TRAN Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met at 3:40 p.m. this day, in Room 362, East Block, the Chair, Merv Tweed, presiding.

Joseph Volpe made a statement.

At 4:04 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:08 p.m., the sitting resumed.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

After debate, Clause 2 was negatived.

On Clause 3,

“design, construction or functioning of any vehicle or equipment of a class for which standards are prescribed that affects or is likely to affect the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, carried.

On Clause 4,

(a) replacing lines 9 to 15 on page 3 with the following:

“4. Subparagraph 5(1)(g)(ii) of the Act is”

(b) replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 3 with the following:

“ysis of safety-related defects; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, carried.

On Clause 5,

(a) replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 3 with the following:

“notice of the defect to be given in accordance with the regulations to”

(b) adding after line 26 on page 4 the following:

“(4.1) The company that causes the notice to be given shall take measures to correct the safety-related defect.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, carried.

On Clause 6,

(a) replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 5 with the following:

“any vehicle or equipment manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada contains a potential safety-related defect, the Minister shall, without delay, give written notice of that determination to the company that manufactured or imported the vehicle or equipment and publish a notice of that determination in the Canada”

(b) replacing lines 17 to 43 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) After the Minister makes the preliminary determination, any party with a legitimate interest may present to the Minister and the company information and arguments in relation to the issue of whether the vehicle or equipment contains a safety-related defect.

(3) After the company receives notice of the Minister’s preliminary determination, the company shall conduct, if necessary, research into, and testing, studies and evaluations of, the potential safety-related defect.

(4) The company shall report to the Minister its conclusions and the findings of any research, testing, studies and evaluations that it has conducted and shall publish those conclusions and a summary of those findings in the Canada Gazette.

(5) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the presentation of information and arguments under subsection (2) and the report to the Minister and the publication in the Canada Gazette under subsection (4).

(6) For greater certainty, if the company concludes that the vehicle or equipment contains a safety-related defect, it shall comply with the requirements set out in section 10.”

Debate arose thereon.

John McCallum moved, — That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “determination in the Canada” and substituting the following:

“(b) by replacing lines 26 to 43 on page 5 with the following:

(3) The company shall report to the Minister within a time period specified by the Minister after receiving the notice of a preliminary determination of a safety-related defect the findings of any research, testing, studies and evaluations that it has conducted; the company’s determination as to whether a safety-related defect exists and; what action the company is taking to correct the safety-related defect, and shall publish a summary of those conclusions and findings in the Canada Gazette.

(4) Should the Minister find any of the findings or planned action reported by the company under subsection (3) to be unsatisfactory then the Minister may order the company to take any measures the Minister sees fit in the interest of public safety.

(5) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the presentation of information and arguments under subsection (2) and the report to the Minister and the publication in the Canada Gazette under subsection (3).

(6) For greater certainty, if the company concludes that the vehicle or equipment contains a safety-related defect, it shall comply with the requirements set out in section 10.”

Debate arose thereon.

After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of John McCallum and it was agreed to.

The question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean, as amended, and it was agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, carried.

On new Clause 6.1,

“6.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 11:

11.1 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations requiring every company to report to the Minister, on a quarterly basis and as requested by the Minister, any information requested by the Minister as well as any information received by the company from foreign and domestic sources that may assist in the identification of safety-related defects in vehicles and equipment in Canada and that relates to

(a) claims submitted to the company or to affiliates of the company in respect of deaths, serious injuries and property damage as a result of an alleged safety-related defect, including aggregate statistical data on property damage from alleged safety-related defects; or

(b) customer satisfaction campaigns, consumer advisories, recalls or other activities involving the repair or replacement of vehicles or equipment.

(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) shall

(a) specify the manner and form of reporting the information referred to in that subsection;

(b) specify the manner in which the information is to be reviewed and utilized to assist in the identification of safety-related defects in vehicles and equipment in Canada, including the systems and processes to be established to review and utilize the information; and

(c) require a company that reports information to the Minister under those regulations to publish it in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after the day on which it is reported.

(3) No regulations made under subsection (1) shall impose requirements that are unduly burdensome to a company that manufactures vehicles or equipment, taking into account the cost to the company of complying with the requirements and the Minister’s capacity to use the information referred to in that subsection in a meaningful manner to assist in the identification of safety-related defects in vehicles and equipment in Canada.

(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) shall include procedures for their periodic review and updating.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

“6.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 11:

11.1 The Governor-in-council shall propose regulations respecting brake override systems for prescribed classes of vehicles equipped with an electronic throttle control system. This will be complete within 280 days after the coming into force date of the U.S. enactment of such regulations.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was agreed to.

On Clause 7,

“tion or analysis of a safety-related defect, and may make”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, carried.

On new Clause 8,

“8. (1) The portion of subsection 17(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

17. (1) Every corporation that contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations

(2) The portion of subsection 17(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) Every individual who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Brian Jean appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: — 0; NAYS: Gerry Byrne, Sukh Dhaliwal, Royal Galipeau, Roger Gaudet, Bruce Hyer, Brian Jean, Colin Mayes, John McCallum, Daniel Paillé, Jeff Watson — 10.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

The Short Title carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-511, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 4:39 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:44 p.m., the sitting resumed.

On motion of John McCallum, it was agreed, — That the Committee begin a study of the rail freight service review and report its findings to the House of Commons.

On motion of John McCallum, it was agreed, — That the Committee begin a study on the progress of developing the Ontario-Quebec, and Atlantic Gateway strategies, and that the witness list include but not be limited to the Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, and that the Committee report its findings to the House of Commons.

John McCallum moved, — That the Committee request from the government the following documents, in both official languages, within 7 calendar days:

• Feasibility study for a Toronto-Peterborough passenger rail service

• Atlantic Gateway and Trade Corridor Strategy

• Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway Strategy .

Debate arose thereon.

Brian Jean moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing the number “7” by the number “14”.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Jean and it was agreed to.

After debate, the question was put on the motion, as amended, and it was agreed to.

The motion, as amended, read as follows:

That the Committee request from the government the following documents, in both official languages, within 14 calendar days:

• Feasibility study for a Toronto-Peterborough passenger rail service

• Atlantic Gateway and Trade Corridor Strategy

• Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway Strategy .

At 4:54 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.