Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 7 - Evidence for February 19, 1997 (9:52 AM)
MONTREAL, Wednesday, February 19, 1997
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:52 a.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are pleased to have with us the Teamsters of Canada.
Please proceed.
Mr. François Laporte, Directeur, Affaires gouvernementales/Relations publiques: Our presentation today will be in French, since we are in Montreal.
[Translation]
When we are in Ottawa, we make our presentation in English, but since we are in Montreal, we will do it in French, if that is all right with you.
We have prepared a brief. We were told that it was theoretically not necessary to have a submission ready, and that we could simply have an exchange of views. Would you prefer to do that, or would you like us to read the brief?
Senator Rivest: Go ahead with your presentation.
Mr. Laporte: Very well. For many years now, as a result of deregulation which was sanctioned by the National Transportation Act in 1987, the highway transportation sector has had to deal with increasingly cut-throat competition.
Increased competition has prompted several carriers, most of them independent, to resort, in spite of themselves, to dangerous behaviours and practices.
This phenomenon, combined with the lack of discipline of government authorities in matters of highway control, has created such chaos that today, the safety of highway network users is greatly at risk.
It would be much too easy to blame this situation solely on carriers. Governments which have left the industry to fend for itself certainly bear their share of responsibility.
However, competition is no excuse for the dangerous behaviour adopted by some carriers. Government authorities and the industry must do everything they can to remind carriers, and I might add shippers, of their responsibilities. To that end, during the training process, emphasis should be placed on responsibilities as well as on the theoretical aspect of operating a heavy vehicle.
In terms of government policies, authorities must implement a series of measures aimed at tightening highway controls, more specifically with regard to hours of driving, shipping weights and the mechanical condition of equipment. A designated network to transport heavy loads would also facilitate the introduction of more stringent controls.
This forum provides us with a unique opportunity to express our concerns and opinions on the everyday lives of our truck driver members.
Before discussing any further highway safety policies which affect the transportation of goods, I would like to briefly sum up the economic upheavals that the trucking industry has experienced since deregulation. My purpose in so doing is not to win some kind of sympathy, but rather to establish a connection between the economic pressures experienced by the carriers and the behaviour of truck drivers on our highways.
There are some who believe that the National Transportation Act enacted on August 28, 1987 sanctioned the notion that market forces could take the place of a regulatory system governing the transportation industry. When deregulation was proclaimed, everyone agreed that it would have a major impact on the future of the transportation industry.
It is not my intention today to debate with you the merits of deregulation in the trucking industry, as each one of us has a different opinion, depending on the interests we represent. However, in light of the different studies and reports published, either by the National Transportation Agency of Canada, Statistics Canada or some other reputable organization, we realize that statistics do not lie when it comes to showing us the impact that deregulation has had on the trucking industry.
According to the 1993 annual report released by the National Transportation Agency, between 1989 and 1993, 35,813 applications for extra-provincial trucking licences were filed. Of this total, very few were rejected because of the new provisions in place respecting the reversal of the burden of proof in the case of operating licence applications.
Even for someone who does not have extensive training in economics, these numbers reveal quite a lot about the evolution of competition in the trucking industry.
As a result of the new provisions governing licence applications, thousands of new licences were issued over a five-year period, thereby increasing the level of competition accordingly.
How financially viable are carriers today? Between 1974 and 1987, trucking industry revenues grew at a rate of 62 per cent. In comparison, the GDP increased by 52 per cent over the same period. While the GNP grew by 10 per cent between 1988 and 1990, trucking industry revenues fell by 8 per cent, which represents a considerable setback.
Declining revenue coupled with stronger competition forced carriers to take action either to rationalize their operations in the case of large companies, or to obtain a fair return on their investment in the case of small independent carriers or brokers.
The indicator most frequently used by the trucking industry to gauge the financial health of carriers is the operating ratio. Financial analysts generally agree that an operating ratio of 95 per cent is an indicator of financial health.
Since 1988, the operating ratio of Canadian carriers has increased. It rose from 96 per cent in 1988 to peak at 100 per cent in 1991, and subsequently fell back to 99.8 per cent in 1992 and to 99.6 per cent in 1993. Our financial situation is therefore far from sound.
In reality, the effects of the industry's poor financial health have been dramatic. For example, between 1988 and 1990, owner-operators saw their average mileage rates drop by 4 cents, which represent a 4.5-per-cent drop. This decrease, coupled with an increase in operating costs, dealt a fatal blow to a number of carriers who ultimately faced bankruptcy. Unionized drivers, whose salaries are determined by collective bargaining, had their wages either frozen or lowered significantly during this period.
The question that immediately comes to mind is this: how is it possible to maintain or increase one's income when the revenue earned per kilometre is declining?
Asking the question is a little like answering it. Operators must drive more kilometres and spend more time on the highways.
In a study commissioned by Employment and Immigration Canada in 1990, Price Waterhouse found that in order to earn an annual gross income of $100,000, an owner-operator needed to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week.
According to the same study, an independent driver receiving 62 cents gross per kilometre, or the equivalent of one dollar per mile, -- and keep in mind that one dollar per mile is roughly the same amount that truckers receive today in 1997 -- generates a net revenue of 20 cents per kilometre, or 30 cents per mile. At that rate, a driver must log over 240,000 kilometres per year to earn a net income of $45,000. Travelling at an average speed of 80 kilometres per hour, he must drive for 3,000 hours, or 60 hours per week for 50 weeks, to earn this income. At the same time, he must comply with the regulations.
This information on the state of the industry's revenues and the wages earned by truckers leads us to the realization that in order to stay in business, many of them have to work twice as hard and stay on the road for longer periods of time.
Moreover, given the highly competitive nature of this industry, service is a critical factor. Not only do many shippers take full advantage of competition between carriers, they also insist on shorter deadlines and more accurate delivery times.
Therefore, it is not unusual to see truckers, in a effort to meet their contractual obligations, increasingly act or behave in a manner which to some extent may put the general public's safety at risk.
Regarding dangerous practices on our highways, I would like to stress that a major distinction must be drawn between truckers whose working conditions are governed by a collective agreement and those whose conditions are not.
Unionized truck drivers can refuse to cave in to employers who pressure them to exceed the speed limit or to drive an overloaded vehicle or one in poor mechanical condition. Generally, some recourse is available to them in their collective agreement.
However, when a non-unionized truck driver refuses to comply with the instructions of his employer or of shippers, even if following these instructions would constitute an offence, he has no recourse available to him and unfortunately, he could risk losing his job.
It is fair to say that there are currently two kinds of trucking industry: one that is supervised and governed by collective agreements and another where no provisions are in place to counterbalance the urgent need for profits. In the latter case, drivers work under tremendous pressure.
Therein lies the problem of unfair competition in the trucking industry. However, economic pressures and competition are no excuse for unsafe practices on our highways.
The government's role is to act through provincial regulatory and monitoring agencies to strike a fair balance between the demand for profit and the interests of the community.
Obviously, the government cannot put controllers behind each truck on the road. However, there are ways to ensure a safe highway network for the public. All the government needs is the will to act. Even before government agents intervene on our highways, much can be done to improve highway safety through education and manpower training.
The Teamsters union is thoroughly convinced that driver training would not only benefit the industry but government as well. It would ensure that responsible individuals are driving on our highways.
With respect to driver training, we feel that as much attention should be paid to instructing individuals in their responsibilities toward the community as is paid to the technical aspects of driving heavy vehicles.
Aspiring truck or bus drivers must first and foremost be aware that the equipment they will be handling on the highway can be dangerous and deadly if they do not drive responsibly and intelligently. Many accidents involving collisions or the loss of control of heavy vehicles could have been avoided if the driver had adopted a safer, more responsible attitude. How many times have we seen heavy vehicles following other vehicles on highways at distances which do not allow the driver to stop in case of an emergency? How many times have we seen heavy vehicles overturn while rounding a curve in the road because the driver had been going too fast?
Each heavy vehicle driver must be made to realize that every manoeuvre he makes could, if he loses control, result in the loss of someone's life.
This sense of responsibility must be instilled in the driver during his training. Driving a heavy vehicle means much more than shifting gears, changing lanes and backing up at the loading dock. Prevention through training must therefore become a priority.
This brings us to the process of securing a licence. Requirements need to be much more stringent, not only when it comes to the driver's skills, but to his attitude as well. Even today, training schools offer courses guaranteeing a Class 1 licence for the ridiculously low sum of around $500. Considering the costs related to the use of equipment and to the instructor's salary, this says a lot about the quality of the training providing in these schools.
We also feel that periodic tests should be performed to verify driver qualifications. For instance, some holders of a Class 1 licence have not operated a heavy vehicle for a number of years. Their skills may not be up to today's standards.
Driver training is not the only way to ensure a safer highway network. Company managers must also assume their share of responsibility. The industry must realize that it operates within a society and driving a truck or a bus is not merely a technical exercise, but a question of attitude as well. Less pressure must be exerted on drivers to meet delivery deadlines. Furthermore, companies must adopt time management policies for drivers in order to standardize working hours as much as possible and bring the drivers home as often as possible.
At this time, I urge our legislators not to give into pressure groups who are calling for regulations which would increase the allowable number of hours a driver can spend behind the wheel.
Truck drivers are among the most productive workers if we compare their hours on the job to those of other workers. While the majority of workers put in an average of between 35 and 40 hours a week, truck drivers are resigned to working an average of 60 to 70 hours a week. These conditions are similar to those in place at the turn of the century when a 60-hour work week over six days was the norm.
It is high time that we reduce the work week of truck drivers to a more humane and more modern level.
How many of us would be efficient and alert behind the wheel after having driven 13 hours a day, 70 hours a week? That is a very crucial question when it comes to highway safety.
The regulations currently in effect already give carriers the flexibility they need to meet their obligations. Canadian regulations governing driving hours are already much more liberal than American ones and in my opinion, increasing the allowable number of driving hours would have a major impact on highway safety.
Another way our governments can ensure improved safety on our roads is to establish a predetermined highway network for heavy vehicle traffic. Stations opened around the clock could be set up to monitor this network.
The Teamsters union is still convinced that the integral enforcement of speed limits, more specifically for heavy vehicles, improves safety on the highways and that failure to respect speed limits should result in extremely harsh penalties for offenders.
Technology is another means available to our government to ensure highway safety. Today, trucks can be equipped with electronic devices that assist inspectors in determining if an infraction has been committed, either in terms of allowable driving hours or speeding. We have the technology and only if our governments are willing can it be put to use in the transport industry.
I would also like to mention that most of the impact analyses of the 1987 National Transportation Act were based on statistics such as decreasing revenues, operating ratios, the number of new carriers, bankruptcies and so forth. Very few studies have analysed the social and human repercussions of this law. I do not pretend to want to do so at this time. However, I do know that thousands of well-paid jobs with substantial fringe benefits have been lost forever and replaced by other, more unstable ones.
The trucking industry is in such a shambles that it is having difficulty attracting young, qualified workers to meet its needs. This is happening despite the fact that there are tens of thousands of drivers on unemployment insurance. The trucking industry and its drivers must regain the dignity they have lost as a result of industry deregulation.
The transportation policy proposals that I referred to earlier focus mainly on introducing industry-wide controls.
In my view, it is unacceptable that in a modern society such as ours, we cannot drive safely on our highways because fanatical individuals make up the law.
Truckers are, generally speaking, responsible individuals and it is unfortunate their reputation is tarnished by a slim minority who behave like cowboys. Control policies must be introduced and every effort must be made to put an end to these dangerous practices. These controls must not be viewed by the industry as hindrances, but rather as means of making carriers adopt more responsible attitudes towards the community.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about our government's lack of a global vision and of harmonized policies with regard to the transportation of goods and passengers. There is no Canadian global policy other than the free market concept. This concept has failed in the case of the trucking, airline, railway and marine industries. With a few minor exceptions, Canadian carriers are all struggling for survival. Competition is not only fierce within a particular industry, but a rivalry has emerged between the various types of carriers and the consequences of this have been negative.
Canada is a vast country with a very small population. Developing a global transportation policy where the various modes would complement, rather than compete with, one another is, in our view, the only possible way to achieve sustainable development for our transportation system.
Senator Rivest: Thank you for your presentation. We are indeed dealing with a very serious problem, not only in terms of the viability of the trucking industry, that is the companies and workers involved, but also in terms of safety. I have a series of questions for you.
Right away, I must tell you that I have a CB radio in my truck. I often listen in on truckers. Your testimony and suggestions accurately reflect their day-to-day experiences and the pressures they face.
They are indeed under a tremendous amount of pressure, not only in terms of the number of hours of work they must put in, the profit margins and so forth, but also in terms of the pressure put on them by their employers or even by the market. They are obsessed about whether or not a checkpoint is open. This seems to be a major concern all along highway 20, because truckers are known to take chances, given that have no other choice. I think that you have described their situation quite accurately.
Could you give me the ratio of brokers to truckers. The broker owns his vehicle as opposed to someone who drives for a large company, for example Day & Ross.
Mr. Laporte: The ratio?
Senator Rivest: Yes.
Mr. Laporte: I would guess that approximately 15 per cent to 20 per cent of truckers in the province of Quebec today are unionized. This means that close to 80 per cent of truckers are salaried employees, operators or non-unionized independent truckers. That would be my guess.
Senator Rivest: I see. In order to reduce the number of hours truckers spend behind the wheel and ease the pressures put on them either by the market or by the employer who wants to turn a profit because of the competitive situation and the regulations in place, have you given any consideration to putting in place a structure for the trucking industry in Quebec or in the other provinces for that matter, a structure somewhat like the one adopted for the construction industry where conditions are spelled out in a general collective agreement? Let us talk specifically about Quebec here.
Mr. Laporte: It is easy for us to get riled up and to demand that the industry be re-regulated, but we know for a fact that the clock will not be turned back. However, as far as the government issuing licenses, and I am not talking here about the Canadian government, but about each government, each provincial or territorial jurisdiction, the criteria must be exceedingly stringent, both in terms of training and the applicant's knowledge of laws and regulations. That is the first point I want to make.
My second point is this: In Canada today, there is a total lack of harmonization in terms of road safety and regulatory policies. We do not even have standard regulations governing the length of rigs. There are no regulations governing the number of hours a trucker can spend behind the wheel, with the exception of the daily 13-hour maximum, or the cycle that truckers must comply with. For example, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba do not impose restrictions on drivers within a seven- or eight-day cycle. The only rule is that a trucker may drive no more than 13 hours per day. Canadian regulations governing these aspects of the job are far from being uniform and this further compounds the situation.
To be more specific, we would not like to see a system similar to the one in place for the construction industry in Quebec. However, we would like industry requirements to be very stringent. If I were to lose my job tomorrow morning, I have a class 1 licence. I do not even need any financial equity to buy a truck. All I need to do is rent a rig, request a licence and offer my services to a carrier, regardless of whether I am familiar with the regulations or not. We are saying that entry into the industry must be strictly controlled and that knowledge of the regulations must be a pre-requisite.
Senator Rivest: I often see in the Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummondville weekly papers a small add placed by a carrier, whose name will remain anonymous, listing specific driver qualifications. There is an incredible shortage of workers in this region, and I assume that it is the same in other parts of Canada. The requirements listed are knowledge of English and French, and willingness to take driver-training courses at a cost of $500, which is totally ridiculous. The Quebec government is, of course responsible for occupational training and Minister Brassard recently made some interesting proposals regarding the trucking industry.
Secondly, as far as occupational training requirements are concerned, what are your expectations of the Canadian government or even of the Quebec government? The shortage of drivers is perhaps the most striking illustration of the malaise that permeates the trucking industry. It is one of the only industries to experience such a shortage of workers. Drivers are not interested in signing on because the job does not pay much and is too pressure-filled, as you described. On the other hand, those who are desperate can find work because there is clearly a demand for unskilled drivers, and we know how this can affect safety.
Mr. Louis Lacroix, President, Teamsters Canada: A Canadian agency provides training through schools which are jointly accredited by employers, the union and the government. Quebec takes the same approach and the process works quite well.
The problem is all of the unaccredited schools which issue licences for $500. Everyone thinks the number of truck drivers is increasing. However, after a year's time, they vanish from the scene. They thought they could get rich by buying a rig, but once they discovered that they had to change tires and so forth, they realized they were not up to the task and abandoned this field of work.
There are interesting developments taking place in Quebec. It is also intriguing to see what is happening in terms of training at the national level. Much more needs to be done, however. The industry needs to be more tightly regulated.
While we were opposed to industry deregulation, we might have been more receptive to the idea if an international forum on transportation had been held first to ensure that the rules of competition between Canada and the United States were fair and that uniform regulations and adequate controls were in place. If that had been done first, then we could have gone forward with deregulation in the trucking industry. However, deregulation unfortunately came to pass without any of these issues being addressed.
Senator Rivest: Deregulation appears to have benefited those in need of trucks much more than the trucking industry itself. It resulted in lower transportation costs for carriers, but no consideration was given to the consequences deregulation would have on the industry. Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Lacroix: If I can switch to English, for the benefit of those who have problems following the translation, we are saying that when the industry was deregulated, the biggest problem was that before that took place, there should have been a national forum on transportation so that the federal government, as well as the provinces, could have adapted some similar rules.
The Chairman: Could you elaborate on the national forum, and how much you understand?
Mr. Lacroix: For instance, not all provinces have the same regulations. The hours of work are not necessarily the same in each province, the length of the truck is not necessarily the same in each province, so there are a number of areas where policy varies from one province to the other. As well, inter-provincial transport is under the authority of the federal government.
Therefore, if there were a national forum, which involved the provinces and the federal government, as well as representatives from industry and the unions, we could try to come to some agreement, in national terms, in all those areas. This has never taken place. There have been meetings of transport ministers, but they never really addressed the problem and tried to work it out properly. That is what I meant in terms of a national forum.
Senator Rivest: One last question, if you will allow me.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: How would you feel if sound regulations were in place to deal with safety and training issues and if more employees in this sector were unionized? This is probably one of the least unionized sector of the industry, given that only 10 per cent or 15 per cent of drivers are unionized. What will happen when American trucks start coming in?
Mr. Lacroix: Perhaps I could answer that question in English.
Senator Rivest: By all means.
[English]
Mr. Lacroix: When the question is asked about the American trucks -- it is not only American trucks that we are concerned about. As you are well aware, there is a stay on Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. right now -- and that is not going to be forever. We are very well aware that that is not going to hold. Between 80 and 90 per cent of the Mexican trucks that were coming into the U.S before the stay were non-secured trucks.
Their bills did not indicate properly what was in the truck; they were transporting dangerous material that was not indicated. Those trucks were old, and while they are not all non-secured, 80 per cent of them were non-secure. Those trucks are not just going to stop at the American border. In the West, a lot of those Mexican trucks may go into Canada, in the western part of Canada. We were told that one of the reasons that the stay was put on Mexican trucks coming into the States was that the border people are not equipped to deal properly with all the security problems related to trucks coming in. The same thing is going to happen with trucks coming into Canada from Mexico.
So you do not only have the problem of all the owner-operators coming in from the U.S., where regulations, by the way, are not the same, the competition is not the same, because they are allowed to do certain things in Canada we are not allowed to do in the U.S., you have all those owner-operators coming into Canada, coming in and going out. I do not know how you manage to secure that properly; but you are going to have. On top of that, soon Mexican drivers will be coming in, and that is frightening, because I have seen videos on some of those trucks crossing the border in the U.S., and if they cross into Western Canada, I do not know what is going to happen there.
Then there is the question of adaptation, with respect to those Mexican drivers to our laws, understanding the language, and so on.
[Translation]
Mr. Laporte: To add to Mr. Lacroix's answer, current American immigration laws do not allow Canadians to make deliveries on a point-to-point basis within the United States. This is considered cabotage and unless you have a work permit, you are not allowed to engage in this activity in the United States.
However, Americans are currently allowed to engage in two types of activities in Canada: repositioning movements and incidental movements. This creates a problem, in that Mexicans will no longer be able to engage in cabotage activities in the United States because of the immigration laws any more than Canadians can. However, in future Mexican truckers could reposition themselves within Canadian borders in order to take on loads on U.S. soil and then return to Mexico. This is going to be a major problem which Canadian authorities will need to address.
Canadians currently do not enjoy the same access to the U.S. market as American truckers have to our market. This existing problem will undoubtedly intensify -- I do not know to what degree -- when Mexicans gain access to this market. It is an interesting point and an important one which government officials will have to consider.
Senator Bacon: I have to admit that I find your brief very realistic. As we travel around the country, we hear many things and I find that your presentation reflects what we are hearing. We understand that you are concerned about safety issues.
Since the deregulation of the industry in 1987, the provinces and the federal government have tried to develop a national safety code for the trucking industry which would look at setting uniform hours of work and acceptable load limits. Are you favourable to the idea and why has it taken so long to develop a code like this?
Mr. Laporte: Yes, we support this idea. The National Highway Safety Code was developed by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, or CCMTA. These are, however, national standards and compliance is not mandatory in every province.
In other words, if one jurisdiction, be it Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan or Alberta, decides that this standard does not correspond to reality or deems that it is not in their interest, politically speaking, to include this standard in the regulations, then it does not.
The problem is that we draft very nice documents -- the National Highway Safety Code is marvellous -- but we do not enforce compliance because some provinces --
Senator Bacon: Is the Code enforceable?
Mr. Laporte: It is, because to some extent, some provinces do enforce it. For example, Ontario and Quebec, the two largest trading partners in Canada, have set relatively uniform standards with respect to the number of hours drivers can stay behind the wheel. Why are there no uniform standards when it comes to rig length? Is there a logical reason for this? Where there is a certain interest in complying with an aspect of the national Code, then the provinces comply, but when this goes against their interests, then they do not comply. That is the fundamental problem with the administration of highway safety. The decentralization of the Canadian federation creates problems today and there is no national agency responsible for imposing uniform national standards across the country. That is the basic problem.
Senator Bacon: Are you telling me that there are problems because this matter falls under provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Laporte: The problems do not stem from the fact that this comes under provincial jurisdiction, but rather from the fact that the provinces are unable to agree amongst themselves on how to enforce the code. The point is not whether this should be under federal or provincial jurisdiction, but that there should be agreement on the integral enforcement of standards which, in theory, each province has agreed to and has had a hand in drafting through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
Senator Bacon: Would you go so far as to recommend that the Conference of Provincial Ministers of Transport take a closer look at this?
Mr. Laporte: Absolutely.
Senator Bacon: And propose solutions.
Mr. Laporte: Absolutely.
Senator Bacon: In your brief, you mentioned unionized drivers. You stated that 20 per cent of drivers were unionized, if my memory serves me correctly.
Mr. Laporte: Approximately 20 per cent.
Senator Bacon: You also stated that unionized drivers were not required to work overtime because they could refuse to drive if they were tired. They can also refuse to haul too heavy a load. They do not have to exceed the speed limit because of delivery pressures.
Are you saying then that trucking accidents are caused by the 80 per cent of drivers who are not unionized? The highways are in rougher shape than they once were. Automobile drivers are also worried when they encounter or have to share the road with large rigs. Is the union the answer to these problems? Ask the Teamsters.
Mr. Lacroix: Setting aside the fact that we are somewhat biased, let us look to the facts for an answer to this question. Consider many of the larger carriers, for example, Robert in Quebec. This company's trucks are equipped with monitoring devices and when the driver exceeds a certain speed limit, he automatically goes on report.
Senator Bacon: These devices are installed on the trucks.
Mr. Lacroix: And the drivers are subject to fines and disciplinary action. The fact that they are unionized has nothing to do with it. Unionized carriers have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the provisions of the collective agreement and with highway standards.
Then there are the inspectors -- and we often see this -- who monitor the situation. They know very well that it is much easier to fine an established unionized company than an independent. Given all the problems that this entails, the independent may never bother to pay his fine. If the carrier happens to be American, then it is even worse. More often than not, the unionized carriers are singled out. They are the ones that are targeted for spot checks.
Another thing we see, and we describe this clearly in our brief, is the owner-operator who in order to turn a profit, must work 70 to 80 hours a week. There is no question that his working conditions are unsafe. I recall one accident in the Hippolyte-Lafontaine tunnel. Everyone was talking about it and complaining about untrained drivers. The trucker in question was an independent from New-Brunswick. I believe the evidence showed that he had taken stimulants to stay awake as long as possible. The likelihood is great that the vast majority of major accidents involve independent truckers because, by force of circumstance, these drivers do not work under the safest of conditions in terms of their rig, their level of fatigue and so forth.
Mr. Laporte: Our collective agreements stipulate that before heading out, a driver must inspect his vehicle. He is paid for doing this inspection. I believe the rate is between $5 and $10 and this task can take anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour. Drivers must inspect their vehicle in order to --
Senator Bacon: Are they trained to do the inspection?
Mr. Laporte: Yes, they do receive the required training. The driver checks his vehicle to ensure that the brake lines are in proper working condition. He checks the wheel lugs and ensures his load is properly secured. Not only does his collective agreement provide that he be paid for doing the inspection, but it also requires him to inspect his vehicle.
Non-unionized drivers simply want to get going as quickly as possible because they must be out on the road in order to earn money. Heading out as quickly as possible is the primary objective. They may not necessarily take the time to inspect their vehicle.
I invite you to read the newspapers. Look at all the accidents that have occurred in the past two or three years and you can draw your own conclusions.
Senator Bacon: We travel between Laval and Ottawa and we can see for ourselves.
Mr. Laporte: I understand.
Mr. Lacroix: Speaking about the percentage of unionized drivers, the number of such drivers on long haul routes is declining. Virtually all of them are being replaced by brokers because of the rates. A sector that was once under federal or interprovincial jurisdiction is now increasingly handled by owner-operators and less and less by unionized drivers.
Mr. Laporte: Moreover, competition from the rail industry is very strong on long haul routes.
Senator Bacon: Is competition that fierce?
Mr. Laporte: Yes, absolutely. Today's technology is geared more to intermodal transportation. That is why many of our transportation companies are focusing on more local routes such as Montreal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Jérome and Sainte-Agathe. Drivers do not have to lay over on these routes.
Today, the long haul market between Montreal and Vancouver or to destinations in the United-States is, as Louis mentioned, more the domain of the owner-operator or of the railway industry which oversees deliveries.
Another phenomenon that we must contend with is odd loads. Owner-operators are very reluctant to take odd loads because this means they must make numerous stops. When they are not on the road, they are not making money. Therefore, the attraction is not as great for them.
Senator Bacon: I have one final question that I ask everyone, not only you. In the United States, truckers must submit to alcohol and drug testing. Do you think there should be a similar program in place for truckers in Canada?
Mr. Laporte: No.
Senator Bacon: Would you care to tell me why?
Mr. Lacroix: Because that is not the real problem. In fact, it is non-existent. I believe the government conducted a study, which we could send to you. It involved stopping drivers and asking them to voluntarily submit to testing.
Senator Bacon: You are talking about random testing.
Mr. Lacroix: The study found that only 1 per cent of drivers had a problem. Therefore, this is not the real issue here. The only thing that testing will accomplish is create another kind of problem. The question is, who will comply with the testing? Again, it will be the unionized companies which are organized and capable of bringing in some controls. How will you go about checking the independents on the road? Again, they will manage to escape these controls. This will only mean more restrictions for unionized drivers, namely the individuals who inspect their vehicles, comply with work standards and follow the speed limit. The independents, on the other hand, will get off scot-free.
Senator Bacon: What steps do unionized companies now take? Do they have an inspection program in place? What happens if unionized drivers are involved in an accident? What steps are taken if by some unfortunate turn of events, the driver is found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
Mr. Lacroix: First of all, we must comply with U.S. law in the case of our drivers who go to the United States. There are already provisions in place for dealing with a situation like this.
Senator Bacon: Yes, but what happens in Canada?
Mr. Lacroix: There is no such program in place in Canada. For that matter, there is no program in place to deal with drivers on the road, except if you are involved in an accident and the police believe that you were driving under the influence. In this case, a test will be administered. The same thing applies to truck drivers. They fall into the same category as automobile drivers. However, as far as we are concerned, substance abuse is not a problem in the trucking industry.
Senator Bacon: So you are telling me then that unionized drivers have no drug or alcohol problems?
Mr. Laporte: What we are trying to say is that you are wrong to think all highway safety problems will be resolved if drug testing is introduced. A driver may test negative and his record may be clear because he never took any drugs or alcohol. However, the brakes on his vehicle may be defective and as such, he is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than any other driver on the road. What we are trying to say is that it is wrong to think that drug testing is the solution to all highway safety problems.
Secondly, according to the study referred to by Louis, the percentage of drivers with a problem is extremely slim. We are not saying that the problem is non-existent, but there are so few drivers with a substance abuse problem that it would be wrong to think that testing will resolve all of our problems.
In our opinion, steps must be taken to ensure that highway controls are in place, that drivers respect the standards governing the number of hours they can spend behind the wheel and that if they exceed the allowable number of hours, fines should be so harsh that they will not be able to operate a vehicle. Perhaps this will serve as an incentive not to ingest stimulants to remain awake. Do you understand what I am saying?
Senator Bacon: Yes.
Mr. Laporte: Instead of focusing on drug testing, we should be emphasizing instead measures to control our highways, the number of hours drivers spend behind the wheel and the mechanical condition of vehicles.
Once we have addressed these issues, we will likely have resolved 80 per cent of the problems associated with unfair competition between the various carriers in the trucking industry.
Senator Bacon: Do these problems in fact stem from competition?
Mr. Laporte: From unfair competition. When carriers comply with the regulations, they incur certain costs. Those which disregard the regulations do not incur these costs. The law-abiding drivers must contend with unfair competition. That is what I mean.
We must ensure that competition is fairer, that all carriers comply with the laws and regulations -- in other words, that they respect the rules of the game.
Mr. Lacroix: I would just like to stress one final point. If we look at federal-interprovincial jurisdiction, we note that 80 per cent of the interprovincial traffic is handled by independent owners, that is by individuals who own one vehicle. Testing for drugs or other substances is done periodically by employers. Random testing works for unionized companies or for those that are well organized. However, for the 80 per cent of drivers who are independents, what do you propose? Do you propose that they test themselves? You have your answer.
Senator Bacon: I am truly surprised to hear that 80 per cent of the drivers are independents versus 20 per cent unionized. That explains many things.
Mr. Lacroix: Yes, it does.
Mr. Laporte: Twenty per cent is an optimistic figure.
Senator Bacon: Are you an optimist?
Mr. Laporte: This is a very optimistic figure, but we are talking about Quebec. In the case of some other provinces, the figure is possibly lower than that.
Senator Bacon: Less than 20 per cent?
Mr. Laporte: Possibly, yes. The important thing is to understand that we do not wish to attack independent truckers outright. Everyone is entitled to earn a living.
Senator Bacon: We understand that. That is why we have called you here.
Mr. Laporte: Everyone is entitled to earn a living. However, we also feel that it is very important for everyone to respect the rules of the game. Again, I am not trying to defend them, but drivers have a tremendous amount of pressure exerted on them by the shippers and by employers.
Efforts must be made to make not only the drivers but the companies as well more aware of their responsibilities. If the carrier, who assumes responsibility for the driver, whether he is an independent or not, runs the risk of being fined along with the trucker, then it will take steps to ensure that the driver complies with insurance requirements and the criteria governing driving hours and load weights.
Today, when a driver shows up to work for a carrier, quite often he has no way of checking to see if the load is the correct weight or if the laws are being observed. The truck is loaded and the driver is told to head out. If he so much as inquires about load restrictions, quite often he is told to return home and another driver is called in.
Senator Bacon: The carrier finds another driver.
Mr. Laporte: It is very important, therefore, to make shippers as well as tuckers take responsibility for their actions.
Senator Bacon: You have shed a great deal of light on the committee's discussions.
[English]
Senator Adams: You mentioned road problems. How are you able to improve maintenance on the highway? Maybe some of the roads should be privatized, instead of being maintained by the provincial government?
What is your opinion?
[Translation]
Mr. Lacroix: No, we do not believe that privatizing the roads is a solution. This would only aggravate the problem. We want to see national standards applied across the board. We certainly would not want to see 32 companies managing 32 different roads. I cannot see this. We did not consider this option, but at first glance, I cannot say that we favour this idea.
[English]
Mr. Laporte: The question is: Will they apply the same regulations? If I own a section of a highway, and I say to the truckers, "If you are ready to pay the price, you will have access to my network or to my road, and it does not really matter if you respect the weight and so on," who will control this? Is it going to be controlled by the private owner? Is it going to be controlled by the provincial police? Who will control it? If the rules are the same everywhere, that is one thing, but if they are not going to be same everywhere, that is going to be a major problem.
Senator Adams: We heard about some of the penalty charges to some of the shippers, for late delivery of goods. We have heard about this in respect of automotive parts. Do you have any information about $5,000 fines? Do you have any problems with this type of thing? Have you heard about this before? We have been told about the number of hours a driver is allowed to drive in one day -- I think it was 13. If there is bad weather, or the driver is delayed for some reason -- what will the effect of this be?
Mr. Laporte: That is probably part of a contract between the producers and the manufacturer.
[Translation]
Mr. Laporte: You are talking about the driver's responsibility for making deliveries on time. We are talking about taking responsibility for highway safety code infractions. For example, if a shipper uses a driver and the load weight exceeds the legal limit, the shipper must be held responsible and ordered to pay a fine just like the driver who is operating his vehicle illegally. We are not talking about a fine that would be levied against the driver for failing to deliver 50,000 bolts on time.
The $10,000 fine in question would be imposed for failure to comply with the laws and regulations governing highway safety.
[English]
Senator Adams: In the meantime, we have heard that the suppliers and owners, not the truckers and the shippers, are more controlling with respect to how they regulate themselves, especially drivers. A driver is allowed to drive for 13 hours a day in Canada; I believe it is ten hours a day that you can drive in the U.S. I think the regulations in the U.S. allow for about a 80,000-pound payload in a semi-trailer; in Canada it is 130,000 pounds and 13 hours driving.
Is it between those two regulations that you have a difficulty, the 50,000 pounds more in Canada than they in the U.S.
[Translation]
Mr. Laporte: Certainly this creates some problems, but here again, it is a matter of logistics. Regarding truck drivers and compliance with driving hours, governments today tend to feel that the problem has become so large that the time has come to refocus our regulations and perhaps adopt new measures.
Australia has developed a fatigue management program for truckers. The problem with this program is that it relies on the basic sense of responsibility of truckers. In other words, it assumes that a trucker will act in a reasonable manner and that when he experiences signs of fatigue, he will pull over or stop at the first motel, get some rest and then the following day or after eight hours' rest, he will head back out on the road. That is all very nice. The problem is that the program only focuses on truckers who are responsible for maintaining their vehicles.
Consider what is happening in Ontario. Trucks are losing their wheels, resulting in accidents and loss of life. To what extent can we rely on truckers taking responsibility for their actions? It is insane to believe that truckers will simply stop when they experience signs of fatigue. They already have trouble making ends meet, what with all the stringent regulations in place. How will eliminating all of this improve the situation with respect to the number of hours spent on the road? Can we rely solely on the drivers and their sense of responsibility? We do not think we can.
[English]
Senator Adams: You were talking about Mexican drivers earlier. Now that we have free trade between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, can they do anything they want now? You mentioned that some of the Mexican drivers were taking away from some of your drivers, that some loads are taken back down to Mexico, or something like that. I know we had a lot of manufacturing done in Mexico and Canada. Is that where your problem is?
Mr. Laporte: Not yet. They cannot come to Canada, not yet. According to NAFTA, in the year 2000, I think it is, they will be allowed to come to Canada. Since December, or January 1996, they are supposed to be allowed to go certain states -- California, Texas, and some border states. However, because President Clinton decided to impose a delay regarding the NAFTA provisions for the trucking industry, the Mexicans are not allowed to enter the U.S., except for a few states. However, in the year 2000 -- the American delay is just a temporary one -- with full access to the entire North American market, you will certainly see some Mexican drivers who will come to Canada. Keep in mind, also, that some of these people are making $8 U.S. a day. That is their salary; that is competition.
The Chairman: Eight dollars a day is not competition.
Mr. Lacroix: Well, it is $8 dollars U.S.
The Chairman: There is a chance that we would not learn much if we went to Mexico and talk to truckers about safety. I am not sure that I mean that that way, the way it sounds. Could I ask you, because you did mention the experiences in Australia: Do you have any knowledge of the safety on the highways in Europe, for example, or in Japan or other parts of the world where this committee might turn to for some guidance?
Mr. Lacroix: I was in London and Paris last week, and basically they are facing the same type of problem that we are facing here in North America. On top of that, they are facing huge competition from former Eastern European countries at this point. The competition is very hard on the trucking industry and they still have problems over the road control, hours of service, width and dimension. They are facing exactly the same problem that we are facing.
Regarding Australia, the Canadian government and the Canadian Trucking Association went to Australia a few months ago. Unfortunately, we were not invited to go there. I do not know why; it would have been very useful and interesting for the unions to see what is going on over there. In any event, I am not in a position to give you an example or give you any information about that Australian fatigue management program.
However, I recommend that you contact Transport Canada, and if you want, I can give you the name of the person in charge of that program at Transport Canada.
The Chairman: Do you have any experience or knowledge of Japan, for example, or other Asian countries.
Mr. Lacroix: No, not for Japan, not Asia.
The Chairman: Coming back to the question of highway maintenance and standards. To what degree is maintenance a contributor to safety or to one's safe operating conditions? Is it less safe to drive in March and April, when the frost is coming out, than it is in July or August? Do potholes make a difference?
Mr. Lacroix: I have no statistics regarding that, but I invite you to consult the CCMTA, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administration. Each year it runs an operation called "Road Check", and I think this road check operation is at the end of the summer. I invite you to consult this study. They may have the type of information you are looking for.
As far as we are concerned, this is not an April, May or March problem. Highway safety is a problem all year long for us.
The Chairman: All year round?
Mr. Lacroix: Yes.
The Chairman: Could I move to the question of articulated trucks and ramps. We manage to be able to negotiate the ramps with two trailers, but are the ramps on Canadian highways safe for three, or is there any design problems that you see that perhaps you could flag?
Mr. Lacroix: You are talking about double equipment and things like that. My organization's position is that in some cases it does make sense to have a double-trailer. So wherever the road or wherever the network can take these types of equipment, can accept these types of equipment, wherever it is safe, it is something that can be done. On the other hand, forget about using a double in British Columbia between Whistler and --
You have to look at the highway system. You must ask yourself if the highway is suitable for these types of equipment.
[Translation]
Mr. Laporte: When the highway is well-suited to this type of rig, yes, it is possible. However, it makes no sense to use double trailer rigs on certain roads in British Columbia or Alberta. Nor is it a good idea to use these rigs on the highway between Quebec and Sept-Îles. However, in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor --
[English]
Between Quebec and Windsor, maybe it does make sense and the highway network can take or can accept these types of heavy equipment
The Chairman: Well, your observations generally, then, would pertain to triple --
Mr. Lacroix:Have you ever tried to drive a triple? I have not, but I would not try that.
The Chairman: I suggest that you know that their usage is growing in the United States, and licences to operate them are being sought here in Canada. Some provinces are vigorously opposed and others are giving consideration to issuing some licences. Driving down a straight road a 100 kilometres per hour is one thing; however, when they leave a high-speed ramp or an exit, if they have to go around a corner and the truck is going one way and then you have a first, second and third trailer still going in the other direction, that concerns me.
Mr. Lacroix: Again, I think that as Mr. Laporte was saying, if you knew that they only had to drive in a straight line and if the road was capable of absorbing it, then that would be maybe a different matter.
Mr. Laporte: However, that is not the Canadian reality, other than maybe some very limited areas. A lot of that comes from countries like Australia, where you have a 1,000-mile road going straight down, at least from the movies that I have seen. I have never been there, but in that type of situation, and factoring in good weather, it may make some sense to have a triple trailer on the road. There are some highways in the United States where it may make sense, as well.
So I think in something like that, the logic has to be looked at. There is also the question of traffic on the road. We have to be very careful in looking at those types of situations.
Candidly, I would have to say that when we look at it, we are a little bit divided on the question, because we are in competition with trains and in order to keep our work we keep a bit of an open mind about it; but security-wise, it does not really make any sense, unless you are doing long distance or travelling on a straight road.
The Chairman: What about convoying? Could you give us some of your thoughts on more than two, three or four rigs going together, "drafting", or whatever they call it -- driving down the highway at the same speed, relatively close together, making it impossible for anybody to pass without dread and fear?
Mr. Lacroix: Again, my first reaction would be that -- we have not looked at it, but one of the questions that comes to mind is: Is the road adapted to this type of situation? Already we often see cars having problems with those big trucks, trying to move ahead of them, say, so I am not sure the road system would be adapted to something like this. If you are trying to double-pass ten trucks that are going at a certain speed, that might be difficult; it is difficult enough with one. It might even be that much more difficult with a convoy. I do not know if that answers your question.
Mr. Laporte: In my presentation, I also talk about driver courtesy, for example, and the fact that this must be part of their training. When a driver is applies for a permit, when they go to a training centre, the first thing they should learn, as far as we are concerned, is courtesy. They must understand that they are big, they are heavy, and they are dangerous. Hence, they must be careful, and their behaviour must be in line with a sense of responsibility. The truck drivers must learn that they have to allow the motorists who are trying to pass them to do so, and let them get back into the line. So that type of courtesy is part of the training.
The Chairman: I had a 20-minute exposure to a race one day, and a lot of drivers, a lot of truck drivers, are very courteous. There is no question about that. I think the vast majority of them are concerned. What kind of an effort do you make, or is it virtually impossible to unionize the independent truckers?
Mr. Lacroix: Well, we are making a big effort. You also have the labour code, as well as the mentality of the owner-operators, who consider themselves small businessmen. They view themselves as operating a small business, regardless if they are dependent on one shipper; it does not really matter for them. What matters to them is that they own that little company and they are their own boss.
When you talk about unionization to these people, it is a difficult matter. You cannot address unionization in that sector in the same way that you can address unionization in another sector of the economy.
There are a lot of co-ops that have been set up or created for these people. Some of them have success, some of them are total failures. They are more concerned about, "If I take a membership with that co-op, will I be rebated for my gasoline, my insurance costs?" This is what matters for them. It is a very special mentality, a very special sector. Unionization is very tough in that sector.
The Chairman: Impossible, too.
Mr. Lacroix: It is almost impossible with the labour code, as well.
The Chairman: In your discussions with the industry, does the question of splash rails or flaps come up, such that they would parallel the trailer, even extend to the end of the drive and the steering, to prevent cars that are passing from being sprayed?
Mr. Lacroix: No, no.
The Chairman: Why? You say that you are concerned about safety. I can tell you about an experience where I have having difficulty passing a couple of trucks and then all of a sudden, I was in the clear passing a 28-wheeler, which belonged to a coffin company in the United States. That truck was completely splash-guarded. It was a beautiful passing, I had no trouble at all. Then I got back into the mist and fog of the next set of trucks.
Mr. Lacroix: Perhaps the reason this was not addressed is that in the organized transport industry, we have been, in the last seven to ten years, fighting for our survival. Hence, we have not been looking at ways to add extra financial burden to these companies. We are looking at ways that a particular company can stay operating, keep its membership. That is what we are fighting against.
The Chairman: Yes, but you are suggesting to me that you have encouraged cutting corners on safety.
Mr. Lacroix: No, absolutely not. Survival is what concerns us, however; people are trying to make a living. They are trying to cut costs.
When I pick up my phone, it is never a call to tell me that we have got two new members in the transport industry; it is to tell me two companies have merged, or this one went bankrupt, or this one is looking for a roll-back in salaries. We have had roll-backs in salaries and benefits in the transport industry for the last five to seven years. We have negotiated a decrease, in order to compete, in order to survive.
When deregulation took effect, we lost about 60 per cent of all good companies that we had, and the jobs went with it. They were replaced by new companies, who in turn went through terrible struggles or all kinds of mergers, things which are taking place almost on a daily basis. We are going through that; we have gone through that; we continue to go through that. So we have major problems.
So when you ask about the flaps, while that may be a great idea, our concern is: How do we survive in the industry? That is our big question. We can only survive if everybody is going to respect the rules. And how do you enforce the rules? Those are the types of questions that are important to us as a union.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Do many shippers have their own fleet of vehicles? Is this important? What about Sears or Metro Richelieu?
Mr. Laporte: A number of them do.
Senator Rivest: But not many of them?
Mr. Laporte: No, not many. Many of them rely increasingly on subcontracting. Subcontracting is another phenomenon in the shipping industry. We are seeing more and more cases of it.
[English]
Senator Adams: Do Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, Molson all belong to a one union, or different unions?
Mr. Lacroix: No, in some cases --
Senator Adams: Is it worked by the company?
Mr. Lacroix: In some cases, it is the same unions, sometimes it is not. It depends. For instance, if you took Molson, I think their transport is sub-contracted; the same thing in Labatt's. Other companies use their own transporter, and if that company is unionized, then that is covered by their contract. But more and more, there is that pressure on companies not to use the transportation department but to subcontract their operations because it is a lot cheaper.
Mr. Laporte: And they can avoid the unionization.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much. We might want to come back and have another chat with you because you have left us an enormous amount to think about.
So with that, if there are no further questions, we thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.