Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 4 - Evidence - Morning sitting
EDMONTON, Tuesday, December 3, 1996
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:27 a.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I see that we have a quorum, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continuation of a series of hearings by the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. We are lay-people trying to understand not only the difficulties that industrial transportation has to face day by day today but, equally important and perhaps more significant, we are trying to understand where we should be in 10 or 15 years from now.
First, we have with us today Mr. Ross Hogg, First Vice-Chair of the Alberta Safety Council, as well as Mr. Nel Mottram, who is the Program Director.
Mr. Hogg, I now invite you to address the committee.
Mr. Ross Hogg, First Vice-Chair, Alberta Safety Council: Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to say that the Alberta Safety Council appreciates the opportunity to appear this morning.
The Alberta Safety Council is a non-profit organization. We are proud of the fact that we are self-supporting; we do not draw on government for our operating costs.They sponsor certain programs for us, but they do not support us on an ongoing basis.
We are making Alberta a safe place to live, work and play, something which, obviously, is our goal.
We are managed by a board of directors supported by paid staff. We offer a broad range of programs dealing with all aspects of safety, including farm, home and industrial safety. With regard to transportation, we offer courses in defensive driving, professional driving improvement, motorcycle riding and recreational vehicle driving. We have a program called "55 Alive" which deals with senior drivers and pedestrian safety.
We also speak to governments, the news media and the public on safety issues.
With regard to traffic safety, the council feels there are, and have been, many design advances concerning the construction and maintenance of motor vehicles on roads. The driver remains the weak link with there being few concentrated and coordinated efforts to improve driving skills.
Traffic laws and regulations vary from province to province to territory. This is particularly true of regulations dealing with large commercial trucks and buses. For example, in 1990, the National Safety Code was agreed to by all the provinces and territories and the federal government; however, it is not yet fully implemented in all jurisdictions, including this one.
Advertisements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle accessories often depict unsafe driving practices, and they frequently emphasize speed.
Many drivers still see driving as a macho activity rather than a method of transportation. That was glaringly apparent a few days ago when we had a massive snowstorm here and many people still thought that, miraculously, the roads were dry and traction was good. To their great chagrin, they found that out on the Whitemud Freeway which was completely closed for about five hours as a result of smashed-up cars.
Available technologies are resisted for spurious reasons. For example, photo radar, intersection cameras and ignition interlock are all available for use. However, their use is criticized for reasons that have nothing to do with traffic safety.
The air bag issue has come to the fore in the last few days. It must be resolved without negatively affecting road safety. While that is being done, sound information must be provided to owners of air bag equipped vehicles.
Motor vehicle collision rates continue to be unacceptably high. The drain on the financial resources of the health care and social systems of the provinces and the federal government is tremendous. Indeed, the drain on the entire economy is staggering and generally not well known.
I would like now to move to some of the recommendations put forward by the council. Mandatory driver training is not likely at this time. However, the council feels that a tax reduction for driver training fees paid for one's self or one's dependants is a viable option and something which would encourage voluntary driver training.
Transport Canada must take a leading role in traffic safety. Although road safety is primarily a provincial responsibility, the federal government can take a lead role in this area, with the support of organizations such as the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, or CCMTA.
Local distribution of programs and campaigns can be accomplished through partnerships with provincial safety councils. This relationship would allow the development of state-of-the-art national programs to be delivered by local people. The cost savings would be substantial.
The council recommends that proactive programs which would prevent collisions be given priority over programs which deal with the aftermath of bad driving. For example, we recommend driver training programs and graduated driver licensing.
The CCMTA should be assisted to coordinate a review of traffic laws and regulations to bring these rules and penalties more closely into line. For example, vehicle weights and dimensions, operating authorities, pedestrian rights-of-way and the use of multiple lanes vary from province to province. Such a review could also provide the opportunity to modernize laws and regulations, as well as reduce their numbers.
The National Safety Code must be fully and uniformly implemented by all jurisdictions. For example, the Interprovincial Record Exchange should be finished. The sizes of vehicles affected should be uniform across the country. The audits of interprovincial carriers should be improved.
Traffic safety must be given the priority it deserves. Governments must provide resources and leadership as well as platitudes. Technology such as photo radar and intersection cameras must be utilized, not as revenue generators but as support equipment to deal effectively with identified problems in specific areas. Federal, provincial and municipal police forces must establish a higher priority for traffic law enforcement and collision investigation, and they must provide the necessary training to traffic officers.
In conclusion, the untold suffering and monetary loss being endured by Canadians makes it imperative that motor vehicle collisions be reduced and eventually eliminated. It is time to set aside jurisdictional rivalries and stop paying lip-service to the problem. These are not accidents; they are incidents that are predictable and preventable. The technologies exist. Only the will is needed, along with the resources.
The dramatic advances achieved by the anti-smoking and "participaction" campaigns can be repeated for road safety. Traffic collisions cost the Alberta economy $10 million dollars per day. The human suffering is beyond estimation. The goals must be set and reached now.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. We would be pleased to answer any questions you or your committee members may have.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you much, gentlemen, for appearing before us today. It is nice to start off with your organization here in Alberta. There is a similar one in British Columbia. Accidents seem to dominate our lives. It seems as if we are wiping ourselves out with great haste. It is encouraging to see that organizations such as yours do exist and do the work that you are doing.
My question is prompted by the fact that I used to be a police officer. On one occasion I was sitting at the airport in my little red truck when I thought I smelled a grass fire. What it turned out to be was some people smoking pot. I could not get over it. I have seen it before. In your remarks you make no mention of drug use, yet you say that we must, eventually, eliminate accidents.
Mr. Hogg: That is, perhaps, a prayer.
Senator St. Germain: My question is: Is there any focus? We know that when a guy gets drunk on wine or beer we have methods to identify the consumption level. Yet there are many people in this country who use drugs. With all these technologies that we have it seems that we are not able to establish a way to do tests on those who are driving erratically. To your knowledge has there been any research done in this area? If so, where is it?
Mr. Hogg: I was also a police officer. I spent about twenty-four years on highway patrol. I did do some work with the RCMP crime lab concerning driving while impaired by alcohol and drugs.
As you know, there are breathalyzers for alcohol. The courts, and the public, generally understand what it is to have 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood in one's system. It means that you are impaired and there are certain things you cannot do.
The difficulty in the area of drugs is that there are so many different drugs that testing is difficult. Usually, a blood test is required, which means that the person has to be taken to a medical facility to have blood drawn. There are many legal ramifications to such a procedure. The big problem is that no one has yet identified what amount of drug in a specific amount of blood means in terms of impairment. Eighty milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood means that you are impaired. From a legal point of view, no one knows what five milligrams of cannabis resin in a 100-pound human body means in terms of impairment.
With some drugs there is also the problem of residual reaction. A person can fall back into an impaired state hours, days and, perhaps, weeks after having taken the drug.
The Chairman: Is that referred to as flashbacks?
Mr. Hogg: That sort of thing, yes. It simply has not been resolved to the point where the campaigns that we do for alcohol can be repeated for drugs.
Senator St. Germain: Is there anything being done to try to assess this? I see guys going down the road in Vancouver smoking pot. That question always comes to mind when I see that. Many of these people are a hazard. I think they contribute to many accidents that look "strange" in British Columbia. I am sure it is no different elsewhere.
Mr. Mel Mottram, Program Director, Alberta Aviation Council: The concern the council has in this respect is that right now everything is reactive. The fact is that if we discover a person smoking cannabis, or whatever, in a vehicle we charge him. The trick has to be not to get them after the fact, after they get into their vehicles and drive away.
In the oil industry right now, an industry with which I am very familiar, they do blood checks on everyone who comes through the gates. There is zero tolerance. It is not a case of how much alcohol, but if you have any alcohol you are fired. That is the policy. There is also a no drug policy. This is because in an oil refinery there is a lot of very dangerous equipment.
What is the difference between doing that and driving a two or three tonne vehicle down a road at speeds of up to 120 kilometres per hour? The simple solution is to have zero tolerance and to enforce it. The snag is that the proactive work has to be done. There has to be a change of attitude. We try to promote that. We often get people after the fact. What we would like to do, and what we are trying to work with, is find ways to do things before they get to that point. That is really what we need to work with from your perspective as well.
Senator Bacon: On page 2 of your brief are you referring to the rating of issues in traffic safety?
Mr. Hogg: No.
Senator Bacon: The air-bag issue is an important one. We hear a lot about it. Do you have any recommendations to make to the committee for our consideration?
Mr. Mottram: You put me in a very difficult position, senator. We have a transportation committee meeting next week. This matter is on our agenda. Therefore, whatever I discuss now is not necessarily the council's perspective.
Senator Bacon: Can you give us an idea?
Mr. Mottram: The idea is that, first, there have to be some options. There has to be an option to switch the air-bag off. The big problem right now that many owners face is that if they have it switched off their warranty is invalid. Therefore, owners or dealers will not switch them off. If they do, then you violate your warranty. Therefore, what do you do? You are in a catch-22 situation. We need some legislation that will allow them to do that.
There has to be a massive educational campaign. People do not understand that if you are under 12 years old you should not be sitting in the front seat of a car equipped with an air bag. They do not understand that when an air bag goes off, it happens in a fraction of a second. It is like an explosion. If you weigh 110 pounds and you are sitting in the front seat and you are only about 5 foot 3, then when it hits you it will cause more damage than would have been done if you had a head-on collision.
Air bags are not bad. It is just that under certain circumstances they can be more dangerous than a head-on collision. What is needed is some mechanism which tells the operator of the vehicle when he can switch it on and off. That is our thinking with regard to this issue.
Mr. Hogg: There was an article concerning air bags in the paper this morning. One of the concerns from the point of view of a civil action is that if I am riding in your car with the air bag off and we are in a collision and I am hurt, then are you liable because you turned it off. Conversely, if we are in a collision and the air bag hurts me, then can I start an action against you because you forgot to tell me that the air bag was there?
Sorting out these kinds of issues will take time. In the meantime, they have to come up with a better air bag which should be retrofitted to the cars that are equipped with the not-so-good air bags.
It should be made much more clear that an air bag alone is a useless piece of equipment. It is a supplementary restraint system which must be used with a shoulder belt.
Lastly, if you are a child or a small person and the distance from the centre of the steering wheel to the centre of your chest is less than six inches, then you should not be in the front seat of a car equipped with an air bag.
Senator Bacon: We understand that one of the bigger safety problems on our highways is large heavy trucks being driven by people who are being pushed beyond reasonable limits in order to deliver goods. Do you have any suggestions to give us to address this problem?
Mr. Hogg: The problem with trucks is that when they are involved in a collision it is usually spectacular, and often serious. People are injured or die. The other thing is that trucks have so many parts and equipment that many different things can go wrong. They have many more parts than automobiles, for instance, and the chance of something failing is greater. They have air braking systems which are adjustable.
Canada has a National Safety Code which governs the number of hours drivers can drive. I think it is more than generous. I am sure there are others who can speak to this better than I can. However, I think that a full and uniform implementation of the National Safety Code across Canada would enable truck drivers to knows as they move from province to province what the rules are. Also, weights and dimensions should be balanced out so that truck drivers know that what they are carrying at home is legal to be carried in another province.
The National Safety Code requires regular maintenance and inspection programs. It requires that random inspections be carried out by enforcement agencies through the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
If all these things were properly implemented they would go a long way to reducing collisions involving large trucks. However, I think because of the spectacular nature of truck accidents -- and I do not mean to excuse the trucking industry -- there is an undue emphasis placed on the trucking industry. I think this is the wrong area on which to place such an emphasis. First, there are not very many of them compared with those involving ordinary private vehicles. For example, in Alberta there are fewer than 70,000 large trucks on our highways. There are close to 2 million private automobiles in this province.
We test people who drive trucks rather carefully. We do not do so well testing people who drive private automobiles. In terms of numbers of collisions, injuries and deaths, the big problem is the private automobile.
Senator Bacon: Do you feel that the federal government should take the lead and impose a uniform National Safety Code in Canada?
Mr. Hogg: The way it is organized right now, the provinces have to do it. I think there can be pressure brought to bear by the federal government to get it done. For instance, when the National Safety Code was first brought in grants were given to each of the provinces to implement it. That money was taken and spent and it has not been implemented.
There was supposed to be an interprovincial record exchange, a computerized way of telling your neighbours what their drivers were doing when they were in your province. That has not been finished yet. It has been in the process for eight or nine years now. It works in some provinces, while it does not in others. Some provinces are still sending information by mail, while other provinces do not bother sending it at all.
Those are the kind of issues that would deal broadly with the commercial industry as well as the private problem.
Senator Adams: It is typical in the places where I live that hamlet by-law officers and the RCMP enforce the laws in the community. I did not know that there was a national code. I have never seen it. I have been in the Senate for 20 years and no one informed me how to use the national code. The only time I can see it is if I buy a boat and there is a transport tag in the boat. It tells you how many passengers and how many horsepower you can use in the boat. That is all I know about safety in that area. If they say it is only good for 15 horsepower, then I will not put on a 20-horsepower motor.
Where I live in the territory, as long as you are a hunter, no one will force you how to survive on the land. The same thing applies on the water. Most of the time there is no one enforcing the use of life jackets. In the community a guy can have five or six guys in a boat without carrying life jackets.
These examples are similar to what you are talking about with regard to the highway, people smoking and things like that. For people working on big rigs there are regulations, yet the guy driving on the highway has no regulations and he has still broken the law.
I would like to see the situation more nationalized. Even though the government tells elected officials to make their own by-laws in their own towns and communities, it is not possible to find somebody to look after enforcing those laws. The same thing applies to recreation boats. Sometimes I go to someone's cottage where people are water skiing, swimming and fishing. The guy in the boat does 40 or 50 miles an hour while out water skiing. Some day someone will be hit. Perhaps the OPP should visit these places once a month to enforce the law with respect to people drinking in boats and the like. They do not do it every day.
My concern is how to teach safety to the public. Even if there is a national code, not every person is aware of it. Maybe only the enforcement officer or policeman is aware of it. I think there should be some way for the elected people in the community to have the ability for more enforcement.
Mr. Hogg: I tend to agree, senator. I have the bias that enforcement is a good idea. It used to work for me, but you cannot have a cop on every corner. Unfortunately, when it comes to hiring policemen, we are pricing ourselves out of the market pretty fast. A policeman is a pretty expensive piece of equipment to have around. It is a lot cheaper to use photo radar or intersection cameras or to install ignition interlocks on cars.
There are national standards for all aspects of driving. For instance, if you have a Class 5 licence to drive an ordinary automobile in Alberta, it is recognized in all other provinces. What you must do in order to acquire that licence is the same in all provinces. Basically, that system works for all classes of licences up to Class 1, which allows you to drive large trucks.
In order to obtain a Class 1 licence, you can be tested on a truck with three axles, that is, a front steering axle, a back drive axle and a pin and a trailer with another axle on it. In this province, once you have passed your test using that three-axle truck, you can then go out and drive a Super-B truck which has 11 or 12 axles and which bends in three places. It weighs an awful lot more than a three-axle truck. It can carry dangerous goods and liquids while the three-axle truck might have been used to drive boxes around. We have to do a little more work on that area.
The inspection standards across the provinces are the same, but the way they are carried out are not. What is considered serious in one province is not considered serious in another. An officer in this province might say to one operator, "Get it fixed, go forth and sin no more." However, when he goes into Saskatchewan he may wind up with a $100 fine because his rig does not meet the requirements there.
We have national standards. They are not being enforced the same across the country, something which is unfair to the drivers. In addition, it tends to confuse people.
Another problem we have is that we build inspection stations on our highways in this province and then build highways around them so people do not have to stop.
Senator Adams: We heard some information about semi-trailers before we left Ottawa. It seems that the Americans and the Canadians have different regulations. You have been enforcing these regulations for over 25 years on the highways. You must be familiar with some truck drivers. Drivers can drive up to 13 hours without stopping. In the States, they can drive up to 10 hours.
In Canada, the weight of a semi-trailer can get up to 130,000 pounds. In the United States, they are only allowed to be up to 80,000 pounds. Perhaps the difference in regulations is because of our smaller population or because of the fact that we have a longer way to go to get to the destinations.
Mr. Hogg: That was part of the problem when those regulations were developed. To give you a simple example, it takes 13 hours to drive from Calgary to Vancouver in a safe and prudent manner. Would you ask that driver to stop somewhere near the head of the Fraser Canyon and sleep for eight hours before he goes on to Vancouver? You could ask him to do that. However, it is not likely that he would do it.
The American standard was developed in the 1930s. They are now doing tests in conjunction with the Canadian government to determine what is a safe span of time for a driver to work. Those tests are still under way. The 10 hours which applies in the United States was plucked out of the air because it seemed like a good number in the 1930s. It has never been changed.
Our experience in Canada with heavy loads is not the same as that in the States. A benefit we have in Canada that the Americans do not have is that our roads are frozen for about five months of the year. Consequently, it does not matter how much of a load you put on those roads. When they are frozen solid, they can carry any imaginable weight. We think, of course, that we build better highways to start with.
Senator Adams: I think most trucking companies have their own regulations. If I own a small motel and order everything I need from Winnipeg, of course it has to be there at a specific time. If the weather is bad and the plane cannot land, then my food might not arrive. A truck driver might be delayed for half an hour or one hour and the company has to pay a penalty because of it. The penalties they are being charged because of the delay costs more than an accident on the highway. The guy is so tired, yet he says, "I have got to be there." We heard from some witnesses in Ottawa who said, "I don't care if the police stop me. If I don't make it there on time, the company will pay the fine because I am late." What do you think of that? Can the company have their own regulations?
Mr. Hogg:They can and, unfortunately, some of them do. They say to their drivers, "You get that load there and, if you don't want to take it, I will get somebody else who can." We must educate the trucking industry and the shippers to the fact that there are regulations out there which are for the protection of the public in general. They must be made to realize that they cannot supersede them just because they need to have their box of corn flakes at the destination five minutes earlier than the competition. When you are bringing fresh fruit up from California or Texas, it is a different matter. That is something which is time sensitive. The shipment has to move.
We must find ways to educate the industry as to why we are doing this. We are not doing it simply to confound commerce. The purpose of what we do in regulating trucks is to move the freight and to get the business done, to get people the products they need. The American Trucking Association says that without trucks America would stop. That is true in this country as well. "If something is delivered on time, it was delivered by truck." Those are the kinds of slogans you hear, and they are true. We have to keep them true, but we have to do it safely. We are not there yet.
The Chairman: How are you funded?
Mr. Mottram: Our funding comes primarily from the educational courses we deliver. In addition to the courses, we also train trainers. We also sell the material that supports those courses. Those are our primary sources of funding. The courses, as was mentioned earlier, cover a wide gambit of areas, including traffic safety.
The Chairman: You suggested that motor vehicle accidents in one form or another cost Albertans about $10 million per day.
Mr. Hogg: Yes.
The Chairman: Could you give us a bit of a breakdown with respect to that number? For example, how much of that might cover insurance, et cetera?
Mr. Hogg: The figure of $10 million per day is an estimate done by the Alberta Motor Association. That is the cost to the economy. It includes job retraining, loss of productivity and those sorts of things. However, in terms of hard costs, that is, the cost of damage to vehicles, treating people who are injured, dealing with those who are dead, having the police out on the road, the ambulance, fire and tow truck services amount to about one-third of that figure or about $3.5 million per day.
The Chairman: That is a great deal of money.
Mr. Hogg: Yes, it is. Every year a number of people are rendered paraplegic as a result of automobile collisions. That is a lifetime thing. The first year of paraplegia costs this province $1 million to handle that person.
Mr. Mottram: The Calgary police did a thorough study last year in which they found that the average cost of a single fender-bender is $6,000. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that there are a lot of collisions which take place every day. If we multiply the number of collisions by $6,000, we come up with a pretty heavy cost. This is not a figure which concerns fatalities; we are just talking about collisions.
Mr. Hogg: In Alberta, there are about 75,000 property-damage-only collisions annually.
Senator St. Germain: Is zero tolerance a possibility?
Mr. Hogg: No, not with the current technology. There is a margin of error in the measuring equipment. For instance, you can blow into a breathalyzer and it will register zero, meaning that you are okay, that you are clear. However, you may have as much as 10 milligrams or 12 milligrams of alcohol in your blood.
The Chairman: It probably varies depending upon when you consumed the alcohol. Immediately after having a drink, if you got in your car, went around the block and were stopped, you would probably have zero.
Mr. Hogg: Yes.
The Chairman: It takes some time to get into your blood.
Has your organization given any active consideration to the fact that, from time to time, the road bed itself is a cause of accidents, particularly in the spring of a year when there is a break-up of the highways because of frost heaves and there are soft shoulders? Sometimes, two additional feet on the width of the highway might be enough for someone to avoid an accident.
Mr. Hogg: No, we have not.
The Chairman: You spoke about some of the horrendous car ads which we all see in which great speeds are depicted. They also depict what I consider to be dangerous driving. Do you have an active program with respect to combating that? I believe it is wrongly suggestive to young people.
Mr. Hogg: Yes, there is a federal ad council which is run by the advertising agencies themselves which has rules and regulations which they attempt to enforce. The CCMTA has taken a position and has spoken to the big three automobile manufacturers as well as to the foreign manufacturers association in Canada. Obviously, it has not been to much avail. I think they are better than they used to be, but they still have to put on warnings stating words to the effect, "Don't try this at home."
The Chairman: The final area dealt with the whole question of the press. Is the press generally sympathetic in Canada today? Are they sympathetic as to the hazards of safety in transportation? Are they helping us? You have said several things today that would warrant their attention. There is a social responsibility on the part of the newspapers to play their role, and it is a very significant role because it is educational.
Mr. Mottram: I would like to answer that, Mr. Chairman, because I am the one who ends up fielding most of these questions from the press. They have been very receptive and very helpful. If you tell them that there is a problem going on, then they will come to you or do stories on you. Some of the local TV stations have done the same types of thing.
In this province it is legal to ride in the back of a pickup truck. Recently, a teenager was thrown over the back and ended up being killed. The press came to us, as well as to others, and we talked about it. They did a session on the local TV station which was very well covered.
I have had no problems at all with the members of the press with whom I have dealt over the course of the last two years.
Senator St. Germain:In the air industry, with which I am quite familiar, the tolerance is zero. It is a privilege to fly. I think it is also a privilege to drive on our roads. If I violate anything in terms of MOT regulations, I have to report it. There is the possibility that I will not get insurance. If I do not have insurance, I cannot fly. The moment someone cannot get insurance, the whole world is after the insurance companies.
Have you ever thought of pursuing a program which would support the insurance companies instead of doing what is being done in my province, which wants to go to no fault, something which I think is crazy?
The fact remains that you cannot stop these things unless you put in jeopardy the privilege to drive. If you put in jeopardy the privilege of driving as a result of accidents and violations, then people smarten up in an awful hurry.
I know a young guy who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He has a big company. His driver's licence was suspended. By the time his licence was suspended, I do not know how many speeding tickets he had. Organizations like yours all say, "We have to give Charlie his driver's licence back because he has got to get to work." Perhaps if Charlie had to walk to work, bum a ride or hitch-hike he might realize that it is a privilege to drive. If you are not prepared to support something like this, then I do not really think you are prepared to move in the right direction to solve the problems.
Mr. Mottram: We have the privilege, and I use that term advisedly, of dealing with chronic repeat offenders. They are the very people about whom you are speaking.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, senator, as does the council. As we speak, there are some 75,000 licences that have been lost in Alberta. That is on a rotating basis. Some people get them back and then someone else loses theirs. That figure equates to 8 per cent of the driving population in Alberta. There is another 15 per cent who have points ranging from 2 to 14. The other 77 per cent have clean licences.
Of the 8 per cent who lose their licence, the average number of suspensions is around six. In a 13-year period, I have seen some people with up to as many as 28 suspensions through the traffic clinic that we run. The most common offence of those 28 is driving without a licence. Unless the legislation is changed such that you can hit them harder if they drive without insurance, then that will be a problem. If someone drives while under suspension, then technically they are still insured.
Senator St. Germain: If you are caught doing something illegal while hunting, your car can be seized. Your airplane or helicopter can also be seized. Why do you not seize cars, then?
Mr. Mottram: We do. Over 300 a month are seized throughout Alberta.
Senator St. Germain: Then sell them, like they do with the hunting violations.
Mr. Mottram: The Traffic Safety Board met over the summer. It has a number of subcommittees which are looking at enforcement and standardization. They are looking at some of the things that we are talking about. Those were the exact recommendations that came out of that committee. What actually happens, I do not know. It is not in my domain.
Mr. Hogg:The problem, sir, is the volumes. There are 14 police departments in Alberta with about 300 full-time traffic officers. We have 75,000 suspended drivers. I would be naive if I were to tell you that none of those 75,000 drive. Many of them drive. The difficulty is that we are reaching them after the fact. They have committed the offence. They have done the impaired driving. They have 15 demerit points, or whatever, which has caused them to be suspended.
Somehow we have to reach them before that and show them that they cannot drive that way any more. It is not socially acceptable. We have a lot of other people who used to be residents of this province who were never suspended because who drove badly and who are now dead.
The Chairman: That is a good point on which to end. I wish thank you for coming. You have given us a lot to think about. I am sure we will want to ponder your presentation. You are obviously doing a very good job. Please keep it up.
Our next witness is Bob Lamoureux of the Alberta Aviation Council.
Mr. Bob Lamoureux, President, Alberta Aviation Council: Mr. Chairman, I am the volunteer president of the council. I am not paid for this position. I am elected for a one-year term.
The Alberta Aviation Council is self-funded.
The Chairman: Are you a professional flyer?
Mr. Lamoureux: I am. I operate a charter operation at the Edmonton Municipal Airport. Most of our membership is made up of industry people from both the maintenance and operational end, that is, people from Transport Canada for whom we have honorary positions. We also have representation from both the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology where aeronautical mechanical engineers are trained.
As I said, we are self-funded at this time. We used to be funded or assisted by the provincial government. However, as a result of the cutbacks, we have become a self-funded organization. In some respects that is kind of nice. It allows us to speak up on some issues that we felt some conflict of interest speaking on in the past when, of course, we had to say something bad about the government that was giving us the money.
We are now a little more autonomous. If we see a problem, we speak up against it.
I have been in the aviation industry for 18 years. The first topic I would like to address is the effect of deregulation on safety in the aviation industry. Generally speaking, I have not seen any large gaps in safety in the aviation industry. Aviation is a slightly different animal from trucking in that only a very few select people are operating. We tend to know everybody in the business. I think you will find that pilots are responsible.
The new carriers that have come into the market to date are operating very well. I refer to Westjet and Greyhound. They have some experienced staff who came from other airlines. It is not as if they are reinventing the wheel. They have a lot of new staff, of course, and some new ideas. Of course, they have some very new operating techniques.
The Chairman: However, they are new entrants into the industry.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, they are. I think they will have a learning curve to go through, just like anything else. No matter how well you plan something, problems will come up. I do not know if there will be any serious problems. I think Transport Canada has been diligent in monitoring these companies. They have also given them a lot of assistance in getting their systems and operations up and running safely.
They are using older aircraft, which is the cause of some concern for some people. Personally, that does not bother me. If it is properly maintained, an older airplane can operate just as safely as a newer one, although perhaps not as efficiently in terms of fuel consumption, et cetera, and perhaps the speeds are not as good. Thus far, we have not seen any serious safety concerns.
I know Westjet had a bit of a hiccup. I am not sure they needed to be shut down because of it. However, I know that is an argument that is still up in the air. The problem they discovered had to do with the tracking of historical parts. There was no real safety concern as far as a failed part was concerned. However, they were having problems tracking time-life parts on the air frames. I think that problem came from the people from whom they purchased the air frames, which was another major carrier in this country. Therefore, it is not an isolated problem.
Another concern is the fact that there is a bit of a lag in the pilot pool in this country. For the last few years there has been very little hiring done by major airlines. Therefore, as deregulation hits and we start to hire a lot of new pilots to fly large airplanes, there is a smaller and smaller pool of pilots from which to pick. That is not necessarily a bad thing with the modern training techniques that we have. I think that people can be trained now with the simulators a lot more safely and a lot more efficiently than they could in the past. Therefore, you do not rely as much on the experience of having lived through some of these emergencies. Just about any emergency can be simulated in electronic trainers. In fact, on some of the more modern simulators you can be type-checked without actually getting into an aircraft.
The only aspect about which you might be concerned is that they are stretching the human resources element. They are pushing their people and getting as much out of them as they can. On the other hand, the older established companies tended to be top heavy, which is probably why these newer companies could get into the marketplace in the first place. Over time, the newer airlines will probably pick up more staff, while the older airlines thin theirs down. In 10 years, we will probably find everyone operating at around the same level.
Canadian airlines have one of the best safety records in the world, especially in the Class 1 category. I do not think there is another country that can hold up the same safety record. I think everyone is proud of that fact. Even the newer airlines are struggling and working hard to live up to that standard. That is why I do not think there will be a serious problem in the large air carrier realm as we have seen in the United States.
Government cutbacks have an effect on safety. I would suggest there has been little effect to date. However, one of the concerns that many of us in aviation have is the talk of cutting the number of people in Transport by about 75 per cent. The talk has been that they will be more of an enforcement agency and policing agency as opposed to a resource centre as we have come to know them. What concerns me is that if you are only a policeman, then you tend to cause people to cover up what they are doing. If they find a mistake in their organization, they will try to cover it up so as not to receive a fine. They would do that as opposed to saying, "Look, I have a problem. How do I fix it?"
We do not want to see that develop. It was like that about 10 years ago. Over the last few years, however, Transport has become more open to helping people solve their problems rather than giving out fines and shutting people down when they have a problem. People make mistakes. They have problems. Some people try intentionally to get around the regulations.
One of the things I do not want to see happen with Transport in its new role is for it, first, to give you a ticket and then to shut you down. If that were to happen, you would only go to them once. In the interest of safety, if you want people to improve their operations and rely on some of the experience and knowledge that is available at Transport, they have to make it more accessible.
The other serious concern I have with the cutbacks is the reduction in flight service station and atmospheric environment service reporting. There is talk about consolidating flight services to centres in the country. Edmonton, for instance, would have a centre which would cover all of the Northwest Territories and most of northern Alberta. If you were in Inuvik, you would be talking to a guy here in Edmonton, for example.
In my mind, you have to have human weather observers at airports. In the north, the community has sometimes put up people who will help, but they are there eight hours a day. The other problem in the north, of course, is that we rely on Med-Evac aircraft to come get people. There is a problem getting decent weather reports at night. There have been some serious accidents up there because the weather report was sketchy at best. You are operating at the very limit of safety. Aircraft fuel reserves do not give you many options once you have left Yellowknife and get to Hull Beach.
The Chairman: Is your judgment that AWOS has not reached that level of sophistication?
Mr. Lamoureux:No, it is not even close. AWOS, of course, gives you a postage-stamp picture right above the airport. We all know, for example, that there can be a thunderstorm over the airport and clear skies elsewhere. We have had a lot of problems at the municipal airport with the AWOS. It has been augmented by human observation, which works extremely well. It is something which can be done on a local basis and not cost a lot of money.
Transport Canada inspectors come up to visit the various operators to monitor safety by performing base inspections. They conduct operational and maintenance inspections. They have been more effective over the last few years. They have been more cooperative when they come in with a bit of an audit in that they give you good suggestions as to how to improve things. Things are safe but they see ways of improving. With the cutbacks, I am afraid that this may become more of a police action in that they will come in and not have the time to spend to work with you as much.
In the long run, I think you will find that safety will be affected, especially with deregulation and with the new companies which are being run by less experienced people. These people do not have the knowledge base that some of the more established companies had. There is no mentor to whom they can go to say, "Excuse me, but what do we do with this?" This is where I think the experienced people who Transport hires can be made accessible to the younger companies in particular.
Up north is where you will find guys everybody wants to get out of there. It seems that no one wants to make a living flying up north for the rest of their life. Therefore, as the airlines hire these people, you will find less experience in these remote areas. They are the ones which need the most help. There is no Transport Canada office in town. These people are all by themselves. They are making a lot of decisions based on good hopes. Luckily, there has not been a real increase in safety concerns in the north. However, as time goes on, I think you will find that it will become a big concern.
I am a member of the SATOPS Task Force which will start travelling across the country in January. It deals with air taxi operations which carry nine passengers or less. There has been a big jump in the number of accidents involving the class two to six carriers. Unfortunately, that is what all the inexperienced pilots fly, mostly in single engine aircraft. Seventy per cent of the accidents in that category are in single engine piston airplanes operating in remote parts of the country. Once you get up to the twin engine big city operations and turbines, you will find safety is probably very acceptable.
As I heard one of the panelists mention, Senator St. Germain, the insurance companies in the aviation field are taking an active role in helping to control things. That is something which I applaud. Those who are not operating their businesses in a prudent manner are being penalized through higher insurance rates or by not being able to get insurance at all. Of course, it is a requirement to have insurance, right down to the private pilot. It is something that makes me feel more comfortable. Transport Canada has been saying for years that as they back out of the market, the insurance companies will step in because, in the long run, they pay the bill when there is an accident. Of course, aviation is famous for its huge settlements, especially at the liability end of things.
The helicopter industry is another area in which the insurance companies are taking an active role in terms of offering training programs, not only for pilots but for management. They are picking up a lot of the slack that Transport lets go because it is cheaper to do that than to pay claims.
As far as aviation is concerned, the dangerous goods regulations were an excellent thing to be put into effect. It is not the same as having a problem on the back of a truck. If you have such a problem, you can pull off to the side of the highway and watch your truck burn. However, if something starts to react inside an airplane at an altitude far from an airport, then you have a big problem. Prior to the required training, pilots were quite ignorant of some of the problems that could arise from different types of cargo. From my own experience and that of my company, I find that it is probably one of the best changes in regulations which has happened in the aviation industry. It has probably saved many problems, especially in the north where you are hauling everything from soup to nuts in one airplane. At least you know now that you must look for proper separation standards and everything else. It makes a lot of sense.
The only other item I should like to address is the new Canadian Aviation Regulations which have been put in place. They are still under review. Most people are just receiving their first copy in the mail as we speak. I find that they have been streamlined. It is now easier to look things up. They did not make many changes other than to drop old regulations that really were no longer applicable. The nice part is the way they are designed now. Transport can change the application of the regulations quite easily, whereas before we had to go through Parliament and it would take 10 years before a change would actually get on to the books.
That does create a bit of a problem, however, in that Transport can start making changes without too much consultation with the industry. I do not know if that will happen. We are watching to ensure that they are not trying to put things through quickly with an inappropriate amount of consultation and study.
The Chairman: We are dealing with an Aeronautics Act that was written in the 1920s and the 1930s. That appals me. Regulation is one way to run the world, but it is not an ideal way. I caution you to be very careful. Tell them to put a new act behind those regulations. Perhaps, then, they will work fairly well.
Mr. Lamoureux: That is all I have to say. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have of me.
Senator St. Germain: The first thing I would like to talk to you about, sir, is NAVCAN. This is not a question of partisanship. Governments, regardless of their stripe, have tried to rationalize spending and move to a user pay system and cost recovery. What is your reaction to that?
Yesterday, we were in Yellowknife where we spoke with various associations. About 25 years ago my commercial pilot's licence cost about $10. It now costs up to $150, plus, when you calculate in all the fees that have come into force since then.
Do you know if we will now be charged for flight services, weather reports and filing flight plans? Do you see a danger in that people will ignore the whole process and try to fly by the seat of their pants, so to speak? This will not occur so much in the upper levels because they will have to have an infrastructure in place in order to have an airline. However, it may happen in that group which operates single engine aircraft under nine passengers. People could be flying around without the proper information and without the proper flight plans. That would put everybody in jeopardy.
Mr. Lamoureux: That is correct.
Senator St. Germain: Do you have any reaction to NAVCAN as to where it stands and where it is going?
Mr. Lamoureux: They have not made their decision yet. I attended the ATAC convention in Montreal two weeks ago. From what I understand, they are leaning toward a lump sum fee for an aircraft operator which will be like an annual registration fee for a car. For small aircraft it will be reasonable. Someone was saying that it would cost about $150 a year. That would allow you to file flight plans and use the system for nothing.
The Chairman: What about taking delivery of weather services?
Mr. Lamoureux: It will be all inclusive. It will be difficult to try to charge a guy for a mile or so much for a briefing, especially private users. Small commercial users and large commercial users will be in roughly the same boat. I think the small commercial user will probably pay a higher fee, but it will be a lump sum fee per year which will authorize you in various categories.
The major airlines will probably end up paying so much per passenger or so much per mile depending upon the size of the aircraft. They will carry the brunt of the load. That has been made very clear.
I agree with you, senator. If you make it ominous, then no one will use it, and, yes, there will be serious safety concerns if they try to nail you. The other thing is that they can charge you all they want. However, they then have to try to collect.
The Chairman: Make sure you get a look at their business plan to see how they will meet their deficit. What kind of authority has this deal given NAVCAN?
Mr. Lamoureux: I have not seen anything in that regard. I do not think they know what they want to do yet. They are still in serious debate within the infrastructure. My cousin, who is a manager of the control tower at the municipal airport, does not know much. I usually know more than he does. When I come back from a convention he will often take me to lunch to try to find out what is going on.
Senator St. Germain: The other thing I would like to ask you about is the human factor in terms of weather observers. There is a great controversy brewing on the West Coast over lighthouses. There are those who are strong proponents of retaining them as manned operations. I see marine and flight situations a bit differently because of my experience. I took off from Saskatoon once and the weather was clear. I got 500 feet in the air and a system moved in. I was in the Air Force and a new pilot on a nav trip. I was in solid cloud for the next thirty minutes, flying by the seat of my pants.
From what I understand, these AWOS systems -- and you may be able to explain them a little bit better to me -- shoot pictures right above and beside the airports. Stationary weather systems may be within a mile or two miles of where those pictures were shot and, all of a sudden, they can start to move.
I have flown north over Saskatchewan. There is a heck of a difference between flying in the north and here in the prairies where it is a little bit easier. My concern has been that in British Columbia, as well as in the north, there are some very tough areas in which to fly and there has not been any consideration given to the rationalization of these manned weather stations.
Mr. Lamoureux: You have the right idea, senator. In some areas of the country, such as mountainous regions and areas in the north, weather changes very quickly. It is hard to predict. There are large gaps between reporting stations. Even the ones that are there now are sometimes thousands of miles apart. Yet, you have a computer-generated average on a weather report where a computer in Ottawa makes its best guess about what the weather is doing out in the middle of the barren lands as to which way it is moving. Unless you actually have someone there watching it, you will not be able to tell.
Modern aircraft give people more options. They have more speed and are able to carry more fuel. With turbine technology you have more efficient aircraft travelling at higher speeds. However, new aircraft costs a lot of money. Not everyone will spend $7 million on a 10-seat airplane.
The bottom line is that there are still older technology aircraft flying in the north. They do run into trouble, at times.
I agree with you, senator, ships are different. They can stop if they have to. They can slow up, put their anchors down and wait for the weather to change. You cannot do that with an airplane.
Senator St. Germain: Senators, I think we should recommend making some type of reference to the Transport people who are making these decisions to give some consideration to maintaining human weather observers in these tougher areas.
Senator Bacon: Yesterday, when we spoke with small operators in the north, we heard that the dangerous goods law should not apply to the north. Operators in the north need something that addresses their unique circumstances. Are you aware of these kinds of things? Should there be two sets of regulations, one for the north and one for the south?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, I am aware of the situation. I have flown in the Arctic for three years. I guess most of the operational requirements were addressed. You can carry additional fuel on board the aircraft, if it is required for a flight into a remote area, something which has been exempted from the actual regulations. There is a whole list of exemptions now in place.
Some of the other exemptions which people are looking for are based more on economics than on safety. They say, "Well, we have carried this stuff for years." If they are willing to modify their air frames, it is possible to put in proper separations for certain things.
Were you given any specifics as far as actual cargoes with which they are having problems?
Senator Adams: There were concerns involving small or charter aircraft that go into remote areas. People were taking out prospectors with naphtha gas or propane in helicopters.
If you have a charter, you have to take it out to a family which is living in a remote area for a couple of months. They are mostly concerned that they cannot do that with dangerous goods today.
Mr. Lamoureux: I know what you are speaking of now. I think there should be an exemption for that. They are your own goods. You are going out to the trap line, for example. You need gas for the lanterns and for the skidoo. You need propane. You need all these things, as well as ammunition.
You can get plugs for propane bottles. There are other systems that have been in place for years. The big thing is to package this stuff properly and not just throw a leaky propane bottle in the back of an airplane. There are ways to do it safely. Not enough credit is being given to the people who are flying up there. They can identify some problems on their own. Nobody is going to put a leaky barrel in an airplane. It just will not happen.
That is an essential service for the people who live up there. That is how they make their living. They cannot afford to be flying twice just to carry one bottle of propane.
Senator Bacon: With the evolution of airports in terms of local airport authorities, do you think the steps that are being taken now can ensure the safety standards?
Mr. Lamoureux: The Alberta Aviation Council has started the Alberta Airport Operators Association. We are trying to act as a mediator to get that up and running. It is starting to really catch on now. Of course, as winter hits people realize it takes a bit of money to keep an airport open, especially with the November that we had with all the snow. That really hit a lot of people hard when they found out the cost of clearing the runways.
We have noticed a few airports with respect to which the reporting of the runway condition is very hard to get. We used to be able to call Alberta Transportation. There was an answering service at the garage and they would get back to you within a couple of hours with the condition of the runway.
There is a lot of work required to make it safe. One of the things that we are trying to propose to smaller communities, and some of them who have had airports for a long time are doing it, is to put a trailer at the airport which they will offer to someone for free room and board, similar to what an apartment owner will offer to a caretaker. They will live at the airport. For the free room and utilities they will have to answer the phone when someone calls.
High Prairie is a good example of that. You can call up there in the middle of the night. A lady gets out of bed, puts on her parka and goes out. She has a weather observation station which was made for her. She will tell you about the ceiling, wind, temperature and dew point. She will take her car out on the runway if it looks suspicious and try to give you a bit of a JBI reading. It does not cost the town of High Prairie much money. She cleans the terminal building as well. I think her husband does a bit of the simple maintenance.
As these towns evolve, they need guidance. The first knee-jerk reaction in many of them is: What do we need an airport for? That is part of the problem. They will let it deteriorate. Once it has deteriorated, it costs a fortune to get it back in shape.
Wayne Steel, who used to work for the Alberta government, has put a proposal together to manage the Airport Operators Association. For 17 years he ran Alberta's airports.
Someone has to encourage people to get involved in these organizations and to establish their airports as part of their town's infrastructure. I do not think they realize how important it is until it is gone.
The air ambulance service is becoming more and more important in terms of delivering health care. Hospitals in small towns have been cut back. They do not have doctors in towns where they used to have doctors. Therefore, any serious or unique medical situation has to be flown to Edmonton or Calgary. Many people do not think they need an airport until one of their family members gets sick and has to be flown out.
Senator Adams: Yesterday, in Yellowknife, we met some of the people from the Northern Transportation Association. Are you familiar with that organization?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes.
Senator Adams: You have experience flying up in the north. I am mostly concerned about flying regulations, especially in terms of hours in the summer time. Is it true that you are only allowed a 140-hour month, or something like that, in terms of flying time?
Mr. Lamoureux: I believe it is 150 hours.
Senator Adams: I feel a lot better when I go home to Rankin Inlet and I am not so tired. Perhaps it is the weather, I do not know. The same thing must be true for a pilot. One who flies a 737 puts it on automatic pilot shortly after take-off. When you are flying a small aircraft at about 20,000 and you look down you know where you are going.
Should there be a difference in the number of hours between the summer and the winter? We have a short summer in the north.
Mr. Lamoureux: I am quite familiar with Don Douglas who is up there. I know him quite well. He was regional director for Transport Canada here for quite a while. I also know Rod Wood who is a good friend of mine. Therefore, I know what their opinion is on this matter.
Their opinions are valid. They say that not only do you have to look at the number of hours the pilot is flying, you have to look at the type of duty day and the type of situation he is living in. Working on a construction site, for instance, as a helicopter pilot is different from having to fly10 hours in a 12-hour period. You have to take a look at the type of camp system that is put in place for these people.
Are they getting a proper and good quality rest in between flight times? If they are, then you could safely push up the number of hours. If you are flying for 10 hours a day in a short period of time in a 12-hour shift versus flying 10 hours a day in a 14-hour shift, and you start stretching that 14 hours over 30 to 40 days, then, yes, the pilot is probably getting fatigued.
One of the problems I see is that, somehow, unions got involved with the negotiation of an air regulation. I do not think that should happen. They should be negotiating with the airlines. When CALPA got involved with the duty time limitation, it was leaning toward what they would like to see their membership working. I felt they should be negotiating that with Air Canada and Canadian, not on a national basis because that is a collective agreement
It should be looked at from a practical point of view. If it is safe, it should be allowed. In terms of the pilots I know, if they start to feel tired these days, they just say, "To heck with you, I am going to bed." Because of the insurance requirements, if you have a bad record, most large corporations will not hire you.
We have been preaching safety long enough that I think everybody is starting to really take a good look at it. There are not as many radicals as there used to be. There are a few. There are a few guys who operate the old style and who just push people until they drop dead. Very few companies like that will survive in the modern world.
The Chairman: Are we getting counter-productive here? At some point it will become unsafe to fly in this country if we have a series of regional policies. You may fly "x" hours here but you may not do it there. Will you comment, please?
Perhaps when you go about your taxi hearing studies, you might just keep in the back of your mind whether or not it is safe to have different rules for different folks.
Mr. Lamoureux: Actually that now exists now. Most companies have sought, and received, exemptions on their operating certificates for the types of operations that they have been conducting. It has been going on for years.
The Chairman: This is what I am talking about. Now we are asking for more. It is okay to put the caps in with the dynamite so you do not have to make two trips. That was always done. I have never heard of a plane blowing up because of the dynamite blowing up. The fact of the matter is, it is dangerous.
Senator Adams: You mentioned earlier the AWOS system. A couple years ago the government started cutting back on the number of people in some of the communities. Now, we mostly rely on satellites and AWOS systems. We heard from some of the Med-Evac people who have a contract with the health services department. You know that you can fly for an hour and the weather can change in 10 or 15 minutes. You know what it is like up in the territories. How do you feel about the cutting back of weather services in the community and the territory?
Mr. Lamoureux:I think that is one of the most serious effects on safety. In my mind, as a pilot, weather is a large factor in most accidents. The decision making that takes place among the crew after they get into a bad weather situation can be attributed to an accident. The fact is that weather is what forced the decision making process to get started.
When AES pulled out, they said, "Why don't you get one of the tower guys to do it?" The tower guys said, "That is not our job." There are four guys up there. What bothers the operators is where we are cutting back. There is no such thing as a job description any more. You have a job description, and you do anything else that needs to be done.
It would be quite easy to train the nurses as part of the package for sending them north to do basic weather observation. They could be issued with an HF radio. It is not a complicated process to take weather. A housewife in High Prairie can take weather for us and do a good job of it. There is no reason a nurse with a university degree cannot do the same thing.
In a remote community people have to understand that jobs cannot be cut and dried. You cannot have one person for every duty. If they would consolidate some of these duties, it would make a big difference for everybody.
Senator Adams: You mentioned earlier that some airlines are now hiring people with not much experience in handling some of the aircraft. I know some of the local people have taken some type of course in Cornwall, Ontario, where training for weather and safety in aircraft is conducted. There are now some places where people are trained to handle aircraft and runways. There is a short training course in Baker Lake for safety in the community.
With the Navigation Council, you can see that some of them have not had quite enough training. How do you see that situation? Should there be a longer course for safety in aircraft in the community?
Mr. Lamoureux: I do not think it is a question of the length of the training programs. I think it is more the amount of time they have to gain experience. They are moving up through the system quicker. Everybody has a minimum standard to meet in order to obtain a licence. You start off as a copilot on an airplane and then you fly around for so many hours over the course of so many years. Different situations, different weather patterns and different problems arise. You learn how to handle them, usually at the side of someone with more experience than you.
What is happening now, of course, is they are going the same route but spending less time at it. I know people whom we have graduated from our flying school who are now flying copilot for Greyhound, for instance. I can remember when these guys walked in the door and asked about learning how to fly. It is not a bad thing. Maybe I am getting old.
We have modern training techniques. We have audio-visual systems. We have interactive learning on computers now. We have better simulators than we ever had before.
With the modern aircraft that we now have, with the redundancy that we have and with all the advances that have been made, I do not think it will pose a big problem. What is most important is to ensure that people take advantage of these systems and that they do not try to short-cut them. A military pilot with 500 hours can be made captain of a Hercules and fly around the world doing a good job of it. However, he has been well trained. No one can afford to do that.
No one can afford to spend $1 million on one guy in the first 400 hours of his flying life. What we can do is take lessons from the way the military train their pilots and use the electronic training devices that we have, especially the simulators, to make a very inexperienced pilot a very safe pilot.
The Chairman: In conclusion, please give us your three major concerns about safety in general aviation.
Mr. Lamoureux: I have can think of only two. One is that Transport Canada does not become strictly a regulatory or a policing agency. They must maintain their educational and advisory capacity which they started to develop over the last four or five years. For the longest time they were a policing agency. We have finally convinced them to cooperate and share what they know.
The second would be with regard to the weather observation systems, which I think will bring the most immediate problems. As soon as you do not have good weather, people will be taking a shot at things anyway. There will then be problems.
The Chairman: We will certainly be interested in the work that you are about to start in the new year. In conclusion, I wish you good luck with it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: We have in the room with us Mr. William Sokil, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sokil Transportation Group. He is a very knowledgeable participant in the Canadian Trucking Association, having been past chairman. We would be remiss if we did not ask him to join us for five or ten minutes and perhaps have a word or two with us.
Mr. William Sokil, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sokil Transportation Group; Immediate Past Chairman, Canadian Trucking Association: Senators, you raised some points, one of which, for example, was drug use. Because drivers go into the States, we have to have all our drivers tested by the end of next year. We are only under the 50 group at the present time, so we are testing at this time, but we have 200 employees. Our policy at the present time is that everyone is tested for drugs, regardless of their position. They could be a manager; they could be a comptroller. It does not make any difference.
The Chairman: The testing is mandatory, then. Is it random?
Mr. Sokil: No. Everyone is tested before they are hired, so there are some safety areas that we have already addressed from our perspective. When we first started this program, older drivers were standing in line asking when they would be tested. I am very pleased with those people.
The hours of service that are there now are not necessarily the best hours of service. Fatigue studies have been done by Canadians and Americans looking at their hours of service as well. Ten hours is out of date. Maybe our 13 hours is out of date. Maybe the rest periods should be a little different. Those things will be addressed, and you will be brought up to date by Gilles Belanger, who will be making a presentation to your committee later in February. By that time, some of these results will be out and there will be factual information. We have been working on this for years. It just does not happen overnight.
If everyone embraced the Safety Code issue and carried it through, it would make it easier for us to operate from one end of the country to the other.
I should add that I have been in the trucking business all my life. I started in 1949 when I did not even have a driver's licence. I could not do that today. There were rules, but no one really obeyed them, and I was very grateful that I had the opportunity to get started, quite frankly.
I endorse the majority of the items that Ross Hogg presented from the Safety Council. I am not sure if he is still there, but he is with Alberta Transportation. He is an ally of our industry because they also look at helping the industry rather than enforcing the law by being policemen. Even though at times he does act like a policeman, I still admire the man because he tries to help the industry. He is a good person to work with.
The issue of air bags was mentioned earlier. I have a grandson who is six years old. The first thing he asked me was, "Do you have an air bag?" I said, "No." Then he said, "I will ride in front with you." Otherwise, he will not ride in front with me. The message must be getting through to some of these little guys. I am pleased.
I was in Toronto about two weeks ago. Highway 409 was to open this month, but it is not being opened. I see a particular problem there. Some of the turns are too sharp for some of the modern equipment that our industry uses. They intend to speed up the traffic. In my opinion, they will have to reduce the speed limit because trucks and cars will not be able to make those turns. A typical example is on Highway 401.
Senator St. Germain: What turns are these, sir?
Mr. Sokil: The entrance and exit to and from ramps.
By way of example, I notice that on Highway 401 or Highway 400, where a truck turned over with some dangerous liquid of some type last year, they are widening that particular turn because it was too sharp for the speed of the equipment. Here they are building a brand new roadway with a sharp turn, an entrance or an exit, as I see. I have not talked to our trucking counterparts in Ontario yet, but I will be addressing that with them because I think it is a bad scene.
In Alberta, we also have a scenario on the Yellowhead Highway at the CN underpass where the road was designed using the old standards, not the new standards of the longer lengths. What happens in one of the turns is when your truck turns one way, the back end turns the opposite way, which causes these trucks to upset. The favourite trick of policemen is to say, "Well, he was going too fast." However, he was travelling less than the speed limit and he still overturned, so it is a result of the design, not of the speed. In my opinion, I think they will have the same type of trouble on Highway 409.
You are talking about weights. You are talking about the Americans having lesser weights. They have equipment in some of the states. When you are on the interstate highway, you are permitted one weight. If you are off those highways, you are permitted a different weight. For example, Michigan is like a spider. I am referring to the trucks that are out there. They must haul about 200,000 pounds. They have roads to carry this weight. By the way, the U.S. is will come up to Canadian and Mexican standards in a short while. The fact of the matter is that they cannot move all the commerce that they have to move on the present road system, or they cannot build enough road systems. There is no doubt that they will use some of the techniques that Canada develops over the years.
I would be willing to answer any questions.
Senator Bacon: The federal and provincial transport ministers have agreed to develop a national safety code with uniform safety standards for regulating commercial vehicles across Canada. While there has been success in implementing some standards, there continues to be a lack of uniformity.
In your opinion, what are the major barriers to establish a uniform national safety code in Canada, and why has it taken so long? Should the federal government take the lead and impose the code in the provinces?
Mr. Sokil: Yes, I agree that if the federal government came to grips with this issue and said, "Yes, this is what you must have," and made the provinces adhere to those standards, then it would happen.
It is the same thing as drug use. The Canadian government will not implement drug use standards. Therefore, the trucking industry has set up standards of its own to comply with what is happening south of the border. It is being done. We have done it ourselves.
Senator Adams: You are a businessman. You have got to be there, carrying goods to the site. We heard that if you are carrying your goods and you are late between an hour and a couple of hours, there is a penalty of between $6,000 and $7,000. Is that true?
Mr. Sokil: Penalties are imposed by some transportation users. There is no question about that. I think the users of transportation are not responding to the trucking industry. They are demanding certain things, and yes, that does happen. In the west, I do not think we are faced with as many critical issues in that regard, but this does happen. This issue relates more to the Ontario-Quebec scene than to other provinces.
Senator Adams: In other words, it has nothing to do with Alberta. Do you have much regulation in Alberta?
Mr. Sokil: Well, it is not a regulation. It is imposed by the users of transportation.
Senator Adams: Witnesses this morning from the Safety Council said that some drivers get 13 hours, and you heard me ask a question about the figure of 10 hours in the U.S. Is there any regulation stipulating that you stop for so many hours if you are driving for 13 hours, or you can drive without stopping? What are the regulations?
Mr. Sokil: There are some natural stops that you have to make and there are some unnecessary stops that you have to make. It does happen. We also make sure that the tire pressures are checked on all the equipment. Yes, they have to stop. Part of the reason is so that the driver can take a break, be it five minutes or ten minutes. It takes a little time.
We watch our drivers to make sure that they do not over-drive, but some cheat, regardless of how you regulate them.
Senator Adams: We heard that some use some drugs too to keep awake. Is that true?
Mr. Sokil: That is possible. I am not aware of any in our system.
The Chairman: What do they make truck tires out of so that they explode into so many pieces right in front of you so frequently?
Mr. Sokil: Usually those are recaps that come off and are spewed on the road. Maybe there was a poor application of the recap. The tire could be over-inflated or under-inflated. Heat causes those things to happen.
The Chairman: Is it economics on the part of the operator? One can buy a good tire or a cheap tire. You do not put recaps on the front of them, do you?
Mr. Sokil: No.
The Chairman: Why?
Mr. Sokil: Because we feel it is not necessarily as safe.
The Chairman: Come on, now. They are downright lethal. If you put recaps on the front of your vehicle, you could kill yourself.
Mr. Sokil: I have been in this business for a long time. We have done it from day one, and we are still doing it today. It is not any different.
The Chairman: I have never been in the business, but I travel on the highways between Halifax and Ottawa once or twice a month. It is a nice, interesting trip, about thirty hours each trip, and I am not surrounded by cars. I am surrounded by monsters who pay, generally, no attention whatsoever to speed limits. You can get killed if you do not drive 10 or 15 kilometres an hour over the speed limit.
Leaving that aside, speed does not kill. Inattention kills or a tire blowing up kills. The latter is out of your control. Things that are in your control usually do not cause accidents and do not kill people. Other things over which you have no control kill, but we do have control over truck tires.
I do not know what it is like on the prairies, but I know that I can see 500 truck tires between Halifax and Ottawa without any trouble at all. In the old days, a little quarter-ton truck ran around the highways and picked up dead animals struck by cars. Now they have a quarter-ton truck to pick up animals and a two-ton truck to pick up tire parts.
Is there anything we can do? I do not want to be facetious about this, but it is deadly serious. Is there anything the trucking association can do with respect to the quality of recaps?
Mr. Sokil: I think it is not necessarily the quality of the recap itself; it is the application onto the tire itself. They must abide by certain standards, but perhaps they do not heat them enough; perhaps they do not cure them enough. There are certain other applications that perhaps the tire people should be addressing as well as this issue.
The Chairman: I am sure the tire association can make the tire quite safe, but does the industry want these tires on the steering wheels rather than the drive wheels? Does the industry want to pay -- I have no idea -- $2,000 for a good truck tire and $1,000 for another truck tire?
Mr. Sokil: From our company's perspective, we always buy the type of tire that is best suited to us, period.
The Chairman: For all of the tires on the truck?
Mr. Sokil: For all of the tires on the equipment -- all of the tires on our trailers and trucks. Primarily, the recap tires always go on the back end of the trailer, which is used about one-quarter the amount of time the tractor is used. In my opinion, low-profile tires are the best thing to have come along over the last fifteen years, and that is all we have ever used.
The Chairman: When does the safe tire become an uneconomic tire?
Mr. Sokil: When it is not "recappable." We are usually told that by our tire retreader. They make the decision and they will not recap it. Furthermore, if they do not recap it, that means that they sell another tire. We are caught at times between the "recapper" and the new tire seller.
The Chairman: You will understand my concern about the relationship between economics and safety.
Mr. Sokil: I do understand it.
The Chairman: Have you ever driven in a car behind a truck when a tire blew up?
Mr. Sokil: No, I have not.
The Chairman: You have not?
Mr. Sokil: I have not seen a tire blow up.
The Chairman: God has spared you, sir. The Good Lord is looking after you, because it is horrifying.
Members of a standing committee of the House of Commons were returning from somewhere when they were hit by a tire that exploded. It literally blew the bus off the road and there were injuries.
We are just senators. We cannot do very much about that, but I think the standing committee of the House of Commons, which has a different kind of clout than we do, can do something about it.
Senator St. Germain: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say that I think the knowledge of this witness exceeds anything I will ever be able to acquire in this area.
I thank you for coming, sir, and enlightening us.
Mr. Sokil: I am here as an observer for my own good, and I am just wondering what you people are doing. Maybe I can check on you. I do not know. Thank you for hearing me, and more success to you throughout these hearings.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Sokil.
Our next witnesses are representatives of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. Please proceed.
Mr. Frank Markson, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association: Mr. Chairman, I am general manager of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Alberta regional committee. I am here with my colleague Mr. Stan Doods, who is very prominent in our national and provincial committees in the matter of transportation safety. Mr. Doods is also the societal advisor of Nova Chemicals out of Calgary, an Alberta-based and Canadian national company.
Keeping in mind your long schedule, I am always reminded of the adage that the brain cannot absorb what the seat cannot endure, so I will try to make this presentation as interesting and as brief as possible.
As a national association with regional committees, we take the matter of transportation safety very seriously, and we have developed a responsible care program. I believe your clerk has distributed some of our material to you.
We take this matter very seriously, and what we propose to do is give you a brief background to our Canadian Chemical Producers' Association and a background to our responsible care program. As well, we will focus in through Mr. Doods on the matter of transportation and distribution safety aspects of our responsible care program.
The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association was founded nationally in 1962. It has a membership of approximately 70-plus companies representing 90 per cent of total Canadian chemical production. Nationally that production is approximately $15 billion, of which $6 billion is produced in Alberta. We believe that we play a prominent role in the economy of this country and that we provide benefits to society, and we hope that you will agree -- because of our responsible care program -- that we are socially responsible in managing chemicals from the cradle to the grave.
In terms of the background to our responsible care program, we have made this program a means by which our member companies fulfil their commitments to the responsible management of their products. We have developed an ethic. We had an old ethic and we have now a new ethic which is the foundation of this responsible care program. The old one was do the minimum that was required. The new ethic is do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing.
Company culture embraces this new ethic. The companies strive to ensure that all employees recognize responsible care and understand the companies' management processes to support it. They are expected as employees to adhere to that program.
The program was started in the mid-1980s. It was implemented in the early 1990s. A condition of membership to the CCPA requires that the member companies formally endorse the principles and codes of practice. There are about 151 of them. The chief executive officer pledges not only to meet the letter of those codes of practice, but to go beyond that to the spirit of those codes of practice.
The responsible care program includes a community outreach program and involvement in community emergency response programs. Mr. Doods will deal with that matter in terms of transportation and distribution.
Mr. Stan Doods, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association: As Mr. Markson pointed out, the responsible care program is a condition of membership within the CCPA. Each member company is obligated to put into place policies, procedures and practices which comply with each of those code requirements. Each product -- and this includes waste -- must be evaluated to ensure that these chemicals are transported in a way that minimizes risk of injury to the people moving the goods, the carriers, to the people along the transportation routes, and to the environment.
We do what is call a "mode evaluation". Each member company has tools that the Association has developed which allow them to assist in the selection of the mode which presents the least risk during transport.
Under carrier evaluation, each carrier completes a letter of commitment to the member company along with a self-assessment. Based on the transportation risk activity of that particular carrier's job, the carrier may be required to participate in a third party evaluation of their operations.
These field evaluations are reviewed by the member company and repeated every two years.
Each member company is required to complete route risk assessments for these products and wastes to minimize the exposure of people and environmentally sensitive areas. Each route risk assessment is updated every two years.
Community outreach is required by member companies, along with the carriers, to visit communities along transportation corridors to establish partnerships with those communities. This outreach also requires that each member company adopt communities which may not be a member company's community. However, by virtue of where they are in the transportation system, they are along a major transportation route, either road or rail, which sees chemicals. Hence, we are obligated to adopt additional communities and provide them with this outreach.
That is done in conjunction with the carriers. If it is a major rail carrier -- well, there are only two or three rail carriers -- or if it is a road carrier, then we do that in conjunction with the carriers. We go out and present them with material safety data sheets. We show them how to contact organizations such as CANUTEC, and then we also have a safety train car. It is a tank car which is equipped to assist first responders in understanding what that equipment is all about. That train moves continually across the country through the various communities, and we as the industry, along with the carriers, go out and make presentations to those communities.
Each member company is required to have an emergency response plan appropriate to the chemicals being transported, irrespective of the regulations. If you are transporting chemicals, even though it may not be regulated that you have an emergency response plan, you are required to have one to meet the requirements of the code.
The association has undertaken additional activities. We have the Transportation Emergency Assistance Plan, commonly known as TEAP, which you may have heard of in the past. This is a Canada-wide emergency response system within the association. We have regional response centres located in key areas which any member company can call upon in the event of an unfortunate incident where a chemical has been spilled through transportation or distribution. These regional response centres are trained to go out and assist the first responders in mitigating the cause of that incident, and then the member company follows up.
We have a third-party obligation. Many of our sites have chemical suppliers which supply chemicals to us as feed stocks or intermediates. Those suppliers and those carriers must meet the requirements of responsible care. Hence, our purchasing people at our sites have to go out and meet with the supplier of the chemical to see how they make it, to see whether they meet the requirements of the responsible care program, and to ascertain if the carrier moving the goods to the site meets the same obligations.
Of special interest to us of recent note is the effort of Transport Canada in the clear language legislation. We support this initiative because any process which attempts to make the regulations clearer and simpler to understand has got to be a benefit to all of us in the industry. It has been a real breath of fresh air for us to participate in that.
In addition, they have set up their own web page on the internet, and we as participants in the process can dialogue with them. We can pass along our concerns. Some days, we have an answer back within a matter of minutes. That has been a tremendous step.
As well, in our program, we have an emergency response verification protocol where we, as member companies, must verify that we do in fact have an emergency response plan appropriate to our chemicals in order to maintain our association membership. Of special note is that Transport Canada has adopted that protocol. In other words, we are partnering with Transport Canada. They helped us develop the protocol, and they are now accepting our verification of our member companies. Transport Canada is watching this very closely. They are not letting the reins go willy-nilly here. We are working very closely with them, and they are very pleased with the progress we have made to date.
Mr. Markson: In summary, senators, we would like to emphasize that responsible care is a chemical industry commitment to all stakeholders. These are both internal stakeholders and also, most importantly, external stakeholders, especially the public. We have had feedback on this responsible care program from the different levels of government, and it is universally positive on the demonstration that we have managed to achieve with the regulators.
Believe it or not, this is a Canadian first. Who said Canadians are dull and uncreative? This program has been adopted globally by at least 40 companies world wide, and we are continually trying to keep it fresh by seeking future opportunities to fulfil our social responsibilities.
In terms of our key messages, I would like to close by saying that through responsible care, we will work with all our stakeholders to continuously improve transportation safety. We believe we can demonstrate and are credible in working beyond the regulations with good public accountability. We believe that cutbacks in government have not and will not dilute protection of the public and the environment simply because of our ethic, which I mentioned previously.
Good safety performance pays and enhances our competitiveness. It does not pay us not to get the goods to market as efficiently and effectively as possible and as safely as possible. We have a responsibility to our customers and to our suppliers. Basically, it is good business to have a responsible care program.
That is the formal part of our presentation, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to answer any questions. We have taken into account the questions that were given to us and would be pleased to answer any of them.
Senator St. Germain: Gentlemen, thank you for making your presentation this morning and being a part of this.
I had a visit from the Firefighters Association. I guess they are on the front line. They are called in the moment that there is an incident involving your products. Are they the only service in the community that responds, and if they are not, who else is there?
When you develop a new chemical, how much time do you have to get the information out to the people who deal with the spills of these dangerous chemicals?
I spoke with the Vancouver firefighters, and they had a concern about dealing with chemicals. They came to my office. I cannot remember exactly what their concern was, but it related to having the knowledge at their fingertips. Could you answer that for us?
Mr. Doods: We deal with the police, the firefighters, and the hospitals. Communities which are a little more sophisticated have what they call a disaster services group, and they are the first responders. Any time we go out and make these presentations in the communities, we invite all of those people as first responders. I hope that gives you some of the breadth that we are seeking in this activity. Sometimes an RCMP officer or an OPP officer is first on the scene, so we try and include them in these presentations.
I am pleased to say that we get a very good turnout for these activities. In August, I was personally involved in one in Canmore. That is a holiday month, but we had 60 people from the police department, the fire department and the medical community. We also invited the media, by the way. They are part of this process. They are somewhat distant, obviously, but they are there because we believe we have got a good news story to tell. Our main concern is to get as much information about what it is they are handling, how to identify what they are handling, what it can do in a given situation, and who to contact to get additional information and resources flowing.
Senator St. Germain: Let us suppose the police department calls and says, "Look, there has been a spill." Does your association have a response team available virtually 24 hours a day to respond and give the information that these people may need to deal with the situation?
Mr. Doods: Yes.
Senator St. Germain: You do?
Mr. Doods: Yes. I was going to say every member has that. However, I do not know whether I can say that. I can tell you what we have. I can tell you what Dow, Celanese, and Esso have. We do have people, and we could call our 1-800 number now.
Senator St. Germain: When you say "we", is this the CCPA?
Mr. Doods: Yes. When we talked about TEAP in our presentation, our Transportation Emergency Assistance Plan, if you were to call CANUTEC -- a lot of the first responders are trained to call CANUTEC -- and the product was identified as an association member product, they can contact the TEAP regional response centres. The TEAP regional response centres are trained and equipped to talk directly back to the first responder within minutes of that call.
Senator St. Germain: Apparently, a system in the U.S. has been developed that is different from the one we use. It is computerized. For some odd reason Transport Canada has not accepted the methodology yet or has not wanted to test it. Now that it has been brought to my attention, this is what the Vancouver Firefighters were asking for. They want something computerized so the moment a call comes in and the moment they can identify the product, there is an information system through either the internet or computers.
Mr. Doods: I am familiar with the U.S. program. I am not sure that it has been as successful as the developers would have liked, given the movement of products. There are so many of them. Our role has been to provide the first people on the scene with the tools to identify what is going on, either through placards or through stencilling on the side of various rail containers and truck containers.
A new guide book has come out. I did not bring one with me, but if you like, there are lots of them. It is called a NAFTA guide book, the transportation emergency response guidebook which has all of the placard numbers in it. One section tells the first responder what to do, if that is the placard that he has got. Things of this nature give the first responders tools to allow them to react appropriately. We would be pleased to work with you on what the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs is looking for. We would always be in a position to do that.
Senator Perrault: The brochure that you brought with you this morning is very attractive. I presume it has been given wide-spread circulation in the province of Alberta.
Mr. Doods: Yes.
Senator Perrault: I notice that you have a very positive thrust towards education. There are pictures of young people who are in this case receiving information from Canadian Oxy at the Bruderheim School. Has a program been developed which can be made available to schools anywhere in the country or the universities, or is this done on a special project basis? It seems to me that the importance of the industry and the importance of safeguarding the people of the country might warrant a program of this kind implemented from coast to coast. What are the other members doing about it in the other provinces?
Mr. Doods: Certainly every member through the community outreach program is encouraged to do outreach activities, be it a school or a Kinsmen Club.
Senator Perrault: Have education departments been approached and offered expertise? This should be almost mandatory in the schools.
Mr. Markson: That is a very good point. As member companies, we have tried to do a number of things. For example, Fort Saskatchewan is a regional industrial community on both sides of the North Saskatchewan River. It is comprised of members of CCPA and non-members of CCPA because there are different sectors. There are oil refineries, chemical plants, and agricultural processing plants. We have formed an education committee. We go out to the schools on both sides of the river and assist in curriculum development in the area of science.
The Strathcona Industrial Association represents Refinery Row here in Edmonton. They go out and talk to the schools about safety, community awareness and emergency response.
We work with national associations on the environmental side and with educators, and we try to get the message across through them.
You are quite right, senator. There is a need for harmonization. There is a need to make this more systematic.
Alberta Education is developing a multi-media chemistry project through CD-ROMs. This will be a wonderful way of educating children in the field of science.
Senator Perrault: There is a strong presence on the Internet. Young people like that.
Mr. Markson: It is absolutely fabulous. However, you are right. Keep pressing us, keep reminding us, and hopefully we will come up to your standards. That is a very good point.
Senator Perrault: Do you have figures to indicate the number of major incidents that have occurred in Canada in the past 10 years involving your members? Was there a loss of life? What injuries were sustained and what action has been taken to correct the situation? Do you have any figures on that?
Mr. Doods: Not formally, but we are working on it. We were prepared to say that there has never been a fatality as a result of a dangerous goods transportation incident in Canada.
The Chairman: Is that true?
Mr. Doods: I believe that is true.
Senator Perrault: The habitat has been affected in certain cases.
Mr. Doods: Yes, there has been environmental damage -- there is no question about that. We met most recently as an association with the two major railroads and Canada's railroad association late last week in Winnipeg to review railway safety performance. We believe that the numbers are coming down. There were some troublesome months last year in October and November when they ran into some bad weather.
From the perspective of Nova Chemicals, our Transportation Emergency Response Team has not been out for three years, and we ship a lot of chemicals.
Senator Perrault: Progress is apparently being made.
Mr. Doods: We are very pleased with the work that we are able to do cooperatively with both the railroads.
Senator Perrault: This would make a great special for CBC, for example. You could build this into a real drama, protecting the environment and protecting lives. It seems to me that the ingredients are here for a very interesting and major special that could be done in this country and given wide-spread publicity.
Senator St. Germain: Senator Perrault, may I ask, through you, what percentage of dangerous goods travel by rail as opposed to truck?
Senator Perrault: Good question.
Mr. Doods: You have to be careful with the number.
Nova Chemicals had 56,000 shipments in 1995, of which 36,000 were by rail. However, the rail weight is roughly four to one in comparison to truck weight. You can get 25 tons on a truck and you get 100 tons in a tanker.
Senator Perrault: This is a bit off the point, but with respect to the Bhopal, India, was responsibility ever affixed for that totally horrible disaster?
Mr. Markson: I do not think it has been established, but frankly, Bhopal was a great motivator for this responsible care program.
Senator Perrault: I wondered what effect it would have on the industry.
Mr. Doods: The initiative by the federal government at that time was to say, "Can that happen in Canada?" A tripartite group was put together to look at that.Ten specific questions were asked. One of the results from the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association was our responsible care program. We just could not afford for that to happen in Canada.
Mr. Markson: A national body also established called the MIACC, the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada. The CCPA works very closely with that council. It is national; it is non-political. It has all the stakeholders involved in making sure that standards for public safety and the environment in this country are up to snuff. In fact, a couple weeks ago they had their conference in Edmonton.
Senator Perrault: It is good to see this progress being made. Thank you.
Senator Adams: We heard from the Minister of Transportation of the Territorial Government yesterday. I think you people sometimes transport dangerous goods in the Territories, especially with respect to oil exploration and diamond mining. We heard yesterday that they have started building winter roads to a diamond mining site, and more than 3,000 trucks will be carrying goods up to the Territories.
I was wondering about the difference between winter roads and highways. The Department of Transport has regulations for exporting dangerous goods. We have barges moving through the Mackenzie River. Where I live, we have barges coming through from Churchill, Manitoba, up to the Keewatin area. The Baffin region is supplied mostly from Montreal, as well as the mining communities in Nanisivik and Little Cornwallis in the high Arctic. I was wondering about the difference in regulations between highways and exporting to some of the companies working up in the Territories.
Mr. Markson: From a shipper's perspective, we must keep our eye on the ball with respect to safety standards. I think safety standards should be uniform and consistent. I do not think we should compromise the road system, wherever it leads to when it comes to transportation, whether it is hazardous materials or non-hazardous materials. Our ethic suggests that we would not favour a double standard here.
Senator Adams: I am mostly concerned about the building of winter roads. They go through lakes, which is a little different than highways. There are different dangers on the lake than on the highway. If there is a spill on a lake, you have to clean it up, but how do you do that? Some trucks go through the ice. That is my concern.
Mr. Markson: Exactly. There is an environmental danger. You are absolutely right. I do not think there should be any compromise, not if we live up to our ethic.
Mr. Doods: We are also on record as doing route risk assessments. Each member of our association is required to assess the risks of each route. This assessment looks at population centres. It takes a look at water courses. It takes a look at environmentally sensitive areas. We cannot bypass those in every case, but we are obligated to address them and maybe go in and make absolutely certain that trucks only go through there during certain hours or that the emergency responders in this particular zone know exactly what to do in case of an incident. One of the things that you do not want to disturb is a potable water source or an environmentally sensitive area. The shipper and the carrier have a responsibility to the community to do that.
Mr. Markson: It is also good economics, because if someone is caught trying to clean up, it is very costly.
Senator Adams: Yes, and there is a difference again.
I drive sometimes after a snowstorm in Ottawa. Even if we have two feet of snow, I have no problem going through the snow. If I go up to a northern community that has two feet of snow, I cannot drive through that. I have to drive over top because there is a difference. As soon as a driver passes Yellowknife, there is quite a difference between driving in Alberta. It is very cold up there, and the snow is fine; it is not powder. It is just like solid ice. When you hit it, there is quite a difference. I know you are familiar with it. Workers have been trained if something happens while carrying chemicals.
Senator Bacon: Did you say your membership represents 90 per cent of chemical producers?
Mr. Doods: Yes.
Senator Bacon: What happens to the remaining 10 per cent? Do they pose more danger on the highways to highway users and the environment?
Mr. Markson: The short answer is that you would have to ask them.
Senator Bacon: You must know.
Mr. Markson:We want to show by example that we have a credible responsible care program complementing government regulations at all levels, and we would try to reach out to them and encourage them to join our association. In fact, we will be doing a membership drive. Hopefully they will see the positive side of this, and they will come up to our standards. They are very welcome to join our association, but the condition is that they must meet these rigorous responsible care codes of practice standards.
Senator Bacon: Is it because of your code that they do not want to abide by the rules?
Mr. Markson: Many of them may not necessarily be members of our association. However, they belong to other associations, and they do take the essence out of our codes in many instances. The challenge is to have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet and demonstrating that too. It is still a challenge.
The Chairman: Getting back to the 10 per cent question, 10 per cent is significant. There is no question about that. However, it would be very significant if that 10 per cent, for example, produced 30 or 40 per cent of the capacity. Could you explain that a little further?
What if Dow Chemical says that they will go alone? They are one of 10, so they are 10 per cent, but they are doing 50 per cent of the business. Is that the case with this 10 per cent? Are they doing 10 per cent of the volume, or are 10 per cent of the members doing 1 per cent of the volume?
Mr. Markson: I cannot answer that, but I would be willing to follow up with a written answer.
The Chairman: Is it a significant amount? If you identify them, maybe that will give us the answer.
Mr. Markson: I could not do that today, sir, but I would be prepared to follow up to find out for you.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could do that. It would give us the proper perspective.
Mr. Markson: Absolutely.
The Chairman: If it is one way, it is not really terribly relevant; but, if it is the other way --
Mr. Markson: Well, it is relevant because you are dealing with society as a whole, and you have to deal with society as a whole.
The Chairman: I want to ask you to deal briefly with the transportation of hazardous and dangerous goods outside of Canada in the United States, Europe and Asia, wherever you might have some experience. However, before I do that, can you comment on the standards you might set for the carriers to meet? You were present when I was asking about the economics of tires. In advising your members, does it concern you that perhaps a standard should be met in your industry?
Mr. Markson: I think Mr. Doods could go into this in specific detail, but I did mention that we have a multi-stakeholder process. We have developed cooperative and collaborative relationships with our carriers. It is vital to do this. In essence, we are in partnership with these carriers. These carriers, whatever the mode of transportation, assist us in getting our goods to market. Mr. Doods could give you examples of that and the type of association work he does specifically on transportation with those carriers.
Mr. Doods: We have set a carrier standard.
The Chairman: Does that include tire standards?
Mr. Doods: No. However, we do have a standard for the railway people and we do have a standard for the road carriers. At best, I would guess that we are moving toward phase two of that. We have just been made aware of a program called Partnership in Compliance, which is a pilot program involving the Canadian Trucking Association. If we were to ask for something here today, we would ask for your support in understanding that program because it will lead to the harmonization of carrier participation in safety programs. We just asked what your tire program was and we took what you told us. This Partnership in Compliance program specifies what the tire program should be for a Canadian motor carrier. We have looked at this as an association, and we are just in the process of adopting it as part of our motor carrier evaluation. We did not have a standard with respect to what is a good accident rate. This program does that. It says "thou shalt have an urban accident rate of something."
The Chairman: Have you or have you not got the data for that yet?
Mr. Doods: The data is there, and the Canadian Trucking Association has this data. We were sort of asking, but we did not really know what to ask for. We thought that they should have a drug program, but now there are standards out there that we know these people must strive for. That is what we are going after in our association. This Partnership in Compliance program -- the PIC program -- is getting more recognition across Canada and the U.S. We see that as a distinct advantage to us.
I do not know all of the ins and outs of trucking and what a tire should look like. I am perhaps not as knowledgeable as yourself. Certainly that initiative, with the process around deregulation, needs to come to the forefront in the next few years. We would be prepared to share a copy of that program with your subcommittee.
The Chairman: We would appreciate that very much.
Mr. Doods: The Partnership in Compliance program is not for every carrier. A one-unit, one-man operation will have some struggles achieving and keeping the records that are required. We have talked to some of the major carriers in the province around the record keeping that is required, and it is a very onerous task for them.
You need some depth. Depth means resources, but we certainly see this as a positive, much more in-depth look at what the carrier program is than what we were even asking for.
The Chairman: You have made gigantic steps since the early 1980s in packaging, identification, communication, education. No one has any fault on the trucking side or the industry side, but it is still there and the partnership program is excellent.
Can members of the committee learn anything valid by way of the foreign experience in Europe or Asia? Industry-wise, are we sharing the technology and the process?
Mr. Markson: There is an international chemical association. Given the CCPA record of being recognized as the founder of responsible care, we play a very prominent role within that international framework. The issues you have raised would lead to developing the continuous improvement we are seeking. Our objective is that one incident is not good enough. That is the standard we wish to achieve. Our Canadian association plays a prominent role in these international associations.
Senator Perrault: Obviously your organization is dealing with some excellent issues. You say that each day the creative solutions being developed by your employees ensure that you are carrying through on that promise of safe-guarding human health. What positions are occupied in the company hierarchy by these employees with creative solutions? Are there vice-presidents of the environment, or is the chap who just graduated from university in charge of it? With respect to your member companies, what kind of status in the company hierarchy is given to people involved in the environment?
Mr. Doods: Every employee is involved in responsible care.
Senator Perrault: Do you have a department of environment, though?
Mr. Doods: Oh, sure we do.
Senator Perrault: I mean each company has an environmental department.
Mr. Doods: Sure, as a program.
Senator Perrault: But it is not regarded as a junior post that is given status.
Mr. Doods: Gosh, no.
Mr. Markson: If I could put it this way, the prominence of safety and this responsible care program are part of the business planning of every company in our association.
Senator Perrault: A number of companies are creating the position of vice-president, environment.
Mr. Markson: Absolutely.
Senator Perrault: And some of your members are involved in the same way.
Mr. Markson: Yes.
Senator Adams: I think you said that when you hire a trucking company to transport dangerous goods, you must let the trucking company know what kind of chemical they are transporting. I asked a question this morning about a truck driver having to drive for 13 hours and whether we should have a different regulation for that person if he or she is carrying dangerous goods. Do you have some kind of regulation if someone comes along and says, "We are going to transport dangerous goods"? Do you have a regulation for the truck driver, or it is up to the person hired to do the transporting to take a rest? How does that work?
Mr. Doods: Once again, I can only respond specifically to what I know Nova has done in the past and continues to do. If we are moving a product we consider to be high risk, we will specify the routes, the stops, and the number of drivers. We were moving some very noxious material from our Red Deer facility to Lloydminster, and we specified the carrier and the route.
The Chairman: Did you do that at the time of shipment?
Mr. Doods: Yes, at the time, and we brought the drivers in ahead of time and we went through the material safety data sheet. In the event something went wrong, here is what they were to do.
Recently, we did one in the U.S. where we visited with the first responders in the particular city where flammable liquid was being transferred. We visited with the fire department and made sure that they were totally comfortable with the product in case they received a 911 call. To the best of our ability, there is still this human element in everything we do. With respect to a guy who has been driving for 10 hours and the weather turns but he has only one hour to go, he will try to push it through. That is human.
The other thing we try to do is give the carrier some latitude. If he is going to stop, then stop.
I heard Mr. Sokil say that us shippers put a lot of pressure on timely deliveries, and I am not connected with that. I guess I understand it, but if a driver stops because he is tired, we would much rather review that with the carrier than have to review an incident with everyone in the room. As Mr. Markson pointed out, the cost of the latter is simply unacceptable.
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen, for a very interesting presentation. We are very pleased with what you have done. The change in the mess of the 1970s and the 1960s to the orderliness we see today has been quite significant.
The committee recessed.