record. I know we're getting assurance that safety will not be compromised, and we shall accept those assurances.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Runciman. Before going to the second round, I just want to point out that legal counsel is here and will be joining the panel for the second panel after the minister leaves, so you will have an opportunity to address some of these legal questions.

Senator Doyle: You mentioned in your notes, minister, that the companies have a good record of being accountable for the products they sell and that the proposed new powers are for extraordinary situations where it's necessary for the government to intervene. Could you talk a little bit more about that? What specifically would be the extraordinary situations where government finds it necessary to intervene? Would it be based on deaths, accidents and what have you?

Mr. Garneau: Ms. Benjamin gave examples of where we've received complaints from the public that there's a problem and they think there's a defect with their vehicle, those kinds of situations, or when we do inspections and we come to the conclusion that there may be a defect, we have the obligation and the capability to speak to the manufacturer and to say that we are concerned there is a defect here and to follow that process.

Most of the time, the manufacturers identify the defects themselves through their own channels and they take action. But there have been cases — and I gave the example that's current at the moment of the Ford F-150 pickup where there have been complaints that there's an extra-long braking distance required, more than what the car should normally be able to do — where there is a disagreement. We're at loggerheads between the Government of Canada, Transport Canada, which is monitoring safety, and the manufacturer. It's in those instances where we feel that action is required, in the interests of safety for Canadians, that these extra powers will kick in.

Senator Doyle: You said you had a couple of criminal prosecutions undertaken. Is that over the last couple of years? How many would you have for the last decade, for instance?

Ms. Benjamin: None in the last decade, to my memory.

Senator Doyle: Okay, you've had a couple. How long does it take for these? I guess it depends.

Ms. Benjamin: I don't have the details on those. We would have to come back with that.

Mr. Garneau: We'll have to get back to you on that.

Senator Doyle: In what percentage of cases do companies cooperate immediately? Do they cooperate immediately when the word goes out from government that they have to have a recall? Is it your experience that it's generally a very fast kind of process that takes place here?

Ms. Benjamin: Yes, generally speaking. We work fairly closely in terms of sharing information, and generally speaking the manufacturers do comply. There have only been a few cases that we've had to bring forward. As soon as we believe there is a disagreement, we do bring it forward. We've only had, I believe, two or three cases of that in the last few years.

Senator Unger: Minister, what changes have been made to Bill S-2 from its former iteration, Bill C-62, and what was the reason for those changes?

Mr. Garneau: Thank you, senator. Most of it is taken up from Bill C-62, but we have introduced the power to negotiate consent agreements — that's one of those intermediate steps instead of going to criminal prosecution — the power to enter into administrative agreements; the duration and scope of the interim order power from one year to three years; and broaden the scope of exemption orders and allow ministerial approval. Those last two are related to safety but not to the recall issue; it's to the changing technology side of things.

We have made small modifications to what was in the previous bill related to administrative monetary penalty, to that regime for violations of the act, with recourse mechanisms. There is a recourse mechanism to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. We've made some small changes there. I will turn to my colleagues to provide those.

Also, one last change is requiring certain importers and sellers to keep records and provide information to Transport Canada. We want to have access to more information, and we are forcing the manufacturers to keep more records with respect to complaints and safety-related issues.

On the modifications, I'm not familiar with the details.

Ms. Benjamin: With respect to the administrative monetary penalty program, when we brought this forward the previous time, there was no cap to the level of fines that could be charged. What we've done this time is added a regulation-making power that would give us the ability to create a cap for each type of violation, because it could be a very different cap that you would want, depending on the type of violation. In the U.S. the cap, I believe, is $105 million. It's a very high level of cap, which is why we didn't include it the first time. But based on feedback that we received afterwards, we felt it was appropriate to add a cap that met the need of each type of violation.

With respect to the information-gathering powers, previously we had defined specific types of information we would want gathered. We defined that within the legislation. The U.S. has been gathering a lot of information over the past several years, and they have come under a bit of criticism in the sense that they're not necessarily getting the right information and assessing it properly. They are working with industry right now to determine what information would actually enhance safety and what you need to know in order to know there is a defect.

What we've done with the legislation this time is put forward the proposal that we would have the ability to then create in regulation the specific types of data that would need to be gathered so that we could align it fairly closely with what is coming out of the U.S. study, so that we can work with industry to get the best data, not just data in general. Those are the key detailed changes.

Senator Unger: Is industry generally onside with these proposed changes?

Ms. Benjamin: They are fine with gathering the data as long as it could be similar to what's being gathered in the U.S. Because of the IT systems involved in gathering the public complaints and the field reports, that type of information, as long as it's aligned with the U.S. and they don't have to create unique data systems for Canada, they are supportive of that.

Senator Unger: One last quick question: Why is the legislation being introduced in the Senate rather than in the House of Commons?

Mr. Garneau: Because we know things proceed at a very efficient pace through the Senate.

Senator Unger: Thank you for your answer, minister.

Senator Mercer: Flattery will get you everywhere, minister. We appreciate your kind comments.

I indicated earlier that I happened to receive a recall notice last Thursday for my vehicle. I took some time to read the recall. The manufacturer told me there was a defect and that it had something to do with my airbag, which is a safety issue, of course. They went on to tell me that, while it's defective and it needs to be fixed, they are not in a position to do that now.

Would they be compliant in doing that under this new legislation? If they are, is there a limitation put on the manufacturer so that once a recall is initiated, there's a timeline in which the repairs must be made available to the consumer? If the consumer doesn't bother bringing the vehicle into the dealer, then that's the consumer's problem, but in the case I explained of my own vehicle, I couldn't take it in tomorrow because they are not prepared to do the work.

Mr. Garneau: Yes. Part of the changes in this legislation will also require the defect to be addressed within a certain period of time.

Senator Mercer: How do you determine that period of time?

Mr. Garneau: I'll pass that on.

Ms. Benjamin: In terms of the issue of how long it takes to conduct a repair, one of the changes we made to the legislation the last time was to force manufacturers to come out more quickly to tell you that there is a problem with your vehicle. They would sometimes wait until they knew when the repair would be ready before sending that letter out. When we brought forward the changes to the legislation the previous time, we split those two so that people would have information so they could then decide whether to drive their vehicle or not, but they would have the information to know if there is an issue.

Then we went back and said, well, what can we do now about the fact that the remedy isn't necessarily ready? You can't put a time frame to say this is when your remedy will be there because you may not have the technical solution. You may end up with a vehicle where the manufacturer might have to buy it back rather than remedy it.

What we've done in the legislation is put different ways of having a remedy. A remedy could be a repair, or a remedy could be that they eventually have to buy back a vehicle that can't be repaired.

Senator Mercer: At what price? If they have to buy it back, who establishes the price?

Ms. Benjamin: It's written in here. I'd have to look it up, but it's based on market value.

Senator Mercer: The market value has gone to hell if it's got a defect in it.

Mr. Garneau: If it's five or six years old, yes, the market value may be quite different.

Ms. Benjamin: But what we also put in here was we can't tell the manufacturer that you must have it repaired by such and such a date, because that technical solution may not be there. What we have put in is that they would have to let you know the date within that mailer that they send out. If they don't know the date the first time, they have to mail it back out again to let you know the date.

What we've put in there is a power for the minister to then go back and to have the company prove that they can't do this any faster so that we can go back and look to see, "Well, you're actually working as fast as you can and you're not holding off on that remedy because you don't want to pay for it or implement it."

To do the most technically feasible and fastest repair they can, it will be different on a case-by-case basis, so it's not, "You must do it within six months or two years or two weeks." They have to do it as fast as they possibly can, and if we think it's taking too long, we will come and look at their records, and if we think that they are not proceeding quickly enough, then we will be fining them through the AMP process to make sure that they are not holding back on conducting repairs.

It's difficult because a technical solution may not exist yet when they let you know that there's a problem. They're trying to get the information out to make you aware and then come back with a solution as soon as they have one.

The Deputy Chair: Or hour with the minister is up. I want to thank Minister Garneau again for being with us this morning. It's always good to see you, sir.

Mr. Garneau: Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, at this time, for further discussions with officials from Transport Canada, Ms. Marie-France Taschereau, Legal Counsel for the department, and Alain Langlois, General Counsel, are joining their colleagues. Thank you for coming. Senators, the floor is open for questions.

Senator Mercer: Welcome to the new panel members. I understand we have two lawyers, which guarantees we will have two different opinions, even if they are not expressed at this meeting.

You were both present in the audience as we questioned the minister, and a couple of questions did come up on the legal side about when the last time legal criminal action was taken. Perhaps you heard those questions and you could bring us up to date as to what you can add to this debate. Mr. Langlois?

Alain Langlois, General Counsel and Deputy Executive Director, Transport Canada: On the question of criminal prosecution, I'll plead not knowing the answer. I've been at Transport Canada for 10 years. I'm not aware of any criminal action that has ever been brought against manufacturers under the act. If there has been any, they are dated, and we can go back and check the answer for you and come back.

Senator Mercer: More than 10 years ago?

Mr. Langlois: Yes.

Senator Mercer: That's safe to say. Ms. Taschereau? No? Okay.

Mr. Langlois: Another question that arose during the first hour was that of liability for the use of order powers. The effect of the minister having authority to order companies to recall vehicles doesn't transfer liability from the manufacturers to the minister. From a regulatory standpoint, every time the minister steps in and uses any authority that he has under the law to take measures to protect the safety of the Canadian public, whether it's for the purposes of a vehicle, railway or aeronautics, the effect of the order is never to transfer liability from whoever is responsible for the plane, the car or the ship to the minister.

Senator Mercer: However, I'm in a group of consumers who have had problems with vehicle X. We have made our complaints and concerns known to the department and the minister and the manufacturer. The manufacturer has disagreed and the minister has not seen fit to issue an order, but eventually the consumer is right. There's a default that's caused irreparable harm, and in some cases, perhaps, death. You two are both lawyers. You know what their lawyer would be recommending to them.

I am not against these people suing the Crown, but I am concerned that the Crown ends up taking the responsibility that the manufacturers should have. If it's found that the delay in issuing an order comes from the department — the minister is the spokesperson for the department on this issue — are we, by passing this legislation, exposing the Crown to suits in the future?

Mr. Langlois: You're right about the scenario you described. The Crown is always open for a lawsuit. Every time the Crown acts in any shape or form, somebody could sue the Crown for whatever reason, founded or not. Whether they would be successful is another issue. Anybody can sue the Crown. As soon as the Crown intervenes or acts in the matter, the Crown could be potentially open for a lawsuit. But the mere fact that we're giving the minister power to act does not in and of itself transfer liability from the manufacturers to the Crown.

Senator Mercer: The minister made some hay in talking about the ability to fine people with the AMPs. How do you take that and impose a fine? The example I think Senator Runciman brought up was the General Motors vehicle. An ignition repair that cost less than a dollar went on for years. Suddenly they're now going to fix it all, which is a good thing, but they went on for years knowing very well that there was a default and didn't fix it. Is there a process in this new legislation that allows for a fine for failure to act on a problem that you, as a manufacturer, become aware of?

Mr. Langlois: From a regulatory standpoint, and it's true in this case, there's always two approaches. There's an approach where the department will try to bring the industry back into compliance. That's one arm of the regulatory action the department normally takes in a safety/security context.

The second arm is, despite whether they were brought back to compliance — hopefully they have been brought to compliance — then the second arm will look at what happened, the cause and the route of the non-compliance. Then despite the fact that they have been brought to compliance, should action be taken against the non-compliance, whether through an AMP, a prosecution or some other means, such as consent agreements introduced through this legislation?

I'll invite Kim to disagree with me if she wants to, but in my mind, there are always two actions.

Senator Mercer: Like I say, there's more than one lawyer giving two different opinions.

Mr. Langlois: To me, it's a separate question. The question of bringing the industry back to compliance is a compliance issue, whereas AMPs and criminal prosecution are more what you do as a consequence of the non-compliance.

Senator Mercer: I'm not sure the Canadian consumer and the voters are going to be entirely happy with the answer that you can't change this.

Ms. Benjamin?

Mr. Roussel: I can answer that. I will try to keep it as simple as possible. We have the lawyers with us. It's a challenge.

You have in the bill the power to require information by the minister. We're jumping to the end and the result of, for example, the GM switch. That took a decade to get through. We need to know if they had the information. So if we have information that this is in the making, this bill gives us additional powers to get that information, if it's hiding in a lab somewhere.

Senator Mercer: And impose a fine?

Mr. Roussel: First, you have to gather the information.

Senator Mercer: Let's assume a company — we won't mention any company — is found guilty of having had information for years on a defective piece of equipment and didn't act. Could this legislation provide a mechanism to fine?

Mr. Roussel: After you have gathered the information and have made the review regarding the non-compliance, and then the full — you have two routes now. You have the route of the AMPs, depending on the gravity of what we're talking about, or the prosecution mechanism.

Senator Mercer: The ultimate question Canadians will want to hear the answer to is when it lands on the minister's desk — not Minister Garneau in particular because I'm not picking on him, but I'm using the generic minister — and the decision is now: Do we or do we not prosecute? Is there a point where it is not an option for the minister to comply with that the information put on his or her desk?

I envisage a future minister, perhaps coming from the constituency of Oshawa or Oakville, where the larger car plants are in this country, and they find themselves in a situation where they're going to order something that will have a direct personal effect on their political future because it may affect plant X or Y in their constituency. There has to be a failsafe here for the protection of Canadian consumers that, if it comes to my desk and I'm the minister but I'm also the member for Oakville or Oshawa, I can't say, "I'm not going to act because it will directly affect my political future at home."

Mr. Langlois: Prosecution is always an option. Until somebody decides we're not prosecuting, prosecution is always an option.

Senator Mercer: But who decides we're not going to prosecute? Is it the minister?

Mr. Langlois: Ultimately, the department looks at the nature of the non-compliance and determines whether the nature is so severe that it warrants doing an investigation. The evidentiary threshold for a prosecution is much higher than for an AMP, for example. You have to actually launch an investigation to gather the evidence the proper way to be able to support the prosecution.

Once the documents and the evidence are collected to support the prosecution, a prosecution brief is prepared. Then somebody makes a decision whether we are going to refer this to PPSC, which is the Attorney General who prosecutes. In the end, the decision to prosecute lies with the Attorney General, never with the responsible minister, such as transport in this case. Transport can decide that it wants to prosecute, but then the brief is provided to the Attorney General who will make a decision based on the evidence whether there is a high enough chance of success to initiate the prosecution.

Senator Doyle: I was going to ask you about the range of policy and statutory measures to promote compliance. Are all of the compliance strategies outlined in the bill itself? I notice on page 40 that you have some powers with regard to inspectors and what-have-you. Are all of the compliance strategies in the bill, or are they strategies that you can come up with or trot out, we'll say, when you need to do it? Am I making myself clear here?

I don't see what your compliance strategies are in the bill. There are only a few here. Are there strategies that we are not aware of that you could employ in difficult cases, we'll say?

Mr. Roussel: I think we have to move ourselves outside the bill. We have to look at ourselves as a program. Within our program — and we have numerous, of course — but within the motor vehicle safety programs, we have a series of awareness campaigns. We can take the obvious example of the child seat. We're testing significant amounts of new child seats in the market on a regular basis. We are making promotions on child seats, so this is a series of compliance elements. This is the most obvious one that people can think of, but there are other ones that are a little more complex.

When we get into the famous use of winter tires and then some joint ventures with the other jurisdictions, like the provinces — it's a lot broader than the act itself — the mechanism of compliance and enforcement is inside the act, and some mechanisms of recourse and remedy.

Overall, within the program, we always have the regulations, compliance and enforcements. Regulations are the main things that we modify on a regular basis, and then there are the compliance and enforcement mechanism, and the awareness programs. Most of our programs are built the same way.

To your questions, it's the whole that we need to look at when the public is looking at us from the departmental perspective.

Senator Doyle: So when you finally have the bill passed, have you done any surveys to determine if there will be a big increase on the number of vehicles recalled in the country?

Ms. Benjamin: We haven't done a survey, but I can tell you that over the past three or four years the number of recalls has gone up about 40 per cent. The public has become very aware of the vehicle recall process, and manufacturers have become much more astute about making sure that they get their notices out very quickly. It's been an exponential rise already. What the changes will allow us to do is to make sure that those repairs are all getting remedied. It's not to increase the number of recalls; it's more to make sure that they are properly addressed once they are made public.

Senator Doyle: You obviously anticipate a lot of safety benefits coming from this bill. Is there anything in particular that hits you that suggests this will increase safety in certain areas where we didn't have it before?

Ms. Benjamin: For me, the ability to conduct a consent order is one of the key changes that we have in the legislation. This is a tool that has been used in the U.S. quite successfully over the last few years. Whenever you've heard of a large fine in the U.S. where a company has been forced to do something, usually it's more than a fine. Usually, in addition to the fine, there have been changes that have had to take place within the company itself, creating new safety regimes or awareness campaigns.

What the consent order will allow us to do is, if we see an instance where we feel a company has not found the defect or is non-compliant, we can, in addition to a fine, negotiate other activities within the company that we think would increase safety. We think that's a very valuable tool that is new to this version of the bill and that we think is quite beneficial.

Senator Doyle: Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: Welcome and thank you for being here to explain this bill to us. I have a few questions for Mr. Roussel and his colleagues.

In the bill, references are often made to the fact that the section is already applicable in the United States. For vehicle recalls, to what extent was the American situation used to draft Bill S-2?

Mr. Roussel: That's an excellent question. The challenge of the Canadian regime versus the American regime is the following. It's difficult to review the bill from a safety perspective without taking into account consumer protection issues. You raised this point with the minister.

For our part, as the minister said, the regimes are not entirely similar, equivalent or equal. Some nuances exist, since we're not starting from the same point.

We wanted to find similarities between the regimes in order to move as close as possible to something standard, relatively speaking, in North America. We made sure that the recourse mechanisms were almost the same as the ones in the United States and that we didn't fall behind. There is often competition between the countries. Ms. Benjamin already mentioned that we sometimes see this phenomenon when it comes to fines, for example, in reference to the $105 million USD. We're trying to be as close as possible.

There's a wide gap between us, which justified our efforts when we drafted two bills, namely, the current Bill S-2 and the previous Bill C-64.

Senator Boisvenu: You mean Bill C-62.

Mr. Roussel: Sorry, I mean Bill C-62. Bill C-64 is a bill I worked on a number of years ago.

We improved Bill S-2 in relation to Bill C-62 to take into account technological factors. We made further adjustments after receiving comments.

Lastly, we want a tool that's constantly evolving and that will enable us to go back to the programs, regulations, prevention regimes, and interactions between the public and the manufacturing sector.

Senator Boisvenu: Do the two bills differ solely from a technological standpoint, or were other more basic elements of the previous Bill C-62 not included in Bill S-2?

Mr. Roussel: The minister went through the list. We also talked about negotiating power. The previous bill presented challenges regarding the openness of the process. We added that the data must be published. It's one of the improvements.

The recourse at the technological level is an additional element, along with the one- to three-year period. One year is not enough to create regulations. The goal is to analyze technology exemptions and ensure that we have an equivalent when it comes to safety. Then, if everything works, it must be implemented in the regulatory regime with the Governor in Council's approval, to improve openness. Certain adjustments also need to be made to the recourse mechanisms provided by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada, or the TATC.

Senator Boisvenu: Was this bill the subject of consultations with Canadian and American automakers?

Mr. Roussel: We worked with the Canadian manufacturers' association, with what we call the "North American domestics" and with the global automakers, which are major importers, but also manufacturers in North America. We talked with them a great deal. Obviously, we couldn't reveal the content of the bill. However, they were able to consult the previous bill. We're looking at the comments they provided.

Now Parliament must make a decision. I'm sure the parliamentarians, like us, will be happy to come provide their view on whether to add such and such a clause. We must make sure to obtain the necessary information and the tests in order to take measures to strengthen the act and finish the discussion, even if it means accepting disagreements and giving ourselves more power to address problems as quickly as possible. The process often takes an extremely long time.

Senator Boisvenu: By giving more power to the minister, you'll be able to speed up the process.

Mr. Roussel: That's our goal.

Senator Boisvenu: You won't have to go to the Privy Council.

Mr. Roussel: Our goal is to speed up the interaction and analyses of tests by making the necessary administrative decisions, to increase the level of compliance with a notice or an administrative monetary penalty, and, ultimately, to consider the possibility of prosecution.

[English]

Senator Runciman: I want to pursue the question of criminal prosecution a little bit, just out of curiosity. I notice that the AMPs and consent agreements really have been brought into effect because you didn't have the tools other than criminal prosecution, but it wasn't much of a tool since it wasn't used, apparently. If it was, no one seems to recall it being used.

In going back to this General Motors example that I used of 124 deaths where the officials within the company knew for 10 years, according to reports, that this ignition switch was faulty, I'm drawing on my memory that at least two of those deaths were Canadian deaths. Mr. Langlois has indicated he's been in the ministry for 10 years now, on the legal side, I'm assuming, but I don't know if you were participating in the discussion about this.

When deaths occur, what is the process? What has been the process? You talked about the Attorney General and the investigation. Who would conduct that investigation? In instances like that when deaths occur, would the police be called in to determine whether a criminal proceeding was appropriate? If not, what happened in this case I guess is certainly a curious one for me.

Mr. Langlois: First of all, I was not involved in any way in the General Motors file. I have no knowledge of that file.

Prosecution for regulatory non-compliance and prosecution under Criminal Code are two very different things. In a case where prosecution is undertaken under a regulatory legislation like the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the investigation will be conducted by the department responsible for the legislation. In this case, it would be Transport conducting the investigation. There are inspectors appointed under the act to monitor compliance, and if the monitoring of the compliance leads an inspector to believe that there was a violation of the act that could become criminal in nature, then they turn into investigation mode. They obviously have to gather the evidence in a criminal manner in compliance with the charter and all of these protections that apply to criminal proceedings. The department official would conduct the investigation, build a file and then the file would be transferred to the Attorney General for the Attorney General to look at.

Senator Runciman: So the police would never be involved in the investigation?

Mr. Langlois: Not in a regulatory investigation.

Senator Runciman: I'm talking about in this situation where deaths occur.

Mr. Langlois: I'm not aware of the situation, but the police may have been called to the scene of the accident.

Senator Runciman: That's not what I'm talking about.

What would happen in those situations? If significant death has occurred, and we have an instance here where it did occur, what's the process when a situation like that arises? I would appreciate it if you could get back to us on that.

I did raise the issue of using alternatives to regulation with respect to the technology initiatives. In terms of the law, what's the difference? I know you've talked about the bureaucratic headaches of dealing with regulations, but in terms of the law, what's the difference with respect to a regulation versus an interim order?

Mr. Langlois: In terms of legal effect?

Senator Runciman: Yes.

Mr. Langlois: There's none.

Senator Runciman: So why do we have regulations then? Why don't we just operate government through interim orders?

Mr. Langlois: They have different purposes. From a policy perspective, they have a very different approach and different purpose. From a legal perspective, they have the same effect. From a policy perspective, it provides flexibility for a department like Transport, but the effect of whether you have a regulation and you have an interim order from an enforcement standpoint, it has the same effect.

Mr. Roussel: That's a good question. You have to look at the world of complexity. If I take, for example, the civil aviation world where you have 900 different pieces of Governor-in-Council regulations, we don't want to have interim orders continuously coming forward. We would be flooded by the sectors. We won't be able to manage this.

In our regulatory-making power, there is discussion at high levels to develop standards, and then we agree on that standard either through a UN organization or a Canada-U.S. or a CSA or any of these other recognized standards development organizations. Then we adopt them through the regulations. So it gives the operator developing the field the certainty of what they need to comply with. This is far from a perfect system. It takes years, of course, to get the regulations in place, but this is the system we have.

Then there are offshoots of special technology, and it's applicable in all the modes. We need to find this mechanism of exceptions or equivalencies to be able to say, "Okay, we need to advance on that." Autonomous vehicles is one, and UAVs is another. It is the same in the marine sectors. So these mechanisms help us inside those different legislations to accommodate the operators and manufacturers to be able to move forward and improve the technology that they use and also sometimes improve the safety of what they are trying to do.

It's the best of both worlds respecting the Governor-in-Council powers of making regulations, but also giving the flexibilities to advance from a technological perspective. We cannot predict everything inside regulations. There is only so much we can do.

Senator Runciman: I'm no expert in this area. I know there is a tool, regulation. I can't think of what the appropriate word is. If you look at what we're talking about here, it would not substantially diminish the overall safety of the model. The Scrutiny of Regulations Committee would have a field day with that kind of language. I think it's troublesome. I can see the use of these kinds of tools in a range of areas, but when we're dealing with public safety, it's troublesome and it should be of some concern to the committee. We should explore this issue further, perhaps with counsel for Scrutiny of Regulations. Thank you.

Senator Unger: Would you recommend any amendments to this legislation?

Mr. Roussel: That's a very good question, but the answer is no, and I will use the words "at this moment."

Senator Unger: Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chair: I'd like to thank the officials in Transport Canada for their time here this morning. We very much appreciate it.

At the meeting tomorrow evening, we will continue our study on the transport of crude oil. This meeting is adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)